John Acton wanted to sue to make up the alleged shortfall in his benefits. But in March 2010, Mr. Justice G.N. Allbright of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench ruled against Acton, finding that he could not pursue a claim for “economic loss” against the defendants. Acton appealed that decision and the Court of Appeal overturned Judge Allbright’s ruling.The Court of Appeal ruled that the lower court had “erred in holding that an insured may not bring a tort action to recover damages for ‘economic loss’” under the provincial Automobile Accident Insurance Act, if the benefits paid or payable by the carrier will never the exceed SGI’s liability cap of $5 million.
Saskatchewan Government Insurance is expecting the province’s no-fault automobile insurance plan will take a hit after the Supreme Court of Canada decided against hearing an appeal of a groundbreaking legal decision.
“The decision could potentially have some fairly important ramifications for the administration of the no-fault program,” SGI’s general counsel Tim MacLeod said in an interview Monday.
The wheels were set in motion by John Acton, a 44-year-old business manager and farmer who was rendered a quadriplegic in a single-vehicle rollover. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruled last year that Acton could sue the RM of Britannia, which had jurisdiction for the road, and Ron Handel Farms, a contractor doing road maintenance for the RM.
The Lloydminster-area man is suing for economic benefits either not covered by SGI’s no-fault insurance scheme or to top up the SGI compensation.
The defendants had hoped the Supreme Court would hear an appeal. SGI also intervened because of the potential implications.
The court requested and heard oral arguments from the lawyers Monday in Ottawa. At the end of the day, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, meaning the decision from the province’s top court stands as the law.
MacLeod said he understood from the lawyer who argued the issue for SGI that the Supreme Court questioned the national importance of the case, which is critical to getting a hearing before the country’s top court.
In a previous interview, Gary Zabos, Acton’s lawyer, disputed that the appeal court’s ruling represented such a hefty blow to no-fault insurance or had national implications. Rather, he said it simply means any liable parties in a crash can’t be shielded from legal action.
“I don’t see it as some sort of disaster for no-fault insurance,” he said at that time. Zabos couldn’t be reached Monday for further comment.
In its legal brief to the Supreme Court, SGI had argued that “while the focus may be on the circumstances of one person, the Court of Appeal’s decision has far-reaching ramifications for every resident of Saskatchewan, and every party involved in a motor vehicle accident where Saskatchewan law applies.”
Among the potential impacts SGI cited were delays in rehabilitation, higher insurance rates, and increasing litigation and costs.
“We just don’t know how this is going to play out,” MacLeod said Monday.
However, he said it’s likely more people who suffer serious injury in a collision will sue, despite getting benefits under the no-fault scheme.
“From a conceptual perspective, it could be anybody whose claim is being administered in the no-fault program and felt that they are entitled to money that they were not being paid for under the no-fault program,” MacLeod said.
Findings: – Texting-while-driving tickets have soared, but just 44 percent have led to convictions since 2009 – About 82 percent of tickets for talking on a cell phone led to convictions between 2001 and May 2013 – Conviction rates for texting are improving, up to 66 percent in 2012 – The highest number of tickets issued for texting were for drivers aged 22 to 30. People aged 26 had the most, roughly 2,300 tickets. – Texting tickets have soared, from about 3,500 in 2011 to 30,000 in 2012. Cell phone tickets dropped 37 percent between 2009 and 2012
ALBANY, NY - Texting-while-driving tickets have soared in recent years, but only 44 percent have led to convictions so far, state records show.
A backlog of court cases, the ability to plea down the charges and the difficulty in proving a person was texting and driving has made convictions elusive in New York, law-enforcement officials said.
“One of the difficulties would be, if the text hasn’t been completed, it would be difficult to prove that a text was sent in the process of driving,” said Peter Kehoe, executive director of the state Sheriff’s Association.
The conviction rate for talking on a cell phone was nearly double the rate compared to texting tickets, records analyzed by Gannett’s Albany Bureau from the state Department of Motor Vehicles showed.
About 82 percent of tickets for talking on a cell phone led to convictions on the charge between 2001 and May 2013. The texting law took effect in 2009.
The trend is changing, however, and enforcement of the texting while driving is increasing.
In 2012, 66 percent of the texting tickets that were processed led to convictions on the charge, and 21 percent were pleaded down.
