Premier Doug Ford's Ontario

[Thinker]

When we heavily protested the council cutbacks, nothing happened and it was full steam ahead.
Now Doug bowed to Tory's pressure? These cuts also affected the cities outside the GTA and rural health communities. Could it be cabinet members and the Provincial Conservative Party are waking up and have been aware of the negative feedback?

Well then I suspect the discontent has begun and cabinet members really don't want to deal with angry voters.

 

[Tuscani01]

When we heavily protested the council cutbacks, nothing happened and it was full steam ahead.
Now Doug bowed to Tory's pressure? These cuts also affected the cities outside the GTA and rural health communities. Could it be cabinet members and the Provincial Conservative Party are waking up and have been aware of the negative feedback?

Well then I suspect the discontent has begun and cabinet members really don't want to deal with angry voters.

No, the only reason they are walking back on this is likely because Scheer and his team are panicking over the response to these cuts, so close to the upcoming Federal election. It just means the billions in cuts that are expected in the next budgets will be even greater.

 

[tiffer24]

A reminder that Ford has another 36 months to chop at least another $6 billion from the Ontario budget...

This morning, Premier Doug Ford says “every single mayor” he talked to said they could easily find savings, but they needed “more runway.” He came to conclusion that “there’s savings, but they need more time.”

 

[Videodrome]

Doug Ford isn't present for question period. Looks like his clapping seals will make up the excuses.

 

[tiffer24]

The government did not disclose the cost of tearing up the contract...

Premier Doug Ford’s government will legislate an end to the 10-year Master Framework Agreement with the Beer Store this afternoon to expand sales to corner stores. Government says they are not worried about potential $1B in penalties for breaking the contract.

 

[Northern Light]

The government did not disclose the cost of tearing up the contract...

Premier Doug Ford’s government will legislate an end to the 10-year Master Framework Agreement with the Beer Store this afternoon to expand sales to corner stores. Government says they are not worried about potential $1B in penalties for breaking the contract.

The Bill is here:

Bringing Choice and Fairness to the People Act (Beverage Alcohol Retail Sales), 2019

Bill 115 from Parliament 42 Session 1 of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario: Bringing Choice and Fairness to the People Act (Beverage Alcohol Retail Sales), 2019.

www.ola.org

They are moving to terminate any right to compensation, reimbursement/restitution etc. for The Beer Store or its owners.

The follows are passages from the bill:


Consequences of termination

No cause of action

12 (1) No cause of action arises as a direct or indirect result of,

(a) the enactment, operation, administration or repeal of any provision of sections 11 to 13;

(b) the termination of the Master Framework Agreement either by subsection 11 (1) or in accordance with its terms; and

(c) any representation or other conduct that is related, directly or indirectly, to the Master Framework Agreement.

No expropriation

(2) Nothing referred to in subsection (1) constitutes expropriation or injurious affection for the purposes of the Expropriations Act or otherwise at law.

No remedy

(3) No costs, compensation or damages are owing or payable to any person and no remedy, including but not limited to a remedy in contract, restitution, unjust enrichment or tort, or for misfeasance, bad faith, breach of trust or fiduciary obligation or any equitable remedy or any remedy under any statute, is available to any person in relation to anything referred to in subsection (1).
Same

(4) Without limiting the generality of subsection (3), no costs, compensation or damages are owing or payable for any past, present or future losses or expenses in relation to anything referred to in subsection (1).

No proceeding

(5) No proceeding, including but not limited to any proceeding for a remedy in contract, restitution, unjust enrichment or tort, or for misfeasance, bad faith, breach of trust or fiduciary obligation or any equitable remedy, including but not limited to specific performance, injunction or declaratory relief, or any remedy under any statute, may be brought or maintained for compensation for any past, present or future losses or expenses in relation to anything referred to in subsection (1), including any proceeding to enforce a judgment or order made by a court or tribunal outside of Canada.

Same

(6) Subsection (5) applies regardless of whether the cause of action on which the proceeding is purportedly based arose before, on or after the day section 2 of the Bringing Choice and Fairness to the People Act (Beverage Alcohol Retail Sales), 2019 comes into force.

Proceedings set aside

(7) Any proceeding referred to in subsection (5) commenced before the day section 2 of the Bringing Choice and Fairness to the People Act (Beverage Alcohol Retail Sales), 2019 comes into force is deemed to have been dismissed, without costs, on the day that section comes into force and any decision in a proceeding referred to in subsection (5) is of no effect.

***

So far as my understanding goes, this bill is constitutionally sound.

 

[jje1000]

Interesting, I wonder if the Beer Store and its owners will take it up in court regardless.

 

[Thinker]

The Bill is here:

Bringing Choice and Fairness to the People Act (Beverage Alcohol Retail Sales), 2019

Bill 115 from Parliament 42 Session 1 of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario: Bringing Choice and Fairness to the People Act (Beverage Alcohol Retail Sales), 2019.

www.ola.org

They are moving to terminate any right to compensation, reimbursement/restitution etc. for The Beer Store or its owners.

The follows are passages from the bill:


Consequences of termination

No cause of action

12 (1) No cause of action arises as a direct or indirect result of,

(a) the enactment, operation, administration or repeal of any provision of sections 11 to 13;

(b) the termination of the Master Framework Agreement either by subsection 11 (1) or in accordance with its terms; and

(c) any representation or other conduct that is related, directly or indirectly, to the Master Framework Agreement.

No expropriation

(2) Nothing referred to in subsection (1) constitutes expropriation or injurious affection for the purposes of the Expropriations Act or otherwise at law.

