News   Dec 02, 2024
 373     0 
News   Dec 02, 2024
 499     0 
News   Nov 29, 2024
 3.1K     5 

Premier Doug Ford's Ontario

Court Declares Ontario Government Broke the Law

From link.

The Ontario Divisional Court has determined that the Government of Ontario broke the law when it failed to comply with the public consultation requirements of Ontario's Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR). Specifically, in a decision released on September 3, 2021, it declared that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing acted "unreasonably and unlawfully" in failing to consult with the public on changes to the Planning Act regarding Minister's Zoning Orders (MZOs).

"As Environmental Commissioner of Ontario for 15 years, I am heartened to see the Court uphold the rights of people to participate in government decision-making affecting the environment" says Gord Miller, Chair of Earthroots. "The Court's declaration is clear – the Government of Ontario broke the law in violating those rights."

"The Environmental Bill of Rights provides very significant tools for the people of Ontario to know about, and participate in, decisions that affect their environment. Complying with the Ontario EBR is not 'optional,'" adds Theresa McClenaghan, Executive Director of the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA). "In this decision, the Divisional Court has reaffirmed the requirement for the Ontario government to ensure those rights are provided to the public."

In August 2020, after the passage of Ontario's controversial Bill 197, a legal challenge against the legislation was launched by: Earthroots, Ontario Nature, CELA, Cooper Price (a 17-year-old activist) and Michel Koostachin (who was born and raised in Attawapiskat).

"This judgement is a win for the involvement of young people in the political process. Our leaders must start listening to our voices when legislating our future," says Cooper Price.

Represented by Joseph Castrilli, Richard Lindgren and David Estrin of CELA, the parties to the lawsuit alleged that Bill 197 was enacted in a manner that failed to comply with the public notice and comment requirements of the EBR. The court agreed that the Minister should have consulted the public on the MZO amendments, given their potentially significant environmental impact.

The court also noted that prior to the passing of Bill 197, the Auditor General of Ontario had informed the Minister that the public should be consulted on the MZO amendments, because of their environmental significance. But the Minister failed to do so.

"The government chose to expand its powers to issue MZOs without the required public consultation, even after a warning from the Auditor General. Such blatant disrespect for the law by our own government must not be taken lightly," says Dr. Anne Bell, Ontario Nature's Director of Conservation and Education. "Thankfully the court has declared the government's actions unlawful."

Regarding changes to the Environmental Assessment Act enacted through Bill 197, the Court found that the changes were lawful because Bill 197 included a "statutory exception" which retroactively exempted the changes from the consultation requirements of the EBR. The Court indicated that there is no prohibition against retroactive legislation in Canada, except in criminal law.
im-shocked-shocked-i-tell-you.jpg
From link.
 

Residents outraged as province demolishes Sandbanks Park heritage homes against municipality’s wishes

From link.

_1_heritage_home.jpg

The mayor of Prince Edward County wrote letters. Heritage advocates hired a lawyer. But it wasn’t enough to stop the demolition Thursday of two historic homes that have stood abandoned for decades at Sandbanks Provincial Park.

The demolition that took residents by surprise is drawing comparisons to the Ontario government’s attempt to demolish the Dominion Foundry buildings in Toronto earlier this year and its plan to expropriate the First Parliament site where Upper Canada’s first parliament buildings stood.

Peter Lockyer, part of the Prince Edward County group that tried to persuade Ontario Parks to save and repurpose the houses, rushed out to photograph the destruction when he heard the wrecking crew had moved on the park.

“They started with the MacDonald building, destroying it enough so it is beyond repair. Then they moved onto the Hyatt house and it’s now levelled,” he wrote in an email to the Star.

The houses that date back to the 1860s and 1870s were originally farm houses the owners turned into hospitality enterprises, pioneering the tourism industry on that part of Lake Ontario about two and a half hours east of Toronto.

“The local people are very attached to these buildings. Some of their first jobs were serving in those restaurants,” said Liz Driver, a spokesperson for Save Heritage Sandbanks Homes.