Prosecutors said they are offering less leniency because of the emergent dangers of distracted driving, which has led to high-profile deaths involving teenagers.
The Monroe County District Attorney’s Office is refusing to plea down texting tickets, judges said.
“In our court, they are not doing any reductions on these,” said Pittsford Town Judge John Bernacki. “They are either going to trial or they are pleading guilty to them.”
Gov. Andrew Cuomo on June 1 implemented tougher distracted-driving regulations. The penalty increased from three points to five points on a license for a conviction of texting or talking on a cell phone behind the wheel.
The Legislature on Thursday passed other components of Cuomo’s proposal. Texting will be added to driving infractions for probationary and junior licenses that can lead to a 60-day suspension.
“The governor’s goal is to condition new drivers not to develop life-threatening habits, prevent avoidable tragedies caused by texting and driving, and ultimately save lives,” said Cuomo’s spokesman Richard Azzopardi. “With this legislation, we’ve taken a big step forward toward reaching this goal.”
The change in points, prosecutors said, makes texting a more serious charge. As a result, they will be less likely to let a person plea it down to a violation that doesn’t include points on a license, such as dropping a texting ticket to a parking ticket.
“I don’t plea down many of these. I usually hold them to the points. It’s an epidemic out there with the cell phones,” said Colin McGovern, a town judge in Tarrytown, Westchester County.
Broome County had included texting tickets in a diversion program for moving violations. The program allows a person to complete a driving safety course and pay a fine, and then the ticket is dismissed.
Distracted-driving tickets will no longer be allowed into the program, said Broome County District Attorney Gerald Mollen. He said he hopes the change will be a further deterrent for drivers.
“I think it will have an impact. How big an impact? I couldn’t say,” Mollen said.
The increase in points may have an unexpected consequence: More drivers will challenge the tickets, prosecutors said. That will mean fewer people will simply plead guilty, and they’ll either seek a plea deal or go to trial – which could further burden the court system.
Five points on a license is serious. If a driver gets six points within 18 months, a person is slapped with a driver responsibility assessment by the state and a fine of at least $100 a year.
If a driver gets 11 points in 18 months, a license is suspended for typically 31 days. So a texting conviction and a major speeding ticket – going more than 20 mph over the speed limit – could lead to a suspended license.
“I would think that people are going to be looking for or hoping for a significant reduction” for a texting ticket, said Joseph Charbonneau, a town attorney in Carmel, Putnam County.
“They are going to be right up against that six-point cap for the driver’s responsibility assessment to kick in, and 11 or more points you are going to lose your license,” he said.
Ontario County District Attorney Michael Tantillo said the five points is a “big hit and an appropriate hit.” He said he’s ordered county prosecutors to rarely allow for plea deals; sometimes the ticket is tossed when it’s tied to a more serious charge that a person pleads guilty to.
“The role should be aggressive enforcement and prosecution,” he said. “Obviously, they raised the point for a very simple reason: This is extremely dangerous.”
In 2011, Cuomo increased the number of points for a texting-while-driving infraction from two to three. The law also made the charge a primary offense so police could pull someone over specifically for texting behind the wheel.
Since the change, texting tickets have soared, from about 3,500 in 2011 to 30,000 in 2012. At the same time, cell phone tickets dropped 37 percent between 2009 and 2012, presumably as more people turn to hand-free devices.
With texting, there’s no legal alternative, and Cuomo has made it clear that it’s illegal and dangerous. He has three teenaged daughters.
Texting takes a driver’s eyes off the road for about 4.6 seconds — the equivalent of driving the length of a football field while blind, a 2009 report from the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute found.
Records from the state DMV showed that the highest number of tickets issued for texting were for drivers aged 22 to 30. People aged 26 had the most, roughly 2,300 tickets.
“We want the message to be very clear to young drivers: Don’t do it and don’t think about doing it,” Cuomo said May 31.
Texting and driving has become more dangerous than drunken driving. In 2011, there were 25,165 fatalities and injuries involving distracted driving in New York, compared to 4,628 caused by alcohol-related incidents, Cuomo’s office said.
Texting conviction rates have varied by county since 2009, records showed.
The conviction rate was 56 percent in Monroe County, and 50 percent in Ontario County. In the Southern Tier, it was 42 percent in Tompkins County, 46 percent in Broome County and 63 percent in Chemung County.
