Ontario Court of Appeal Denies Over A Million Long-Term Canadian Expats Right to Vote

Update:

The Court of Appeal for Ontario, overruled a May 2, 2014 Superior Court of Appeal decision today, that stated that Canadians living outside of Canada for five (5) or more years, should be allowed to participate in the Federal Election by voting. The rule disenfranchising Canadians who have been abroad for more than five years was enacted in 1993 amid debate about the strength of their ties to Canada and their knowledge of domestic politics.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario, overruled a May 2, 2014 Superior Court of Appeal decision today, that stated that Canadians living outside of Canada for five (5) or more years, should be allowed to participate in the Federal Election by voting. The rule disenfranchising Canadians who have been abroad for more than five years was enacted in 1993 amid debate about the strength of their ties to Canada and their knowledge of domestic politics. The Appeal Court was invited to rule on the constitutionality of sections 11(d) and 222(1)(b) of the Canada Elections Act, which denies Canadian expats who have been living outside of the country for more than five years from voting in Federal Elections. The Court agreed that this was a violation of section 3 of the Charter.

see source

Allowing Canadians who have lived abroad for more than five years to vote in federal elections would be unfair to those who live in Canada, Ontario’s top court ruled Monday.

In a split decision, the Court of Appeal overturned a ruling that had restored the right of more than one million long-term expats to vote.

Canada’s “social contract” entails citizens submitting to laws because they had a voice in making them through voting, the ruling states.

“Permitting all non-resident citizens to vote would allow them to participate in making laws that affect Canadian residents on a daily basis, but have little to no practical consequence for their own daily lives,” Justice George Strathy wrote for the majority of the court’s judges.

“This would erode the social contract and undermine the legitimacy of the laws.”

Today's Court of Appeal of Ontario decision will ensure that expats living outside of Canada, for five (5) or more years, will not be registered to vote or able to vote in the October 19, 2015 decision.
Today’s Court of Appeal for Ontario decision will ensure that expats living outside of Canada, for five (5) or more years, will not be registered to vote or able to vote in the upcoming October 19, 2015 Federal Election.

Strathy said the relevant part of the Canada Elections Act aimed to strengthen the country’s system of government. While it infringed on the rights of the expats, he said, the infringement is reasonable and can be justified in a free and democratic society.

This summer, as many as 1.4 million Canadians living abroad lost their right to cast ballots in the Oct. 19 federal election because they are expats. Harper knew when he insisted on the change to the voting laws, that most of those 1.4 million Canadians would not vote Conservative and this is the reason that he insisted upon this restriction on voting from abroad.
This summer, as many as 1.4 million Canadians living abroad lost their right to cast ballots in the upcoming Oct. 19/15  federal election because they are expats.
Harper knew when he insisted on the change to the Canada Election Act, that most of those 1.4 million Canadians would not vote Conservative and this is the reason that he insisted upon this restriction on Canadians voting from abroad. He also ensured that Canadians cannot used use the Voter Information Card (VIC) as a proof of identity and address, although 400,000 used the VIC in the 2011 Federal Election.  It appears that Harper is making it harder to vote, rather than easier to vote in Federal Elections.

Two Canadians living in the United States — Montreal-born Jamie Duong and Toronto-born Gillian Frank — launched the constitutional challenge, arguing the five-year rule was arbitrary and unreasonable.

Both argued they had only left for educational and employment opportunities and still had strong attachments to Canada and a stake in its future.

The Supreme Court of Canada. The Federal government appealed the May 2, 2015 Superior Court of Justice decision allowing expats to vote. No doubt, today's Court of Appeal for Ontario's decision (not allowing citizens living outside of Canada for five (5) or more years) will be appealed (by Gillian Frank & Jamie Duong) to the Supreme Court of Canada. Chances are the Supreme Court will disagree with the Court of Appeal's decision, but not in time for the October 19, 2015 Federal Election.
The Supreme Court of Canada. The Federal government appealed the May 2, 2015 Superior Court of Justice decision allowing expatriates to vote. No doubt, today’s Court of Appeal for Ontario’s decision (not allowing citizens living outside of Canada for five (5) or more years) will be appealed (by Gillian Frank & Jamie Duong) to the Supreme Court of Canada. Chances are the Supreme Court will disagree with the Court of Appeal’s decision, but not in time for the October 19, 2015 Federal Election.

In May last year, Superior Court Justice Michael Penny threw out the voting ban, noting that mass murderers have the right to cast ballots, but long-term expats who care deeply about the country do not. Penny also said expats could well be subject to Canadian tax and other laws.

The Appeal Court said Penny’s judgment was clouded by the government’s assertion that expats “do not have the same connection” to Canada as residents.

“This caused the debate to be cast as whether non-resident citizens were worthy of the vote,” said Strathy. “As a result, he overlooked Canada’s democratic tradition and the importance of the social contract between Canada’s electorate and Parliament.”

In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Laskin said he considered Penny’s judgment to be persuasive. He also said the government never argued that “preserving the social contract” justified the charter breach. Either way, Laskin said, it is not a good reason to limit voting rights.

As a result of the federal government's appeal of the Superior Court decision, over a million Canadians living outside of Canada will not be able to vote in the October 19, 2015 Federal Election. This decision is headed to the Supreme Court of Canada, but won't get there quick enough to allow expats to vote in the October 19, 2015 Federal Election.
As a result of the federal government’s appeal of the Superior Court decision, over a million Canadians living outside of Canada will not be able to vote in the October 19, 2015 Federal Election. This decision is headed to the Supreme Court of Canada, but won’t get there quick enough to allow expats to vote in the October 19, 2015 Federal Election.