“From the outside they look a little shabby but they’re actually brick buildings on limestone foundations. They are perfectly restorable. We are perplexed the province can’t see the potential for adaptive reuse,” she said on Wednesday, before learning of the Thursday demolition.

The Ontario government says the homes posed a health and safety risk. They had no significant heritage value with the exception of a hog shed that will be preserved, Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks David Piccini wrote to Prince Edward County Mayor Steve Ferguson.

Piccini’s letter says there were only five comments posted to a website the province set up to solicit public input.

“No private entities have stepped forward with funding and a comprehensive plan and/or business case. Even if private funding was secured for the renovation of both houses, Ontario Parks would still incur annual costs. Given the findings in the studies, it would (be) inappropriate to use taxpayer dollars for this purpose,” the minister wrote.

Charts from government consultants, Letourneau Heritage, said that, while the MacDonald farm structures are important in defining the character of the area, “they are not landmarks.”

On Thursday, the minister’s spokesperson, Andrew Kennedy, said the demolition of both houses was completed as scheduled.

County residents say the government’s consultants downplayed the heritage value of the homes and Ontario Parks made no effort to speak directly to them.

“You’d have to be a cyber sleuth to have found their website,” said Lockyer.

Toronto heritage architect Philip Evans approached the ministry last year with a proposal to solicit private developers, who would renovate the properties and operate them in the park for a 50-year lease period. He said the site would have worked well as a satellite for Prince Edward County’s boutique hotels or offerings in Sandbanks itself much like yurts or other “glamping” experiences. He estimated it would cost about $400,000 to $500,000 to renovate each of the houses.

“A 50-year lease gives the investor time to retrieve their investment and make something of the effort. The models are there. We see them every day,” said Evans.

He called the Sandbanks properties “a missed opportunity that could have been a win for everyone.”

Ferguson said he was disappointed to learn of the demolition. “County council had joined calls encouraging the ministry to seek innovative options for preservation as an alternative to demolition,” said the mayor.

The Toronto lawyer representing Save Heritage Sandbanks Homes said the government was aware last Friday that a court application was being filed to stop the demolition.

In a previous court application that was later withdrawn, the government had told an Ontario Divisional Court that no demolition was going to take place until Sept. 15 and yet on Sept. 9 the demolition occurred, said Eric Gillespie.

But Piccini’s spokesperson said the Sept. 15 court hearing date no longer applied because the initial court application was withdrawn.

“Once that case was withdrawn, the date was vacated by the courts and does not have any bearing on today’s demolition date,” said Kennedy.

Gillespie said it’s not yet clear what the residents’ next steps will be. Whatever happens, he said, “There still appears to be a real need to address the underlying problem, which is the government’s failure to follow their own legislation, not only in Prince Edward County, but elsewhere.

“They were taken to task about the Foundry buildings here in Toronto. That was also an example of the government not following their own rules around these type of situations,” he said.

“What the legislation says is we don’t pick and choose once a property has heritage value, we try to preserve it. Once a property is a heritage property it inherently has great value and the government recognized that many years ago by saying demolition is the very last resort for any heritage property,” said Gillespie.

Driver said Prince Edward County “is overwhelmed with development applications because so many people can see the potential of turning old barns and old churches into fabulous places for people to experience. If the private sector can do these wonderful things with old buildings, let us help the public sector.”
 
Disappointed, but not surprised.

When I visited Sandbanks in 2017, I thought that the Hyatt House was a shabby (but still occupied) house. Only found out it wasn't upon a Google Search of the site after reading this.

I'm more dissapointed; Sandbanks is one of Ontario Park's top 5 visited parks, surely they could hand over some budget for maintaining it. If you really think about it, they would probably lose less money charging people to enter for food or whatever, than it did to demolish it.

So typical Doug Ford-era Ontario gov't move.
 