In the Hudson Valley, the conviction rate was 29 percent in Westchester County, 22 percent in Rockland and 16 percent in Putnam. In Dutchess, the conviction rate was 19 percent.
“In Dutchess, we take (texting) very seriously,” Dutchess County Capt. John Watterson. “But what happens when the ticket makes its way through the court process, it sometimes ends up being pleaded down for a variety of reasons.”
In some counties, there is a lack of a uniformed policy on how tickets are disposed – mainly downstate where traffic court is overseen by each town or village and not by the county’s district attorney.
“It’s an issue. Where’s the responsibility?” Tantillo said of some counties that don’t have county oversight of local courts.
Some judges said because of a backlog of cases, they are only starting to see texting cases in their courts, and some could be a year or more old. That is part of why convictions rates may be low so far, they estimated, because the cases have yet to be adjudicated.
Charles Schiano, Jr, a judge in Greece, Monroe County, which is one of the largest towns in the state with nearly 100,000 people, said he’d yet to have a texting trial.
Other judges said people are fighting the tickets by bringing in GPS devices and claiming they using them and not their phones. In some cases, a judge decides a case by looking at phone records.
“If you see a cell phone in someone’s hand, it might be difficult for an officer to testify that I know for sure that this individual is texting at that point in time,” said Jeremy Murray, an assistant district attorney in Chemung County.
The intent of tougher texting-while-driving laws could be jeopardized if it’s not pared with stronger prosecution, said Cathy Chase, senior director of government relations for Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, based in Washington D.C.
“It’s a concern if there is a public message being sent that the laws aren’t effective and are not evenly enforced,” she said.
Tickets for Cellphone Use and Texting while Driving
Texting-while-driving tickets have soared in recent years, but only 44 percent have led to convictions so far, state records show. The conviction rate for talking on a cell phone was nearly double the rate compared with texting tickets, according to state Department of Motor Vehicles records analyzed by Gannett’s Albany Bureau. About 82 percent of tickets for talking on a cell phone led to convictions on the charge between 2001 and May 2013. The texting law took effect in 2009.
The table below shows the number of tickets that have been issued in each county for texting while driving (VTL-1225D) since 8/1/2009, and for using a cell phone while driving (VTL-1225C2A) since 1/1/2001. In 2012, there were 30,166 tickets issued for texting and 216,706 issued for cellphone use.
Convictions in any given year may derive from tickets issued in prior years.
Autorickshaw driver’s will now have auto insurance. The Group Accident Insurance Scheme will be implemented for 10,000 drivers in Vijayawada as a pilot project in the State. The pilot project will have benefits being extended by the government to the autorickshaw drivers and their family members under the scheme. Besides providing insurance for death or permanent disability, the government will extend a Rs.1,200 as annual education grant to the beneficiaries’ children from Class 9 up to Intermediate or ITI
The State and Central governments have proposed to extend insurance cover to autorickshaw drivers under the Unorganised Workers Social Security Act, 2008. The Group Accident Insurance Scheme will be implemented for 10,000 drivers in Vijayawada as a pilot project in the State.
Officials of the Labour and Transport departments and leaders of the Auto Workers’ Union are on the job of identifying the beneficiaries for the scheme to be launched by this month-end.
Vijayawada highway. Additional Commissioner (Labour) Y. Surya Prasad, at a meeting held here a couple of days ago, explained the benefits being extended by the government to the autorickshaw drivers and their family members under the scheme. The beneficiary has to pay a premium of Rs.100 and the Central government will pay Rs.100 for each person.
The Labour Department has asked the Auto Drivers’ Unions, affiliated to various political parties, to identify and certify the beneficiaries, who, in turn, will submit the application forms. The authorities concerned are organising awareness programmes to enlighten the drivers by distributing pamphlets for successful implementation of the project.
Additional Commissioner (Labour) Y. Surya Prasad, at a meeting held here a couple of days ago, explained the benefits being extended by the government to the autorickshaw drivers and their family members under the scheme. The beneficiary has to pay a premium of Rs.100 and the Central government will pay Rs.100 for each person.
“A committee of workers’ representatives and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (ACL) will be constituted to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the insurance company for launch of the scheme,” said Mr. Prasad.