The rule disenfranchising Canadians who have been abroad for more than five years was enacted in 1993 amid debate about the strength of their ties to Canada and their knowledge of domestic politics.

However, the five-year clock reset for those who returned even for short visits until 2007, when Elections Canada began enforcing a requirement for expats to “resume residency” in Canada to regain their right to vote abroad.

The Conservative government had argued the five-year rule was reasonable and in line with international norms.

Although the legislation technically applies to more than one million expats, records show only about 6,000 of them actually voted in the 2011 election.

On Friday, the government won another court case, allowing it to bar the use of voter information cards as a valid form of identification.

In his 25-page decision, Superior Court Justice David Stinson refused to grant an injunction against the provision that strips the use of voter information cards as a form of identification. In 2011, 400,000 voters used the voter information card as valid ID as part of a pilot project. Although Justice Stinson found that there was a serious issue to be tried and that there would indeed be irreparable harm to any disenfranchised voters, he denied the injunction. Instead of fully considering the third part of the test for an injunction (balance of convenience), the court relied on an alleged rule that an interlocutory injunction cannot be granted in elections cases where there was a constitutional challenge to electoral legislation. The decision has already been appealed to the Divisional Court because the applicants argue that no such rule exists. If the stay of the new amendment is not ultimately granted and quickly, as many as four million Canadians -- including numerous students, Aboriginals, elderly living in care facilities, and homeless individuals -- may be unable to vote in the federal election due to an inability to prove both residence and identity.
Although 400,000 voters used the Voter Information Card (VIC) above, as a form of identification in the 2011 Federal Election. Harper’s Conservatives passed the Fair Election Act (and a provision in June 2014 which removed the right of the Chief Electoral Officer to accept a VIC as proof of identity and addresswhich prohibited this Card to be used as a form of I.D. in the upcoming October 19, 2015 Federal Election. In his 25-page decision, Superior Court Justice David Stinson refused to grant an injunction against the provision that strips the use of voter information cards as a form of identification. Citizen groups fearing that this prohibition would prevent as many as four (4) million Canadians (Aboriginals, students, elderly living in seniors residences, and the homeless) could be prevented from voting due to an inability to establish their identity and residence, went to the Superior Court to apply for an injunction. Justice Stinson heard the injunction. In his 25-page decision, Superior Court Justice David Stinson refused to grant an injunction against the provision that strips the use of voter information cards as a form of identification. His ruling quoted a rule, which states that an interlocutory injunction can’t be granted, where there was a Charter challenge to the electoral legislation.  An appeal has already been launched to the Divisional Court, citing a mistake in law, given that the rule that Stinson relied upon doesn’t exist.

 

 

New Connecticut Laws Go Into Effect July 1/15

Update:

Connecticut State Capitol Building. Connecticut General Assembly
Connecticut State Capitol Building. Connecticut General Assembly

see source

Dozens of new laws go into effect in Connecticut Wednesday, July 1.

From now on, drivers charged with operating a vehicle under the influence will need to install an ignition interlock device in their cars in order to get their licenses back, according to the state Department of motor vehicles. They require drivers to pass a breath test in order to turn on the car and administer additional tests at random while the car is in use.

People who were born and adopted in Connecticut and are at least 18 will now have a chance to see their birth certificate. To be eligible, the adoption also has to have been finalized after Oct. 1, 1983.

Another law makes changes to college sexual assault procedures. Now, sexual assault victims can be examined and treated at a college or university’s health care facility.

Starting Wednesday, parents can provide a notarized exemption statement to their kids’ school to excuse them from immunizations.

Click here for the full list of new laws effective July 1, 2015.

Acts Effective July 1, 2015

AN ACT CONCERNING COURT FEES AND THE DELIVERY OF LEGAL SERVICES TO THE POOR.
Public Act No. 12-89 (See Sec. 9-14)
Summary
House Bill No. 5388

AN ACT CONCERNING COURT OPERATIONS.
Public Act No. 13-194 (See Sec. 14)
Summary
House Bill No. 6387

AN ACT CONCERNING THE INTEREST PAID BY THE STATE ON OVERPAYMENTS OF TAXES, VARIOUS CHANGES TO TAX CREDIT PROGRAMS AVAILABLE UNDER THE INSURANCE PREMIUMS TAX AND THE CORPORATION BUSINESS TAX, EXEMPTIONS FROM THE PETROLEUM PRODUCTS GROSS RECEIPTS TAX, AND A STUDY OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE PERSONAL INCOME TAX.
Public Act No. 13-232 (See Sec. 4, 17)
Summary
Senate Bill No. 1052

AN ACT INCREASING THE MANUFACTURING APPRENTICESHIP TAX CREDIT.
Public Act No. 13-265
Summary
Senate Bill No. 1079

AN ACT CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE CONNECTICUT HISTORIC HOME TAX CREDIT.
Public Act No. 13-266
Summary
Senate Bill No. 1131

AN ACT CONCERNING REVISIONS TO THE TRANSPORTATION STATUTES AND THE DESIGNATION OF ROADS AND BRIDGES IN HONOR OR IN MEMORY OF PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS.
Public Act No. 13-277 (See Sec. 76)
Summary
Senate Bill No. 975

AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT BROWNFIELD WORKING GROUP AND CONCERNING BROWNFIELD LIABILITY RELIEF, NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN CONTAMINATED PROPERTIES AND THE USE OF NOTICE OF ACTIVITY AND USE LIMITATIONS.
Public Act No. 13-308 (See Sec. 31-32)
Summnary
House Bill No. 6651

AN ACT CONCERNING THE BANKING LAWS, THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, THE ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFER ACT AND MORTGAGORS IN GOOD STANDING.
Public Act No. 14-7 (See Sec. 18)
Summary
Senate Bill No. 283

AN ACT ELIMINATING MUNICIPAL MANDATES.
Public Act No. 14-19 (See Sec. 1)
Summary
House Bill No. 5055

AN ACT CONCERNING ELECTRONIC PREVAILING WAGE NOTICES, INFORMATION AND RECORDS.
Public Act No. 14-44
Summary
Senate Bill No. 318

AN ACT MAKING ADJUSTMENTS TO STATE EXPENDITURES AND REVENUES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2015.
Public Act No. 14-47 (See Sec. 50)
Summary
House Bill No. 5596

AN ACT AUTHORIZING AND ADJUSTING BONDS OF THE STATE FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, TRANSPORTATION AND OTHER PURPOSES, AND CONCERNING MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAMS, INCLUDING THE SMART START PROGRAM, THE WATER IMPROVEMENT SYSTEM PROGRAM, SCHOOL SECURITY GRANTS, THE REGENERATIVE MEDICINE RESEARCH FUND, THE CONNECTICUT MANUFACTURING INNOVATION FUND AND THE BOARD OF REGENTS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE ACT.
Public Act No. 14-98 (See Sec. 22)
Summary
Senate Bill No. 29

AN ACT REVISING MOTOR VEHICLE LAWS.
Public Act No. 14-130 (See Sec. 10)
Summary
House Bill No. 5290

AN ACT CONCERNING ACCESS TO BIRTH CERTIFICATES AND PARENTAL HEALTH INFORMATION FOR ADOPTED PERSONS.
Public Act No. 14-133 (See Sec. 1-3, 5-11)
Summary
House Bill No. 5144

AN ACT CONCERNING THE INTEGRITY OF THE BUSINESS REGISTRY.
Public Act No. 14-154 (See Sec. 1, 6, 14, 16, 21, 26)
Summary
House Bill No. 5489

AN ACT CONCERNING A PROGRAM TO PROVIDE PROPERTY TAX RELIEF FOR BUSINESSES, A HOMEOWNERSHIP INCENTIVE PROGRAM, ADJUSTMENTS TO A PROPERTY TAX SYSTEM AND A MUNICIPAL OPTION FOR ASSESSMENT OF PROPERTY USED FOR WHOLESALE AND RETAIL BUSINESS.
Public Act No. 14-174 (See Sec. 3)
Summary
Senate Bill No. 447

AN ACT IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF THE STATE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2015.
Public Act No. 14-217 (See Sec. 139, 251)
Summary
House Bill No. 5597

AN ACT CONCERNING IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICES.
Public Act No. 14-228
Summary
Senate Bill No. 465

AN ACT CONCERNING CYTOMEGALOVIRUS.
Public Act No. 15-10
Summary
House Bill No. 5525

AN ACT CONCERNING THE APPLICABILITY OF GENETICALLY-ENGINEERED FOOD LABELING REQUIREMENTS TO NONALCOHOLIC MALT BEVERAGES.
Public Act No. 15-13
Summary
House Bill No. 6886

AN ACT CONCERNING SEXUAL ASSAULT FORENSIC EXAMINERS AT INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.
Public Act No. 15-16
Summary
Senate Bill No. 966

AN ACT CONCERNING A LABOR AND FREE MARKET CAPITALISM CURRICULUM.
Public Act No. 15-17
Summary
Senate Bill No. 963

AN ACT CONCERNING THE STATE AGING AND DISABILITY RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM.
Public Act No. 15-19
Summary
House Bill No. 6717

AN ACT CONCERNING ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR.
Public Act No. 15-24 (See Sec. 2, 4, 7)
Summary
Senate Bill No. 386

AN ACT CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMPREHENSIVE CHILDREN’S MENTAL, EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH PLAN.
Public Act No. 15-27
Summary
Senate Bill No. 841

AN ACT EXTENDING COST REPORTING DEADLINES FOR LONG-TERM CARE FACILITIES.
Public Act No. 15-36
Summary
Senate Bill No. 893

AN ACT CONCERNING PROFESSIONAL DOCTORAL DEGREE PROGRAMS.
Public Act No. 15-37
Summary
Senate Bill No. 898

AN ACT CONCERNING A STUDY OF ALTERNATIVE FUNDING SOURCES FOR NUTRITIONAL SERVICES FOR SENIOR CITIZENS.
Public Act No. 15-40
Summary
Senate Bill No. 287

AN ACT CONCERNING BICYCLE SAFETY.
Public Act No. 15-41
Summary
Senate Bill No. 502

AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES’ RECOMMENDATIONS WITH RESPECT TO AUTOCYCLES AND THREE-WHEELED MOTORCYCLES.
Public Act No. 15-46
Summary
Senate Bill No. 936

AN ACT CONCERNING REQUIREMENTS FOR FACILITIES THAT COMPLETE MEDICARE OR MEDICAID APPLICATIONS FOR PATIENTS.
Public Act No. 15-50
Summary
Senate Bill No. 1022