Will vaccine mandates make health-care workers and teachers quit? That might be the wrong question

From link.
In less than two weeks, the unvaccinated workers who care for 95-year-old Wanda Oko in her Toronto nursing home won’t be allowed to dine in a restaurant or go to the movies. But their jobs with vulnerable residents will continue uninterrupted, an alarming contradiction for families who watched COVID-19 rampage through the home once before.

Only 64 per cent of staff at Oko’s home are fully immunized against COVID-19, despite an education campaign and an outbreak last year in which 22 residents died. Though Oko and 98 per cent of Ontario long-term-care residents are vaccinated, recent outbreaks have shown the risk of breakthrough infections for seniors and people with underlying medical conditions.

“It feels like we’re a ticking time bomb,” said Mary Oko, Wanda’s daughter.

The provincial government is facing growing criticism for its decision to impose mandates on non-essential spaces but not health-care facilities and schools, a move critics say represents a failure to protect vulnerable people. As of Sept. 22, unvaccinated individuals won’t be allowed in casinos and bingo halls, but they can still work in emergency departments or cancer treatment centres. They can’t enter strip clubs or concert halls, but they can teach a classroom full of elementary schoolchildren who are ineligible for vaccination.

The Ontario government has repeatedly cited concerns about workplace mandates triggering labour shortages, especially in the health-care sector, but many believe the issue is political, and that potential staff losses are a secondary concern to the damage that could be caused by further outbreaks and the burden of a prolonged pandemic.

The policy stands in contrast to provinces like Quebec, which is requiring all health-care staff get vaccinated by October, and B.C., which has mandated vaccines for long-term-care staff and signalled that a broader health-care mandate coming. And it puts the onus on employers to mandate their own policies, a challenge for smaller operations that fear legal action or being targeted by protesters.

On Friday, Copernicus Lodge, the not-for-profit nursing home where Wanda Oko has lived through three waves of COVID-19, took the extraordinary step of announcing its own vaccination mandate requiring all workers to receive a first dose by Oct. 4 and be fully immunized by Nov. 4, or face a temporary unpaid leave of absence or suspension of privileges — a move that few smaller long-term-care homes have been willing or able to make.

“I commend them for doing this to best protect their residents and staff, but I think it’s highly unfortunate that individual LTC homes are needing to assume risk of legal action,” said Dr. Nathan Stall, a Toronto geriatrician. “Many smaller homes may not be able to afford to do this. The government needs to lead here.”

In a statement, Copernicus said the mandate was a necessary and reasonable move: “It is our duty to care for and protect our residents and tenants who are at greater risk of health complications, hospitalizations and death due to COVID-19.”

With 36 per cent of the home’s staff currently unvaccinated, the possibility of losing workers was a consideration, but Copernicus runs the risk of staff losses with or without an immunization requirement, the statement said. “A vaccine mandate means staff may leave. However, if they become ill, that would make us vulnerable to staff loss.”
 
Mary Oko was grateful to hear the news about her mother’s home, but remains frightened for the fall. “We won’t achieve full vaccination until November, and we’re in wave four. There’s no guarantee we’re going to come out of this without more needless deaths,” she said.

“Copernicus shouldn’t have had to make this move on their own. It should not be a patchwork of different policies. The government needs to show true leadership.”

Colleen Flood, research chair in law and health policy at the University of Ottawa, said that at this point in the pandemic, “there’s really no excuse not to have a vaccine requirement,” to protect vulnerable people.

“Normally, what we would want to do is educate, cajole, do whatever we can to get people there without having to have a mandate,” Flood said. “But we’re starting a fourth wave and it’s a very dangerous time.”

In February, Flood and colleagues delivered advice on vaccine mandates in a policy analysis published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal: “Provincial and territorial governments should set clear rules for vaccination of healthcare workers across public and private settings and not leave this task to individual employers.”

Flood said a provincewide vaccination mandate would reduce the overall burden of COVID-19 on the health system, protect individual employers from legal challenges and ensure rules are consistent with the best public health evidence.

Almost 78 per cent of eligible Ontarians have now received two doses of the vaccine, but health officials say that level won’t be enough to slow rising case counts in a fourth wave largely driven by the unvaccinated. Dr. Kieran Moore, Ontario’s chief medical officer of health, has said we must aim to surpass 90 per cent.

