Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould introduced Bill C-16 on Tuesday, a piece of proposed legislation that will, if passed, amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination and amend the Criminal Code to “extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression and to clearly set out that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence.”
It’s not the first time that this kind of legislation has been tabled in Parliament – in fact, it’s the seventh, over the course of a decade – but it’s the first time that a sitting government has done so, which increases the likelihood that something will actually be accomplished this go-round.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made his government’s intentions clear in the Justice Minister’s mandate letter last fall, setting as one of her priorities to “introduce government legislation to add gender identity as a prohibited ground for discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, and to the list of distinguishing characteristics of ‘identifiable group’ protected by the hate speech provisions of the Criminal Code.
The Honour of the Crown was both the theme of and a bone of contention at the sold-out Aboriginal Law Section conference last week in Ottawa – a city which occupies unceded Algonquin territory.
It was a difference perhaps best illustrated by capitalization: the Honour of the Crown was examined as a concept by philosopher and author John Ralston Saul; its historical origins were traced by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin; Crown lawyers and aboriginal law practitioners on panels last Thursday talked about how it shapes their work. But Louis Riel descendant Jean Telliet and Chief Shining Turtle of the Whitefish River First Nation in Ontario talked about the honour of the Crown – or more to the point, the lack thereof.
Telliet, the last speaker of the morning on a panel discussion titled Fighting with Honour – The Honour of the Crown in the Litigation Context, blew the roof off the packed ballroom following quiet presentations by three government representatives – Nunavut’s deputy Justice Minister; Ontario’s Assistant Deputy Attorney General; and a Crown attorney from B.C. who has spent his career working on aboriginal issues – who talked about cases they’ve seen and how they define the Honour of the Crown in relation to their own work.
Telliet started with Section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982, which she says “was supposed to be the settlement of old and difficult grievances … but it has become a tool” governments use “to go to court and spend hundreds of millions of dollars to prove something at you already know exists.”
Many say pregnancy is a gift. And so it is. A big gift that becomes more expensive and awkward to wrap the bigger it gets.
Thus the maternity-wear conundrum – how much can or should you shell out for clothes that you might wear for three months and then never need again? It’s even more problematic when your job requires a specialized uniform that is not readily or inexpensively available in maternity sizes.
Which brings us to the dilemma faced by a female litigator whose fitted court gown and waistcoat are unwelcoming of her baby bump.
According to a resolution brought forward by the CBA’s Women Lawyers Forum, and passed by Council at the MidWinter meeting in Ottawa, “judges and court staff may take a strict view of required court attire, and may react negatively to any unauthorized variation of the gowning requirements.”
WLF co-chair Heidi Schedler says pregnant litigators have done everything from splitting the back seam of a waistcoat (which gets circulated to others when they need it), to wearing a black cardigan in place of the waistcoat, or skipping the waistcoat altogether.
In January, the Chair of the National Privacy and Access Law Section wrote to the deputy minister of Justice, the deputy secretary to the cabinet and the secretary of the Treasury Board urging the government “to introduce legislation to repeal the retroactive provisions introduced by Bill C-59, the Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1. It also recommends that the government take all necessary steps to eliminate the barriers in Bill C-59 that prevent the Information Commissioner from fully discharging her mandate.”
For those needing a refresher, in March 2012, the RCMP received an Access to Information request for information contained in the long-gun registry. In April, the Information Commissioner wrote to the then-Minister of Public Safety reminding him that under law those records could not be destroyed, and the minister responded in May, saying that the RCMP would abide by the right of access contained in the Access to Information Act. And then in October of 2012, the RCMP destroyed most of those records.
In May last year Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault laid out her findings in a special report, just days after the federal government introduced its omnibus Bill C-59, which retroactively rewrote the 2011 Ending the Long-gun Registry Act to usurp the application of the ATIA and make the destruction of the records a legal act.
The Access to Information Act, the letter says, has been held by the Supreme Court to be a “quasi-constitutional law, in part because of the paramountcy provision in section 4(1).”
“The CBA Section is concerned about the retroactive denial of a quasi-constitutional right of access supported by blanket immunity for all officials responsible for the destruction of records during an ongoing investigation under ATIA,” the Section writes. The letter reminds the government of its commitment not to interfere in the work of parliamentary officers, and to enhance the openness of government.
Legault filed a lawsuit against the government in Ontario Superior Court. In December, the newly appointed Attorney General asked for a three-month delay in Information Commissioner of Canada and Bill Clennett v Attorney General of Canada , in order to “consider its position in these proceedings.”
Photo licensed under Creative Commons by kjetikor
In the Norweigan fairy tale The Three Billy Goats Gruff, a fearsome troll living under a bridge is outsmarted and defeated by the quicker-witted and more nimble goats.
The trolls that suck away your time at work are likewise easily vanquished, says Andrea Verwey, a Vancouver-based lawyer coach and consultant. Even if, as she says, “Often the troll is you.”
So how do we steal time away fromourselves?
Verwey says there are two main categories of time trolls: those that keep lawyers from getting the work they’ve done down on their time sheet; and those that keep lawyers from getting down to work at all.
Making sure that you record every bit of work you do – those three calls you made from the train on your way to work, or the half-hour you spent on a file after dinner – can add as much as an hour a day to your billings, says Verwey, who was a presenter at the November CBA Leadership Conference for Professional Women in Vancouver.
Kim Covert is a writer and editor at the CBA. / Kim Covert est rédactrice et éditorialiste à l’ABC.