AN ACT CONCERNING A LONG ISLAND SOUND BLUE PLAN AND RESOURCE AND USE INVENTORY.
Public Act No. 15-66
Summary
House Bill No. 6839

AN ACT ADOPTING THE UNIFORM INTERSTATE FAMILY SUPPORT ACT OF 2008.
Public Act No. 15-71
Summary
House Bill No. 6973

AN ACT CONCERNING REVISIONS TO STATUTES CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES.
Public Act No. 15-73
Summary
Senate Bill No. 887

AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR HIGHER EDUCATION.
Public Act No. 15-75
Summary
House Bill No. 7007

AN ACT CONCERNING PROOF OF IDENTITY FOR A “DRIVE ONLY” MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATOR’S LICENSE.
Public Act No. 15-79
Summary
House Bill No. 6366

AN ACT CONCERNING IN-STATE TUITION ELIGIBILITY.
Public Act No. 15-82
Summary
House Bill No. 6844

AN ACT CONCERNING REPORTS OF NURSE STAFFING LEVELS.
Public Act No. 15-91 (See Sec. 1)
Summary
Senate Bill No. 855

AN ACT CONCERNING THE INCLUSION OF CARDIOPULMONARY RESUSCITATION TRAINING, THE SAFE USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA AND COMPUTER PROGRAMMING INSTRUCTION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL CURRICULUM.
Public Act No. 15-94 (See Sec. 2)
Summary
Senate Bill No. 962

AN ACT CONCERNING OUT-OF-SCHOOL SUSPENSIONS AND EXPULSIONS FOR STUDENTS IN PRESCHOOL AND GRADES KINDERGARTEN TO TWO.
Public Act No. 15-96
Summary
Senate Bill No. 1053

AN ACT CONCERNING STUDENTS WITH DYSLEXIA.
Public Act No. 15-97
Summary
Senate Bill No. 1054

AN ACT CONCERNING THE MINIMUM BUDGET REQUIREMENT.
Public Act No. 15-99
Summary
House Bill No. 7019

AN ACT CONCERNING STATE PAYMENT TO CERTAIN FACILITIES FOR RESERVED BEDS.
Public Act No. 15-102
Summary
Senate Bill No. 862

AN ACT CONCERNING THE FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY OF STATE PARKS.
Public Act No. 15-106 (See Sec. 3-4)
Summary
Senate Bill No. 1061

AN ACT CONCERNING TEACHER CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR SHORTAGE AREAS, INTERSTATE AGREEMENTS FOR TEACHER CERTIFICATION RECIPROCITY, MINORITY TEACHER RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION AND CULTURAL COMPETENCY INSTRUCTION.
Public Act No. 15-108 (See Sec. 1-4, 6-11)
Summary
Senate Bill No. 1098

AN ACT AUTHORIZING PHARMACISTS TO DISPENSE DRUGS IN NINETY-DAY QUANTITIES.
Public Act No. 15-116
Summary
House Bill No. 5771

AN ACT CONCERNING FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION IN PUBLIC HOUSING.
Public Act No. 15-119
Summary
House Bill No. 6694

AN ACT REVISING CERTAIN STATUTES CONCERNING THE STATE COMPTROLLER.
Public Act No. 15-123 (See Sec. 4-5)
Summary
House Bill No. 6747

AN ACT EXTENDING THE FORECLOSURE MEDIATION PROGRAM.
Public Act No. 15-124
Summary
House Bill No. 6752

AN ACT CONCERNING INJURED VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS AND SICK LEAVE BENEFITS.
Public Act No. 15-128
Summary
House Bill No. 6873

AN ACT CONCERNING HOSPITAL TRAINING AND PROCEDURES FOR PATIENTS WITH SUSPECTED DEMENTIA.
Public Act No. 15-129
Summary
House Bill No. 6892

AN ACT CONCERNING THE SAFEGUARDING OF FUNDS FOR RESIDENTS OF CERTAIN LONG-TERM CARE FACILITIES.
Public Act No. 15-130
Summary
House Bill No. 6894

AN ACT CONCERNING ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION.
Public Act No. 15-133
Summary
House Bill No. 7018

AN ACT CONCERNING EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATORS AND INITIATIVES.
Public Act No. 15-134 (See Sec. 1-3, 5-7)
Summary
House Bill No. 7020

AN ACT PROHIBITING MANDATORY REGISTRATION FOR CERTAIN CONSUMER WARRANTY COVERAGE.
Public Act No. 15-136
Summary
House Bill No. 6451

AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP TASK FORCE CONCERNING THE CREATION OF A DIRECTOR OF READING INITIATIVES AT THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.
Public Act No. 15-137
Summary
House Bill No. 6974

AN ACT CONCERNING SECLUSION AND RESTRAINT IN SCHOOLS.
Public Act No. 15-141
Summary
Senate Bill No. 927

AN ACT IMPROVING DATA SECURITY AND AGENCY EFFECTIVENESS.
Public Act No. 15-142 (See Sec. 1-2, 4)
Summary
Senate Bill No. 949

AN ACT CONCERNING THE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT’S FINANCIAL REGULATORY OVERSIGHT OF INSURANCE COMPANIES.
Public Act No. 15-144
Summary
Senate Bill No. 983