Instead of a vaccine mandate, Premier Doug Ford’s government in August imposed a policy requiring health-care and education workers who choose not to be vaccinated to complete an education module and agree to regular testing.

Moore described that policy as the “bare minimum” that must be done to protect vulnerable people in high-risk settings, and said he supported individual hospitals and workplaces that had gone further.

The provincial government and some organizations opposed to vaccine mandates have cited concerns about potential labour shortages sparked by workers choosing to quit rather than get vaccinated.

Stall, the Toronto geriatrician, said concerns about staff attrition are worth considering, but should come secondary to protecting the health and wellbeing of older people, immunocompromised individuals and schoolchildren too young to be vaccinated.

“I really believe that we have a moral obligation to be using the strongest available tools to protect this population,” said Stall, who is running as a Liberal candidate for Toronto-St. Paul’s in the June provincial election. “We shouldn’t be imposing policies that are the bare minimum.”

Research on the impact of vaccine mandates is limited, but two studies suggest fears of mass staff losses may be unfounded.

A 2014 systematic review published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine examined 12 studies on influenza vaccine mandates in the U.S. and concluded that making immunization a condition of employment led to vaccine rates above 94 per cent with very rare occurrence of termination or voluntary resignations.

An August 2021 study examining the impact of a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy in one U.S. nursing home found that it resulted in “high staff vaccination rates and minimal staff turnover.” Ninety per cent of workers complied, while seven per cent — 18 staff members — chose to resign.

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Health did not respond directly to questions about what research the government has considered regarding the labour shortage concern. Instead, the spokesperson pointed the Star to comments made by Michael Hurley, president of CUPE’s Ontario Council of Hospital Unions, in an Ottawa Citizen story. Hurley praised the government’s plan and noted that a hospital in Texas lost almost five per cent of its staff over a vaccine requirement.

A growing number of hospitals across Ontario have imposed mandates that require vaccination as a condition of employment, with penalties ranging from unpaid leaves to termination: the University Health Network, which includes Toronto General, Toronto Western and Princess Margaret hospitals; the Hospital for Sick Children; the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health; Unity Health; Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital; the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario; and more. Deadlines at most hospitals are in October.

“To date, we have not seen any increased attrition related to our COVID-19 vaccination policy,” said Sick Kids spokesperson Sarah Warr. “We will continue to work with staff to ensure they receive the answers and support they need to make their decision.”

“We have not seen any indication that the policy will impact staffing levels at Holland Bloorview,” said Julia Hanigsberg, the hospital’s president and CEO, in a statement. The policy “was not our first choice, nor was it an easy one to make,” she said.

Sick Kids and Bloorview noted that 70 and 71 per cent, respectively, of the patients they serve are under 12 and not yet eligible for vaccination.

Gillian Howard, a spokesperson for UHN, said it’s too early to tell what impact their policy may have on staffing, “beyond saying that it is the right thing to do for patients and our staff and that we are currently at 95 per cent vaccinated,” with a goal of reaching 100 per cent.

“A provincial mandate would help,” Howard added, “but there is much progress being made without that mandate.”

Flood said Ontario may lose more health-care workers to burnout than vaccination mandates. “Health-care professionals are exhausted and tired. If we don’t control this fourth wave, I think we face a much higher risk of our health-care professionals as a whole getting burnt out, vaccinated or not.”

Dr. Michael Warner, medical director of critical care at Michael Garron Hospital, said he doesn’t expect vaccine mandates to lead to staff shortages, “especially if all health-care organizations have the same policy.” He believes the risk of losing staff to COVID-19 infections is a bigger concern.

“The more unvaccinated health-care workers you have, the more likely it is that they will get infected. There’s already a shortage of health-care workers. The system cannot tolerate large groups of health-care workers being off work for 14 days or longer as they quarantine (and) recover from illness.”