ACL D. Anjaneya Reddy said the Labour Department would set up counters at bus and railway stations, Benz Circle, Ramavarappadu Ring Road Centre, and Singh Nagar flyover to collect the application forms from June 19 to 22. The beneficiaries, aged between 18 and 59, are required to submit the application forms attested by the trade unions along with photocopies of voter ID card, Aadhaar card, driving licence, ration card, and the local area certificate.
“Besides providing insurance for death or permanent disability, the government will extend a Rs.1,200 as annual education grant to the beneficiaries’ children from Class 9 up to Intermediate or ITI,” said Mr. Reddy.
Florida Gov. Rick Scott vetoed on Tuesday a bill that would’ve made it a state law to allow deferred action recipients to get Florida driver’s licenses. (AP Photo/Steve Cannon)
Florida Gov. Rick Scott on Tuesday surprised many when he vetoed a bill that would have made it a state law to allow some undocumented young immigrants to apply for Florida driver’s licenses.
The bill stated that undocumented youth who’ve received work authorization under the Obama administration’s policy — formally known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) — would be able to get temporary driver’s license for at least one year. The state’s Republican-controlled legislature passed the bill by a nearly unanimous vote. The state House voted 115-2 and the Senate voted 36-0.
However, vetoing the legislation does not mean that deferred action recipients will no longer be able to get Florida driver’s licenses. That’s because there is already a Florida statute that allows individuals with federal employment authorization documents to get driver’s licenses, according to the Florida Department of Motor Vehicles.
This means that the existing policy of allowing deferred action recipients to apply for a temporary driver license in Florida still stands, despite Scott’s vetoing of the driver’s license bill.
Sponsors of Florida driver’s licenses bill react to veto
Rep. Randolph Bracy (D-Orlando), the bill’s lead sponsor in the House, told VOXXI the legislation was necessary to guarantee that undocumented youth with federal work permits can apply for Florida driver’s licenses.
“There’s nothing in law that protects them to get that license, so at any time, Gov. Scott could reverse that decision and those folks would not be able to get a driver’s license even if they were to use their work permit,” he said.
Bracy also said he thinks Scott, who is a Republican, vetoed the bill in an attempt to appeal to conservative voters as he faces reelection next year.
“I think he was trying to make up for moving more to the middle with his conservative base, but I think it’s going to hurt him among the Hispanic community, minorities and independents,” he said. “I think he’s going to lose those peoples during his reelection campaign because of this bill.”
Sen. Darren Soto (D-Orlando), the bill’s lead sponsor in the Senate, called Scott’s decision to veto the bill “a misguided move.” Soto told VOXXI he doesn’t understand why Scott vetoed the bill, considering it’s a policy the governor’s administration already has in place and also considering almost every Republican in the state legislature voted for it.
“This was a great opportunity for Gov. Scott to bury the hatchet after riding into office, pushing an anti-Hispanic and Arizona-style law which would’ve allowed police to stop people because they look undocumented,” Soto said.
The two legislators plan to send a letter to Scott, requesting a special session to reconsider the bill. If the governor denies their request, Bracy and Soto plan to reintroduce the bill next year.
“We’re not going to stop talking about this issue,” Bracy said. “We’re going to continue to bring it up so that folks remember it when it comes down to election time in 2014.”
Scott explains why he vetoed Florida driver’s licenses bill
Explaining why he vetoed the bill, Scott said he questioned the legality of the Obama administration’s deferred action policy for undocumented youth, which was announced last June.
“Although the Legislature may have been well intentioned in seeking to expedite the process to obtain a temporary driver’s license, it should not have been done by relying on a federal government policy adopted without legal basis,” he said in a statement.
Scott also noted that the deferred action policy for undocumented youth “was never passed by Congress, nor is it a promulgated rule.” Thus, he said the state of Florida “is best served by relying on current state law.”
“Already, Florida law allows those with a federal employment authorization card, without regard to their deferred action status, to obtain a temporary Florida driver license,” he stated.
Still, immigrant rights activists argue that approving the bill would’ve been “symbolic.”
“A lot of people in my state say the bill was unnecessary,” Gaby Pacheco, a 28-year-old Dreamer who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s immigration hearing in April, told VOXXI. “However, I think that it is necessary in order to show, one, that the state of Florida recognizes the benefits of having young people, who have been able to get this benefit, get a driver’s license. And two, to show how right now, in the whole mix of the immigration debate, they’re supportive.”