AN ACT CONCERNING HOSPITALS, INSURERS AND HEALTH CARE CONSUMERS.
Public Act No. 15-146 (See Sec. 18-19, 23, 25, 28-37, 39-40)
Summary
Senate Bill No. 811

AN ACT CONCERNING NOTIFICATION OF MEDICAID WAIVER AND MEDICAID STATE PLAN AMENDMENT PROPOSALS.
Public Act No. 15-154
Summary
House Bill No. 6155

AN ACT CONCERNING DEVELOPMENTAL SCREENINGS FOR CHILDREN.
Public Act No. 15-157
Summary
House Bill No. 6579

AN ACT CONCERNING THE ENFORCEMENT OF STAGE I VAPOR RECOVERY RESTRICTIONS AND SULFUR CONTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR DISTILLATE FUELS.
Public Act No. 15-160
Summary
House Bill No. 6730

AN ACT CONCERNING MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR OVER-THE-COUNTER DRUGS AND PRODUCTS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR MEDICAID BENEFIT CARDS AND NOTICE OF REGULATIONS.
Public Act No. 15-165
Summary
House Bill No. 6770

AN ACT CONCERNING COLLABORATION BETWEEN BOARDS OF EDUCATION AND SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS AND THE COLLECTION AND REPORTING OF DATA ON SCHOOL-BASED ARRESTS.
Public Act No. 15-168
Summary
House Bill No. 6834

AN ACT CONCERNING THE MUNICIPAL REIMBURSEMENT AND REVENUE ACCOUNT.
Public Act No. 15-169
Summary
House Bill No. 6852

AN ACT CONCERNING CHILDHOOD VACCINATIONS.
Public Act No. 15-174
Summary
House Bill No. 6949

AN ACT REQUIRING THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION TO DEVELOP AND SUBMIT A COMPREHENSIVE STATE-WIDE INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL PLAN.
Public Act No. 15-177
Summary
House Bill No. 6978

AN ACT CONCERNING MINOR AND TECHNICAL CHANGES TO TITLE 12 OF THE GENERAL STATUTES.
Public Act No. 15-179 (See Sec. 3)
Summary
House Bill No. 6986

AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, EXAMINATIONS FOR STATE EMPLOYMENT AND STATE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PAYMENTS TO REFERRING PRACTITIONERS.
Public Act No. 15-182
Summary
House Bill No. 7000

AN ACT CONCERNING THE FAILURE TO FILE FOR CERTAIN TAX EXEMPTIONS, THE EXTENSION OF CERTAIN TAX CREDITS AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS, EXEMPTIONS FROM CERTAIN FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AND ADMISSIONS TAX REQUIREMENTS, AND VALIDATIONS.
Public Act No. 15-184 (See Sec. 1-6, 10-11)
Summary
House Bill No. 7060

AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A ROLLING THREE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN FOR THE TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL SYSTEM.
Public Act No. 15-189
Summary
Senate Bill No. 1057

AN ACT CONCERNING THE REMEDIAL ACTION AND REDEVELOPMENT MUNICIPAL GRANT PROGRAM, THE TARGETED BROWNFIELD DEVELOPMENT LOAN PROGRAM AND THE REMEDIATION OF STATE-OWNED AND FORMERLY STATE-OWNED BROWNFIELDS.
Public Act No. 15-193
Summary
House Bill No. 6830

AN ACT CONCERNING PAY EQUITY AND FAIRNESS.
Public Act No. 15-196
Summary
House Bill No. 6850

AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM REVIEW AND INVESTIGATIONS COMMITTEE REGARDING RESIDENTIAL SERVICES AT THE VETERANS’ HOME.
Public Act No. 15-197 (See Sec. 3-5)
Summary
House Bill No. 6855

AN ACT EXPANDING GUARDIANSHIP OPPORTUNITIES FOR CHILDREN AND IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL PREVENTING SEX TRAFFICKING AND STRENGTHENING FAMILIES ACT.
Public Act No. 15-199 (See Sec. 1-16)
Summary
House Bill No. 6899

AN ACT CONCERNING THE DUTIES AND AUTHORITY OF THE CONNECTICUT HIGHER EDUCATION SUPPLEMENTAL LOAN AUTHORITY.
Public Act No. 15-200 (See Sec. 1-4)
Summary
House Bill No. 6907

AN ACT LEGALIZING INDUSTRIAL HEMP.
Public Act No. 15-202
Summary
House Bill No. 5780

AN ACT PROTECTING SCHOOL CHILDREN.
Public Act No. 15-205 (See Sec. 1, 9-10, 12,13)
Summary
House Bill No. 6186

AN ACT REQUIRING A STUDY OF THE USE OF MEDICAID TO COVER THE COST OF HEALTH INSURANCE FOR COLLEGE STUDENTS.
Special Act No. 15-5
Senate Bill No. 864

AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE CEDAR HILLS INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WITHIN THE TOWN OF NORTH HAVEN.
Special Act No. 15-16
House Bill No. 6967

AN ACT CONCERNING THE USE OF DIGITAL OPEN-SOURCE TEXTBOOKS IN HIGHER EDUCATION.
Special Act No. 15-18 (See Sec. 1)
House Bill No. 6117

Medical marijuana legal in all forms, Supreme Court rules

Update:

Pot-infused brownies are divided and packaged at The Growing Kitchen, in Boulder, Colo. in September 2014. The Supreme Court of Canada on Thursday said medical marijuana can include products other than dried pot, such as cannabis-infused cookies brownies, oils and tea. (Brennan Linsley/Associated Press)
Pot-infused brownies are divided and packaged at The Growing Kitchen, in Boulder, Colo. in September 2014. The Supreme Court of Canada on Thursday said medical marijuana can include products other than dried pot, such as cannabis-infused cookies brownies, oils and tea. (Brennan Linsley/Associated Press)

Health minister ‘outraged’ by ruling, vows to combat ‘normalization’ of pot

see source

Medical marijuana patients will now be able to consume marijuana — and not just smoke it — as well as use other extracts and derivatives, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled today.