In late August, five major for-profit long-term-care home operators, including Chartwell, Extendicare and Revera, together announced their intention to require that staff be fully vaccinated by October or face an unpaid leave of absence. But many smaller homes cannot afford to take on potential legal action that may ensue without legislation. AdvantAge Ontario, which represents not-for-profit and municipal homes in Ontario, has called on the provincial government to mandate vaccinations across the health-care sector to “level the playing field” and avoid staffing instability.

Summer outbreaks in nursing homes with low staff vaccination rates have been triggering for long-term-care residents and their family members, who remain traumatized from the fear, uncertainty and isolation they have experienced during the pandemic.

Two residents died in an August COVID-19 outbreak at Labdara Lithuanian Nursing Home in Etobicoke, leaving some families fuming about the home’s low staff vaccination rate: only 51 per cent of Labdara workers had received a single dose by Aug. 19, the home acknowledged in a letter to families, far below the provincial average of 91 per cent with two doses.

The home’s board of directors blamed the government. “Labdara cannot force staff to get vaccinated,” the board wrote in a letter posted on the home’s website, noting that management had done everything it could to increase vaccination rates. “You are encouraged to write and direct any anger or frustration towards government officials who have failed to protect the residents of long-term care homes by not mandating COVID-19 vaccination for healthcare workers.”

Last week, two residents died in a COVID-19 outbreak at an Oshawa long-term-care home, Hillsdale Estates, where 95 per cent of residents and 83 per cent of employees were fully vaccinated.

That outbreak worries Mary Oko because Hillsdale’s staff vaccination rate, while below the provincial average of 91 per cent, is much higher than the current rate at her mother’s home.

Oko’s mother, who loves to sing Polish folk songs and rode a bicycle well into her 70s, has been fortunate not to contract the virus, but Oko fears the impact of the fourth wave, both on her mom and on her own mental health.

For Oko, who works as an accountant, leads the Copernicus family council, advocates for long-term-care residents and staff, and visits her mother several times a week, it has been a long 18 months.

“If we have another outbreak, I know, probably, that I’m going to lose it mentally.”
 

Doug Ford's government has lost more than a dozen court cases. Here's a list

From link.
Premier Doug Ford's government lost yet another court case this week. It has become a bit of a trend.

Since taking office in 2018, Ontario's Progressive Conservative government has fought and failed in a succession of high-profile lawsuits. Most of the cases have involved legal challenges against new policies or legislation.

The most recent courtroom loss: an Ontario Divisional Court ruling that the government violated the province's Environmental Bill of Rights with a piece of COVID-19 recovery legislation.

Why is the government losing court cases with such frequency?

One theory comes from Michael Bryant, executive director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, a former attorney general of Ontario in Dalton McGuinty's Liberal government.

Bryant says public interest groups nationwide are showing a greater willingness to defy Canada's tendency to not be litigious.

"It's a legitimate means to access our constitution, to go to the courts, and we're doing it more than ever," Bryant said in an interview.

He also believes the Ford government is giving groups in Ontario plenty of ammunition for court battles by bringing forward "a lot of unconstitutional legislation, and I don't mean that flippantly."

Bryant says aligning legislation with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms "is less important to this government."

Ford's Attorney General Doug Downey declined a CBC News request for an interview to respond to the claims, but in a statement his press secretary said the Ontario government is involved in thousands of lawsuits each year.

"Cherry picking 14 cases out of these many thousands may seem convenient for opposition members, but it shows how little they understand about the actual business of governing on behalf of Ontarians," said Natasha Krstajic in the statement.

1. Carbon pricing​


Arguably the highest profile loss for the Ford government was a case launched by the government itself: Ontario's Charter challenge of the federal Liberals' carbon pricing program. Ford campaigned on a promise to fight what he called the carbon tax, and budgeted $30 million in taxpayer funds for the court battle.

Ontario lost at every judicial level. In March, the Supreme Court brought an end to the legal challenges by ruling 6-3 that the Trudeau government's carbon pricing regime is constitutional.