Veto favorable among conservatives, not many Latinos
Pacheco also said Scott’s decision to veto the bill could hurt him among Florida voters, many of whom support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, when he faces reelection next year.
“Not only are Latino voters going to remember it, but Dreamers and people like myself and other organizations, when he comes around seeking the support, we’re going to remind people that he did this,” she told VOXXI. “In the age of technology that we live in nowadays, you can’t just get away with it, so he won’t be able to get away with this.”
Meanwhile, Scott’s move to veto the bill is receiving support from Florida conservatives who favor tough policies to crack down on illegal immigration.
“Until now, his enforcement record has been a sham compared to his campaign promises,” Dave Caulkett, vice president of Floridians for Immigration Enforcement, told National Journal. “We’re very pleased that he’s realized that the students are not residing legally despite President Obama’s declaration to the contrary, and we appreciate the governor’s action.”
But garnering support from conservative voters might not be enough to help Scott win a second term. He will need the support of Latino voters, especially now that he has a low approval rating. A Quinnipiac University poll released in March shows his job approval rating is 36 percent and only 32 percent of Florida voters say he deserves a second term in office.
Soto said signing the bill into law would’ve helped Scott make inroads with Latino voters. Instead, he said the governor has sparked “a fire of protests” from Hispanics, Asians and other immigrant groups by choosing to veto the bill.
The House of Commons will vote on Bill C-60 this week. The changes Bill C-60 makes to the Financial Administration Act go against the spirit of the Canada Labour Code to support productive relationships between unions and management “in the best interests of Canada in ensuring a just share of the fruits of progress to all…” They stand to take away a fundamental freedom of Canadian democracy: the right to free collective bargaining.
The House of Commons will vote on Bill C-60 this week. A large group of Canadian union leaders, lawyers, journalists, activists and actors sent a petition, in the form of an “open letter” to PM Stephen Harper on Sunday, June 2, 2013 asking him to reconsider this draconian legislation.
This “open letter” reads as follows:
We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned about provisions in the omnibus budget Bill C-60 that allow for direct government involvement with negotiations between employees and their employers at 48 Crown corporations, including CBC, Canada Post and Via Rail.
The changes Bill C-60 makes to the Financial Administration Act go against the spirit of the Canada Labour Code to support productive relationships between unions and management “in the best interests of Canada in ensuring a just share of the fruits of progress to all…” They stand to take away a fundamental freedom of Canadian democracy: the right to free collective bargaining.
The government already exerts significant power over Crown Corporations, which are supposed to be at arm’s length, by appointing the presidents and board members.
The government intervention in Canada Post’s negotiations with employees in 2011 would become a permanent feature for all Crown Corporations. The new government powers would disrupt the relationships between Crown Corporations and their employees, which we believe will have negative consequences on Canadian society and the economy for years to come.
Furthermore, by participating directly in management decisions at CBC/Radio-Canada, the government could participate directly in discussions about news programming and assignments at the largest news organization in the country. This is a line that should not be crossed in a democratic country.
We believe this legislation will curb the rights of Canadian workers and employers to negotiate collectively for fair wages and working conditions.
We ask you to remove these unprecedented and unnecessary new powers over Crown Corporations from Bill C-60.
Nous, soussignés, sommes profondément préoccupés par les dispositions du projet de loi omnibus de mise en œuvre du budget (C-60) qui autorisent le gouvernement à intervenir directement dans les négociations entre les employés et leurs employeurs dans 49 sociétés d’État, dont Radio-Canada, Postes Canada et Via Rail.
Les modifications apportées par le projet de loi C-60 à la Loi sur la gestion des finances publiques vont à l’encontre de l’esprit du Code canadien du travail, soit de favoriser l’établissement de saines relations entre travailleurs et employeurs pour servir « l’intérêt véritable du Canada en assurant à tous une juste part des fruits du progrès. » Ces modifications portent atteinte à l’une des libertés fondamentales de la démocratie canadienne : le droit à la libre négociation collective.
Bien que les sociétés d’État soient censées être indépendantes du gouvernement, celui-ci dispose déjà de pouvoirs importants à leur égard puisqu’il nomme les personnes qui président ces sociétés et siègent à leurs conseils d’administration.