The unanimous ruling against the federal government expands the definition of medical marijuana beyond the “dried” form.

The country’s highest court found the current restriction to dried marijuana violates the right to liberty and security “in a manner that is arbitrary and hence is not in accord with the principles of fundamental justice.”

Restricting medical access to marijuana to a dried form has now been declared “null and void” — Sections 4 and 5 of the Controlled Drug and Substances Act, which prohibits possession and trafficking of non-dried forms of cannabis, will no longer be in effect.

The respondent in this case, Owen Smith, called it “a very emotional day.”

“I’m proud and really happy today for all those people who are going to benefit from this ruling,” he said at a press conference in Victoria, B.C.

The decision upholds earlier rulings by lower courts in British Columbia that said they went against a person’s right to consume medical marijuana in the form they choose.

Many users felt smoking it was even potentially harmful. However, methods such as brewing marijuana leaves in tea or baking cannabis into brownies left patients vulnerable to being charged with possession and trafficking under the law.

According to evidence submitted to the trial judge, it came down to forcing a person to choose between a legal but inadequate treatment, and an illegal but more effective choice.

Federal health minister ‘outraged’

“It’s a positive — it’s a great thing for patients … and people who need extracts who can’t smoke their cannabis or don’t even want to in the first place,” said David-George Oldham, founder of The ARC, a consortium of cannabis patients, doctors, activists and chemists.

SCOC Medical Marijuana 20150611

David-George Oldham smokes marijuana outside the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa on Thursday. (Fred Chartrand/Canadian Press)

“Imagine smoking seven grams of cannabis when you’re having a migraine so bad that just moving your fingers is excruciating pain,” he said during a scrum outside the Supreme Court.

“Taking a [cannabis] pill is a lot more sensible and having pills stocked in my cupboard makes a lot more sense than having just raw cannabis out and about in my house.”

The federal government, however, isn’t pleased.

“Frankly, I’m outraged by the Supreme Court,” said Health Minister Rona Ambrose.

“Let’s remember, there’s only one authority in Canada that has the authority and the expertise to make a drug into a medicine and that’s Health Canada,” she said during a press conference.

“Marijuana has never gone through the regulatory approval process at Health Canada, which of course, requires a rigorous safety review and clinical trials with scientific evidence.”

Arrest of pot baker sparked court challenge

The case stems from Smith’s 2009 arrest in Victoria.

Smith, a baker for the Victoria Cannabis Buyers Club, was found with more than 200 cookies and 26 jars of liquids, including cannabis-infused massage oils and lip balms. The baker was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking and unlawful possession of marijuana.

Marijuana ruling - Owen Smith pot cookie baker

Owen Smith was caught baking more than 200 pot cookies for the Victoria Cannabis Buyers Club in 2009. (CHEK)

The club delivers medical marijuana products to its members, but doesn’t have a licence to produce it.

At his trial, Smith argued that the law under which he was charged was unconstitutional and violated Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the right to life, liberty and security of the person.

The British Columbia trial judge agreed and acquitted him. A B.C. Appeal Court also ruled in Smith’s favour, under the principle that no one can be convicted of an offence under an unconstitutional law.

The federal government then appealed that decision to take his case to Canada’s top court. Thursday’s decision affirms Smith’s acquittal.

The Appeal Court had also suspended its declaration for a year to give Parliament time to rewrite the law. The Supreme Court has now deleted that suspension, saying otherwise it would “leave patients without lawful medical treatment and the law and law enforcement in limbo.”

Ambrose said the federal government will fight against the court’s “normalization” of marijuana.

“We will continue to combat it. We will continue our anti-drug strategy, we will target youth with the message that marijuana pot is bad for them,” the minister said. “We’ll continue to work with medical authorities across the country to make sure they’re involved in the message.”

 

Harper’s Controversial Prostitution Bill C-36 Becomes Law

Update:

Justice Minister Peter MacKay was behind the new legislation, Bill C-36, and took the approach that it would criminalize the purchase of sex, but not its sale. Many legal minds have already predicted that the law, in its' present state, cannot and will not withstand scrutiny from the courts, as it relates to the Charter.
Justice Minister Peter MacKay was behind the new legislation, Bill C-36, and took the approach that it would criminalize the purchase of sex, but not its sale. Many legal minds have already predicted that the law, in its’ present state, cannot and will not withstand scrutiny from the courts, as it relates to the Charter. Despite being aware of this, Harper and his conservatives supported the Bill in its’ entirety.

see source

The government’s controversial prostitution bill passed in the House of Commons Monday night by a 156-124 vote.

The Supreme Court last December ruled Canada’s existing laws on the world’s oldest profession were unconstitutional and ordered Parliament to come up with new legislation within a year.

Justice Minister Peter MacKay was behind the new legislation, Bill C-36, and took the approach that it would criminalize the purchase of sex, but not its sale.