2. Election finance rules​


In June, an Ontario Superior Court judge struck down new restrictions on election campaign spending by what the province calls "third parties" (interest groups that are not political parties, such as unions or corporate-funded lobbies). Within days of the ruling, Ford recalled the Legislature for an emergency sitting to push through a bill overriding the court's decision through the use of the Charter's notwithstanding clause.

3. Ministerial Zoning Orders​


In a decision released on Sept. 8, a three-judge panel of Ontario's Superior Court found the government acted "unreasonably and unlawfully" by failing to consult the public in advance of enacting Bill 197, the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act.

The legislation changes the rules for Ministerial Zoning Orders, which are used to fast-track land development projects. The judges said the minister of municipal affairs was bound by the Environmental Bill of Rights to consult Ontarians before making the changes.

"There's a theme here, clearly," said Gurratan Singh, the NDP attorney general critic, in an interview this week. "Doug Ford will do whatever it takes to keep his big developer friends or big business friends happy, despite the cost it is to the public or despite how legal it is."

4. Cap and trade​


In a similar finding in October 2019, an Ontario Divisional Court panel found the Ford government broke the law when it scrapped the previous Liberal government's cap-and-trade system without first conducting public consultation. The decision was effectively moot because the ruling did not force the province to reinstate the program, which used financial incentives to force companies to reduce carbon emissions. The case was brought by the environmental group Greenpeace.

5. Gas pump stickers​


The Ontario Superior Court struck down the Ford government's policy that forced gas stations to post stickers vilifying the federal Liberal government's carbon tax.

In a September 2020 ruling, Justice Edward M. Morgan said the government cannot legislate a requirement that private retailers post material designed to campaign against a political party or another level of government.

6. Cabinet mandate letters​


The Ford government is pursuing a three-year legal battle to keep secret the premier's mandate letters to his cabinet ministers. The letters lay out a checklist of expectations for each of minister, and the government first refused in August 2018 to release them in response to a request by CBC News.

In an adjudication decision in 2019, Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered the government to release the documents. The government then asked Ontario's Divisional Court to overturn the decision, but lost that case too in 2020, and was ordered to pay the CBC $17,000 in legal costs.

The government then took the matter to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The case was heard in August and it's not yet known when the judges will render their decision.

7. Student fees opt-out​


The government's Student Choice Initiative, announced in January 2019, would have allowed post-secondary students to opt out of paying fees for services deemed "non-essential," such as funding for student unions and campus newspapers.

Successive court rulings went against the government, most recently in August by the province's top court. The measure targeting fees for student associations was "a profound interference in university autonomy," said the decision by a three-judge panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The court also ordered the government to pay $20,000 in legal costs to the Canadian Federation of Students.

... there's more. See the link.
 
It's exactly the same as when he was a city Councilor. The irresponsible oaf treats these positions as if they're hobbies, not as if they're full-time jobs, and important jobs at that. There's always been a "dog-ate-my-homework" quality to Ford's tenure in politics, and it would be weird to see him continue this while he's the fricking Premiere for Chrissakes - which is likely and hopefully the highest he's ever going to climb - if it weren't so typical and predictable. I think we all pretty much knew he'd 'govern' like this.

Add to this the laws broken, the cronyism, the personal mendacity and sleaze, the constant - one might say endless - flip-flops, reversals and back-trackings, and the lack of any real leadership - his refusal to even try to reign in the anti-Vaxxer nuts as they protest in front of hospitals being the latest and most obvious example - and we have quite the legacy of failure.
 
If a business owner, or their staff, is feeling physically threatened, I would say that 911 is appropriate. I know of one teenaged restaurant host locally who was threatened with violence. It will be a judgment call for sure, but there may well be times when immediate assistance is required.
 
If a business owner, or their staff, is feeling physically threatened, I would say that 911 is appropriate. I know of one teenaged restaurant host locally who was threatened with violence. It will be a judgment call for sure, but there may well be times when immediate assistance is required.

No doubt people will abuse that and 911 will be inundated with nonsense calls.
 

Back
Top