Si le projet de loi C-60 est adopté, l’ingérence du gouvernement dans les négociations de Postes Canada avec ses employés, en 2011, deviendra une caractéristique permanente pour toutes les sociétés d’État. Les nouveaux pouvoirs du gouvernement nuiront aux relations entre les sociétés d’État et leurs employés, ce qui aura, selon nous, des conséquences négatives sur la société et l’économie canadiennes durant de nombreuses années.
De plus, en participant directement aux décisions de la direction de Radio-Canada et de CBC, le gouvernement pourrait intervenir directement dans la programmation et les affectations du plus grand service de nouvelles au pays. Il s’agit d’une limite à ne pas franchir dans un pays démocratique.
Nous croyons que ce projet de loi restreindra le droit des travailleuses et travailleurs canadiens et de leurs employeurs à négocier collectivement des salaires et des conditions de travail équitables.
Nous vous demandons de retirer ces nouveaux pouvoirs sans précédent du projet de loi C-60.
Signatories on June 2, 2013 / Signataires le 2 juin 2013 :
Darin Barney, Canada Research Chair in Technology and Citizenship, McGill University
Dany Beaupré, professeur, École des médias, Université du Québec à Montréal
Jody Berland, Professor, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, York University, Editor of TOPIA: Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies
Jamie Biggar, Executive Director, LeadNow /À l’action
Denis Bolduc, secrétaire général, SCFP-Québec
Sophie Boulay, professeure, Département de lettres et communication sociale, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Daniel Boyer, secrétaire général, Fédération des travailleurs du Québec (FTQ)
Marian Bredin, Associate Professor, Communication, popular culture & film, Brock University
Colette Brin, professeure titulaire, Département d’information et de communication, Université Laval, présidente de l’Association canadienne de communication
Josette Brun, professeure agrégée, Département d’information et de communication, Université Laval
Alain Caron, président, Conseil provincial du secteur des communications, SCFP
Paul J. J. Cavalluzzo, O.Ont., LSM, constitutional and labour lawyer
Benoît Celestino, président national, Syndicat des technicien(ne)s et artisan(e)s du réseau français de Radio-Canada (STARF)
Raymond Corriveau, Ph.D., ex-président du Conseil de presse du Québec, professeur, Département de lettres et communication sociale, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Debra M. Clarke, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Trent University
James Compton, Associate Professor, Faculty of Information and Media Studies, University of Western Ontario
Natalie Coulter, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Communication, Faculty of Liberal Arts and Professional Studies, York University
Gilles Coutlée, professeur, École des médias, Université du Québec à Montréal
Michel Coutu, avocat et docteur en droit, professeur titulaire, École de relations industrielles, l’Université de Montréal
Christine Crowther, Doctoral Candidate, McGill University
Wendy Crewson, Actor
Kathleen Cross, Associate Professor, School of Communications, Simon Fraser University
Michael Curran, Doctoral Candidate, York University
Shirley Douglas OC, Actor
Ferne Downey, National President, ACTRA
Isabelle Doyon, présidente, Syndicat des employé(e)s de bureau et professionnel(le)s de Radio-Canada (SCFP 675)
Rebecca Draisey-Collishaw, Doctoral Candidate (ethnomusicology), Memorial University
Zoë Druick, Associate Professor, School of Communication, Simon Fraser University
Judith Dubois, professeure, École des médias, Université du Québec à Montréal
Michel Ducharme, président, Conseil régional FTQ Montréal métropolitain
Warren Edmonson, Past President, Canadian Industrial Relations Board / CCRI
Barbara M. Freeman, Assistant Professor, School of Journalism and Communication, Carleton University
Sarah Gadon, Actor
Éric George, professeur, École des médias, Université du Québec à Montréal, membre de la direction du centre de recherche GRICIS
Ken Georgetti, President, Canadian Labour Congress / Conseil du travail du Canada
Bill Gillespie, Journalist
Mirjam Gollmitzer, Doctoral Candidate, School of Communication, Simon Fraser University
Line Grenier, professeure agrégée, Département de communication, l’Université de Montréal