MacKay called his legislation a “made in Canada” approach and the best way to eliminate prostitution altogether.

By allowing prostitutes to sell sexual services without fear of criminalization, the law won’t prevent them from implementing safety measures such as bodyguards, MacKay has said.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper confirmed Monday he's dead-set against the libertine prostitution laws that exist in parts of Australia, where some states even allow brothels to operate. He supports Bill C-36 in its' entirety, despite all legal opinions that it was doomed from the outset, given its' incompatibility with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper confirmed Monday he’s dead-set against the libertine prostitution laws that exist in parts of Australia, where some states even allow brothels to operate. He supports Bill C-36 in its’ entirety, despite all legal opinions that it was doomed from the outset, given its’ incompatibility with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Under the previous law, prostitutes were effectively prohibited from hiring bodyguards because nobody was allowed to live “off the avails of prostitution.”

“The objective is to (lower) the demand and make prostitution illegal,” MacKay said last month to a committee of senators.

He said the prostitution bill represents a “paradigm shift” in Canada because it deals with sex workers as victims who need help, rather than criminals who deserve punishment.

Ontario: Bill 24, Prohibiting Driving with Unlawful Handguns Act, 2014

Update:

Within Ontario’s Legislature, Queen’s Park; This Bill (Bill 24, Prohibiting Driving with Unlawful Handguns Act, 2014) was given first reading on July 23, 2014.

 

Source:

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act and the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 to promote public safety by prohibiting driving in a motor vehicle with an unlawfully possessed handgun

Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:

Highway Traffic Act

1.  (1)  Subsection 1 (1) of the Highway Traffic Act is amended by adding the following definitions:

“handgun” means a handgun within the meaning of the Criminal Code (Canada); (“arme de poing”)

“unlawfully possessed handgun” means any handgun whose possession is not authorized under the Firearms Act (Canada); (“arme de poing illégale”)

(2)  Subsection 1 (8) of the Act is amended by striking out “55.2 or 172” and substituting “55.2, 172 or 172.2”.

2.  Subsection 41.4 (21) of the Act is amended by striking out “82.1 or 172” at the end and substituting “82.1, 172 or 172.2”.

3.  Subsection 48.4 (21) of the Act is amended by striking out “82.1 or 172” at the end and substituting “82.1, 172 or 172.2”.

4.  Subsection 55.1 (37) of the Act is amended by striking out “82.1 or 172” at the end and substituting “82.1, 172 or 172.2”.

5.  Subsection 55.2 (21) of the Act is amended by striking out “82.1 or 172” at the end and substituting “82.1, 172 or 172.2”.

6.  Subsection 82.1 (36.2) of the Act is amended by striking out “55.2 or 172” at the end and substituting “55.2, 172 or 172.2”.

7.  Subsection 172 (18.1) of the Act is amended by striking out “55.2 or 82.1” at the end and substituting “55.2, 82.1 or 172.2”.

8.  The Act is amended by adding the following section:

Driving with unlawfully possessed handgun in motor vehicle prohibited

172.2  (1)  No person shall drive on a highway a motor vehicle in which there is an unlawfully possessed handgun.   

Offence

(2)  Every person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both, and in addition the person’s driver’s licence may be suspended,

(a)  on a first conviction under this section, for one year;

(b)  on the first subsequent conviction under this section, for five years; and

(c)  on the second subsequent conviction under this section, indefinitely.

Determining subsequent conviction

(3)  In determining whether a conviction is a subsequent conviction for the purposes of subsection (2), the only question to be considered is the sequence of convictions and no consideration shall be given to the sequence of commission of offences or whether any offence occurred before or after any conviction.

Police to require surrender of licence, detention of vehicle

(4)  If a police officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a person has committed an offence under subsection (1), the officer shall,

(a)  request that the person surrender his or her driver’s licence; and

(b)  detain the motor vehicle until it is impounded under clause (6) (b).

Administrative seven-day licence suspension

(5)  Upon a request being made under clause (4) (a), the person to whom the request is made shall forthwith surrender his or her driver’s licence to the police officer and, whether or not the person is unable or fails to surrender the licence to the police officer, his or her driver’s licence is suspended for a period of seven days from the time the request is made.

Administrative seven-day vehicle impoundment

(6)  Upon a motor vehicle being detained under clause (4) (b), the motor vehicle shall, at the cost of and risk to its owner,

(a)  be removed to an impound facility as directed by a police officer; and

(b)  be impounded for seven days from the time it was detained under clause (4) (b).

Release of vehicle

(7)  Subject to subsection (14), the motor vehicle shall be released to its owner from the impound facility upon the expiry of the period of impoundment.

Early release of vehicle

(8)  Despite the detention or impoundment of a motor vehicle under this section, a police officer may release the motor vehicle to its owner before it is impounded under subsection (6) or, subject to subsection (14), may direct the operator of the impound facility where the motor vehicle is impounded to release the motor vehicle to its owner before the expiry of the seven days if the officer is satisfied that the motor vehicle was stolen at the time of the contravention of subsection (1).

Duty of officer re licence suspension

(9)  Every officer who asks for the surrender of a person’s driver’s licence under this section shall keep a record of the licence received with the name and address of the person and the date and time of the suspension and shall, as soon as practicable after receiving the licence, provide the person with a notice of suspension showing the time from which the suspension takes effect and the period of time for which the licence is suspended.