No remedy

(3) No costs, compensation or damages are owing or payable to any person and no remedy, including but not limited to a remedy in contract, restitution, unjust enrichment or tort, or for misfeasance, bad faith, breach of trust or fiduciary obligation or any equitable remedy or any remedy under any statute, is available to any person in relation to anything referred to in subsection (1).
Same

(4) Without limiting the generality of subsection (3), no costs, compensation or damages are owing or payable for any past, present or future losses or expenses in relation to anything referred to in subsection (1).

No proceeding

(5) No proceeding, including but not limited to any proceeding for a remedy in contract, restitution, unjust enrichment or tort, or for misfeasance, bad faith, breach of trust or fiduciary obligation or any equitable remedy, including but not limited to specific performance, injunction or declaratory relief, or any remedy under any statute, may be brought or maintained for compensation for any past, present or future losses or expenses in relation to anything referred to in subsection (1), including any proceeding to enforce a judgment or order made by a court or tribunal outside of Canada.

Same

(6) Subsection (5) applies regardless of whether the cause of action on which the proceeding is purportedly based arose before, on or after the day section 2 of the Bringing Choice and Fairness to the People Act (Beverage Alcohol Retail Sales), 2019 comes into force.

Proceedings set aside

(7) Any proceeding referred to in subsection (5) commenced before the day section 2 of the Bringing Choice and Fairness to the People Act (Beverage Alcohol Retail Sales), 2019 comes into force is deemed to have been dismissed, without costs, on the day that section comes into force and any decision in a proceeding referred to in subsection (5) is of no effect.

***

So far as my understanding goes, this bill is constitutionally sound.

Interesting, I wonder if the Beer Store and its owners will take it up in court regardless.

Of course they will, You can pass the bill cancelling any contract and make it "constitutionally sound" insert any clause that cancels penalties etc. It will not prevent the Brewers from taking the Govt. to court. Ultimately tax payers will pay the price, court costs and penalties will be passed on to the consumers.

 

[Northern Light]

Of course they will, You can pass the bill cancelling any contract and make it "constitutionally sound" insert any clause that cancels penalties etc. It will not prevent the Brewers from taking the Govt. to court. Ultimately tax payers will pay the price, court costs and penalties will be passed on to the consumers.

This is not correct, to my understanding.

The law expressly dismisses any court action.

The law falls within parliamentary/crown powers.

There are no property rights in the constitution.

Perhaps you have an insight I lack?

But I believe the consequence here is not the $ from the Beer Store, its business that may be concerned about the validity of contracts with the province of Ontario.

From this Globe and Mail article:

Ontario government introduces legislation terminating deal with Beer Store

The bill comes after weeks of talks and amid a public-relations battle between the government and the Beer Store over Premier Doug Ford’s pledge to allow beer and wine in corner stores, more grocery outlets and big-box retailers.

www.theglobeandmail.com

But constitutional law experts say it is impossible to bind a provincial government in such an agreement, as it retains its power to simply pass a law declaring any such contract void and eliminating the need to pay any compensation – a move some critics warned would chill other businesses seeking to work with the government.

 

[JGHali]

This is not correct, to my understanding.

The law expressly dismisses any court action.

The law falls within parliamentary/crown powers.

There are no property rights in the constitution.

Perhaps you have an insight I lack?

But I believe the consequence here is not the $ from the Beer Store, its business that may be concerned about the validity of contracts with the province of Ontario.

The law cannot ever "dismiss" court action and it is in the discretion of the independent judiciary to evaluate any Act of Parliament of provincial legislature.

 

[lenaitch]

I am the farthest thing from a legal or constitutional expert, but it would an interesting fight if the corporation decides to initiate an action. I would imagine it would argue that it is a denial of fundamental justice to be prevented from seeking redress from a harm imposed by the Crown. Whether it would be successful is anybody's guess.
The concept that the Crown can shield itself from inflicting harm has far reaching implications.

 

[Thinker]

This is not correct, to my understanding.

The law expressly dismisses any court action.

The law falls within parliamentary/crown powers.

There are no property rights in the constitution.

Perhaps you have an insight I lack?

But I believe the consequence here is not the $ from the Beer Store, its business that may not be concerned about the validity of contracts with Ontario.

From this Globe and Mail article:

Ontario government introduces legislation terminating deal with Beer Store

The bill comes after weeks of talks and amid a public-relations battle between the government and the Beer Store over Premier Doug Ford’s pledge to allow beer and wine in corner stores, more grocery outlets and big-box retailers.

www.theglobeandmail.com

But constitutional law experts say it is impossible to bind a provincial government in such an agreement, as it retains its power to simply pass a law declaring any such contract void and eliminating the need to pay any compensation – a move some critics warned would chill other businesses seeking to work with the government.

No, this time no solid "inside information" But according to a corporate law acquaintance, the law can be challenged in court as the previous government had adhered to the contract and had not lodged any objections to the terms since it was signed. I totally agree this cancellation crap is not conducive to pursuing any business deals involving the government. But, then Doug has many big business friends willing to take a risk and submitting a bid.

 

[BurlOak]

No, this time no solid "inside information" But according to a corporate law acquaintance, the law can be challenged in court as the previous government had adhered to the contract and had not lodged any objections to the terms since it was signed. I totally agree this cancellation crap is not conducive to pursuing any business deals involving the government. But, then Doug has many big business friends willing to take a risk and submitting a bid.

I remember the lawyer on WKRP said; "we are not talking about right and wrong, we're talking the law".
I believe the Liberals took away teacher sick days without compensation. I don't recall if it was challenged in court, or what the result was.

 

[Videodrome]

If Christine Elliott had won leadership and the election, how do you think things would be? I know I would have voted PC and given them a chance,

 

[Admiral Beez]

If Christine Elliott had won leadership and the election, how do you think things would be?

IDK Elliot’s potential, but she can’t be worse.