Judy Haiven, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Management, Saint Mary’s University
Larry Haiven, PhD, Professor, Sobey School of Business; Academic Director, Cooperative Management Education Programs, Saint Mary’s; ex-president, Canadian Industrial Relations Association
Bob Hanke, Contract Faculty, York University
Denis Harrisson, professeur titulaire, Département Organisation et Ressources humaines, École des sciences de la gestion, Université du Québec à Montréal
Aldona Jaworska, Master’s Student, Culture and Society, Faculty of Arts, University of Calgary
Dr Sandra Jeppesen, Assistant Professor, Interdisciplinary Studies, Media Studies, Lakehead University
Peter Keleghan, Actor
Stephen Kimber, Journalism Professor, University of King’s College, Halifax
Kirsten Kozolanka, Ph.D., Associate Professor, School of Journalism and Communication, Carleton University
Martin L’Abbé, directeur et professeur, École des médias, Université du Québec à Montréal
Sylvain Lafrance, professeur associé, HEC Montréal
Elisabeth Le, Ph.D., Professor, Modern Languages and Cultural Studies, University of Alberta
Denis Lemelin, président national, Syndicat des travailleurs et travailleuses des postes / CUPW
Alex Levasseur, président, Syndicat des communications de Radio-Canada (FNC-CSN)
Meredith Levine, Lecturer, Graduate Journalism Program, Western University
Iain Macpherson, Assistant Professor, Professional Communication, MacEwan University
Isabelle Mahy, Ph.D., professeure, Département de communication sociale et publique, Université du Québec à Montréal
Dr. Patricia Mazepa, Associate Professor, Department of Communication Studies, York University
Daniel McCafferty, Assistant Professor, Department of Art and Art History, Wayne State University
Mary C. Milliken, Ph.D. Candidate, Sociology, University of New Brunswick
Ian Morrison, Friends of Canadian Broadcasting
Garry Neil, Executive Director, Council of Canadians / Conseil des Canadiens
Manon Niquette Ph. D., professeure titulaire, Département d’information et de communication, Université Laval
Martin O’Hanlon, Director, CWA/SCA Canada
Daniel Paré, professeur agrégé en communication, Université d’Ottawa
Jean-Claude Parrot, Président national, Syndicat des Postiers (1977-1992)
Marcelina Piotrowski, Ph.D. Student, Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia
Diane Poitras, professeure, École des médias, Université du Québec à Montréal
Stuart R. Poyntz, Ph.D., President, Association for Research in Cultures of Young People (ARCYP), Assistant Professor, School of Communication, Simon Fraser University
Serge Proulx, professeur, École des médias, Université du Québec à Montréal
Yanick Proulx, président, Conseil régional FTQ, Bas-St-Laurent, Gaspésie, Îles de la Madeleine
Leslie Regan Shade, Associate Professor, Faculty of Information, University of Toronto
Margot Ricard, professeure, École des médias, Université du Québec à Montréal
Amra Ridjanovic, chargée d’enseignement en communication, Université Laval
Pierre Roger, président, Fédération nationale des communications (CSN)
Dr. Phil Rose, Department of Communication Studies, Faculty of Liberal Arts and Professional Studies, York University
Jean-Hugues Roy, professeur, École des médias, Université du Québec à Montréal
Dr. Philip Savage, Department of Communications and Multimedia, McMaster University
Leslie A. Schous, présidente nationale, CPAA-ACMPA
David Skinner, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Communication, York University
George C.B. Smith, Fellow, School of Policy Studies, and Adjunct Professor of Industrial Relations, Queen’s University
Carmel Smyth, National President, Canadian Media Guild /Guilde canadienne des médias
Tyler Sommers, Co-ordinator, Democracy Watch / Démocratie en surveillance
Susan Swan, Author and a former president of the Writers Union of Canada
Diana Trusz, ReimagineCBC.ca
Francisco F. Villanueva, LL.D., M.A., professeur, Département d’organisation et ressources humaines, École des Sciences de la Gestion, Université du Québec à Montréal
Sara Vissers, Ph.D., Centre for the Study of Democratic Citizenship, Department of Political Science, McGill University
Dwayne Winseck, Professor, School of Journalism and Communication, Carleton University
Lauren Zabel, Master’s Student in Communication, University of Calgary
Michael Zryd, Associate Professor, Graduate program in Communication & Culture, York University