Duty of officer re impoundment

(10)  Every officer who detains a motor vehicle under this section shall prepare a notice identifying the motor vehicle that is to be impounded under subsection (6), the name and address of the driver and the date and time of the impoundment and shall, as soon as practicable after the impoundment of the motor vehicle, provide the driver with a copy of the notice showing the time from which the impoundment takes effect, the period of time for which the motor vehicle is impounded and the place where the vehicle may be recovered.

Same

(11)  A police officer shall provide a copy of the notice prepared under subsection (10) to the owner of the motor vehicle by delivering it personally or by mail to the address of the owner shown on the permit for the motor vehicle or to the latest address for the owner appearing on the records of the Ministry.

No appeal or hearing, court proceedings not affected

(12)  There is no appeal from, or right to be heard before, a vehicle detention, driver’s licence suspension or vehicle impoundment under subsection (4), (5) or (6), but this subsection does not affect the taking of any proceeding in court.

Lien for storage costs

(13)  The costs incurred by the person who operates the impound facility where a motor vehicle is impounded under this section are a lien on the motor vehicle that may be enforced under the Repair and Storage Liens Act.

Costs to be paid before release of vehicle

(14)  The person who operates the impound facility where a motor vehicle is impounded under subsection (6) is not required to release the motor vehicle until the removal and impound costs for the vehicle have been paid.

Owner may recover losses from driver

(15)  The owner of a motor vehicle that is impounded under this section may bring an action against the driver of the motor vehicle at the time the vehicle was detained under clause (4) (b) to recover any costs or other losses incurred by the owner in connection with the impoundment.

Offence

(16)  Every person who obstructs or interferes with a police officer in the performance of his or her duties under this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $200 and not more than $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both.

Intent of suspension and impoundment

(17)  The suspension of a driver’s licence and the impoundment of a motor vehicle under this section are intended to promote compliance with this Act and to thereby safeguard the public and do not constitute an alternative to any proceeding or penalty arising from the same circumstances or around the same time.

Impoundment concurrent with other administrative impoundments

(18)  The impoundment of a motor vehicle under this section runs concurrently with an impoundment, if any, of the same motor vehicle under section 41.4, 48.4, 55.1, 55.2, 82.1 or 172.

Regulations

(19)  The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,

(a)  requiring police officers to keep records with respect to licence suspensions and vehicle impoundments under this section for a specified period of time and to report specified information with respect to licence suspensions and vehicle impoundments to the Registrar and governing such records and reports;

(b)  exempting any class of persons or class or type of vehicles from any provision or requirement of this section or of any regulation made under this section, prescribing conditions for any such exemptions and prescribing different requirements for different classes of persons or different classes or types of vehicles.

Definition

(20)  In this section,

“driver’s licence” includes a driver’s licence issued by another jurisdiction.

Civil Remedies Act, 2001

9.  Clause (b) of the definition of “vehicular unlawful activity” in section 11.1 of the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 is amended by adding “or 172.2 (1)” after “subsection 53 (1.1)”.

10.  (1)  Section 11.2 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsection:

Same

(1.1)  In a proceeding commenced by the Attorney General, the Superior Court of Justice shall, subject to subsection (4) and except where it would clearly not be in the interests of justice, make an order forfeiting a vehicle to the Crown in right of Ontario if the court finds that the vehicle,

(a)  was or is likely to be used to engage in vehicular unlawful activity in contravention of section 172.2 of the Highway Traffic Act; and

(b)  is owned by or is in the care, control or possession of a person whose driver’s licence has been suspended under section 172.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

(2)  Subsection 11.2 (3) of the Act is amended by adding “or (1.1)” after “subsection (1)” wherever it appears.

(3)  Subsection 11.2 (4) of the Act is amended by adding “or (1.1)” after “subsection (1)”.

11.  Section 11.3 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsection:

Same

(2.1)  The court shall make an order under subsection (1) if the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the vehicle is owned by or is in the care, control or possession of a person whose driver’s licence has been suspended under the Highway Traffic Act for vehicular unlawful activity that is a contravention of section 172.2 of that Act and that the vehicle,

(a)  is impounded under the Highway Traffic Act as a result of such vehicular unlawful activity; or

(b)  was or is likely to be used to engage in such vehicular unlawful activity.

Commencement

12.  This Act comes into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor.

Short title

13.  The short title of this Act is the Prohibiting Driving with Unlawful Handguns Act, 2014.

 

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The purpose of the Bill is to promote public safety and suppress conditions that lead to crime. The Bill adds a new section 172.2 to the Highway Traffic Act, which makes it an offence to drive on a highway a motor vehicle in which there is an unlawfully possessed handgun. The penalties associated with the offence are a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $10,000 or imprisonment of not more than six months, or both, and a driver’s licence suspension of one year for a first conviction under the section, five years for a second conviction and indefinitely for a third conviction. A police officer who believes, on reasonable and probable grounds, that an offence has been committed shall request the surrender of the driver’s licence and detain the vehicle. The licence is suspended for seven days and the vehicle is impounded for the same length of time. The new section applies to drivers’ licences issued by Ontario or another jurisdiction. The Bill also amends various sections in the Highway Traffic Act to ensure that the impoundment period runs concurrently with the other administrative impoundments.

Part III.1 (Unlawful Activities Related to Road Safety) of the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 is amended so that a vehicle involved in a contravention of section 172.2 of the Highway Traffic Act may become subject to forfeiture under that Act.