‘Secret’ G20 law to be scrapped
The Liberals are replacing the confusing ‘secret law’ police used to place hundreds of people under arrest during the G20 summit in 2010.
The new Public Works Act will be introduced Wednesday in the Legislature, said Community Safety Minister Madeleine Meilleur.
The bill, created out of recommendations of former chief justice Roy McMurtry, will be far narrower in scope, addressing only power plant and court security issues.
“It will be limited because we are following Judge McMurtry’s advice and according to him the … criminal code covers the rest,” Meilleur said Wednesday.
The bill will allow people to be asked for identification and to show their bags when they enter court buildings.
During the June 2010 Toronto G20 summit, the obscure 1939 Public Works Protection Act, enacted to secure against Nazi saboteurs early in World War II, was used to quietly pass a regulation giving police broad powers of arrest.
That directive was merely supposed to clarify police powers within the secure summit site at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, but people were misled into believing it applied to an area five metres outside the cordoned-off zone.
While only two of the 1,105 arrests made during the G20 related to the act, there was widespread outcry over the so-called secret law.
“This was an occasion for us to review legislation passed in the middle of the Second World War,” said Meilleur, who did not offer an apology for what many civil liberties groups felt was an abuse of power.
Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak said the Liberals “lost touch” with the public by using a World War II-era law to round up people during the summit.
“Nobody forced them to bring in the secret law at the G20. Nobody forced their arm,” said Hudak. “It was a major scandal for the province.”
NDP Leader Andrea Horwath said the new law is an “admission” of failure on the part of the Liberal government.
“They made a big mistake when they were preparing for the G20 and they’re ignoring the fact that mistake trampled people’s civil rights, civil liberties,” said Horwath.
“This is why we were concerned with the G20 situation in the first place because we didn’t think the law was necessary. If there’s going to be a protest, there’s going to be a protest.”
McMurtry’s 54-page report on the old law noted the “potential for abuse” was “beyond troubling” and said it was a “loaded weapon” that threatened civil liberties.
Under the act, police or private security guards do not have to justify their actions against citizens, he pointed out.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Monday, February 20, 2012
Drummond Report Ontario justice system
The report’s recommendations include:
1. Improving evidence-based data collection to achieve better outcomes in justice programs.
2. Increasing the use of the Justice On Target program to assist with the reduction of custody remand, and implement evidence-based approaches to increase efficiency in the field of family law and family courts.
3. Expanding diversion programs for low-risk, non-violent offenders with mental illness as an alternative to incarceration.
4. Reviewing the core responsibilities of police to eliminate their use in non-core duties. This review would include an examination of alternative models of police service delivery. Criteria for the review would include determining the relative costs of the various security providers and an evaluation of their respective comparative advantages.
5. Using alternative service delivery for non-core services within correctional facilities, where feasible.
6. Continuing the process of clustering adjudicative tribunals across the Ontario Public Service.
7. Examining integration opportunities and consolidate where possible public safety training in policing, fire services and correctional services, which are currently delivered individually through their respective colleges.
8. Having the justice sector continue to work with Infrastructure Ontario to use alternative financing and procurement to assist in replenishing its capital infrastructure.
9. Improving co-ordination between federal and provincial governments in areas such as justice policy and legislation, law enforcement and correctional services.
10. Negotiating the transfer of responsibility for incarceration for sentences longer than six months to the federal government.
If the recommendations are not implemented, Ontarians could expect to see further deterioration of its courthouses and facilities. Courthouses will also be plagued by an increasing workload. Drummond estimates the federal omnibus crime bill will require an additional $22 million per year in additional costs.
“Moving forward, the justice sector faces fiscal challenges that will need to be addressed to bend down the cost curve for justice services,” the report says. “Key challenges facing the sector include compensation, increasing remand costs, infrastructure costs, the impact of federal legislation and greater expectations from the public for justice-related services.”
According to the report, Ontario is grappling not only with an increasingly strained court system but also overcrowded provincial jails, as well as an increase in family court matters.
“The public expects more from its justice system than it previously did...The justice sector will need to transform its service delivery and find efficiencies while ensuring public confidence.” Drummond said in the report. “Ontario’s finances do not yet constitute a crisis, and with early strong action a crisis can be averted.”
To view the complete report, visit the Ontario Ministry of Finance's web site.
1. Improving evidence-based data collection to achieve better outcomes in justice programs.
2. Increasing the use of the Justice On Target program to assist with the reduction of custody remand, and implement evidence-based approaches to increase efficiency in the field of family law and family courts.
3. Expanding diversion programs for low-risk, non-violent offenders with mental illness as an alternative to incarceration.
4. Reviewing the core responsibilities of police to eliminate their use in non-core duties. This review would include an examination of alternative models of police service delivery. Criteria for the review would include determining the relative costs of the various security providers and an evaluation of their respective comparative advantages.
5. Using alternative service delivery for non-core services within correctional facilities, where feasible.
6. Continuing the process of clustering adjudicative tribunals across the Ontario Public Service.
7. Examining integration opportunities and consolidate where possible public safety training in policing, fire services and correctional services, which are currently delivered individually through their respective colleges.
8. Having the justice sector continue to work with Infrastructure Ontario to use alternative financing and procurement to assist in replenishing its capital infrastructure.
9. Improving co-ordination between federal and provincial governments in areas such as justice policy and legislation, law enforcement and correctional services.
10. Negotiating the transfer of responsibility for incarceration for sentences longer than six months to the federal government.
If the recommendations are not implemented, Ontarians could expect to see further deterioration of its courthouses and facilities. Courthouses will also be plagued by an increasing workload. Drummond estimates the federal omnibus crime bill will require an additional $22 million per year in additional costs.
“Moving forward, the justice sector faces fiscal challenges that will need to be addressed to bend down the cost curve for justice services,” the report says. “Key challenges facing the sector include compensation, increasing remand costs, infrastructure costs, the impact of federal legislation and greater expectations from the public for justice-related services.”
According to the report, Ontario is grappling not only with an increasingly strained court system but also overcrowded provincial jails, as well as an increase in family court matters.
“The public expects more from its justice system than it previously did...The justice sector will need to transform its service delivery and find efficiencies while ensuring public confidence.” Drummond said in the report. “Ontario’s finances do not yet constitute a crisis, and with early strong action a crisis can be averted.”
To view the complete report, visit the Ontario Ministry of Finance's web site.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
The most deadly type of ovarian cancer often starts outside the ovary.
The most deadly type of ovarian cancer often starts outside the ovary, causes symptoms, and has the potential to be diagnosed early enough to be treated effectively. These are the findings of the DOvE (Diagnosing Ovarian Cancer Early) study, led by a research team from the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC) and published in The Lancet Oncology. The study has major implications for women around the world and could revolutionize the way this disease is diagnosed.
“Our results show that women over 50 years with vague symptoms (such as bloating, urinary frequency, and abdominal or pelvic discomfort) are about 10 times more likely to have ovarian cancer than women without symptoms. But the most startling finding is that the deadliest type of ovarian cancer, high grade serous cancer (HGSC), which accounts for 90% of deaths, often starts in the Fallopian tubes rather than in the ovaries,” says Dr. Lucy Gilbert, Director of Gynecologic Oncology at the MUHC, and principal investigator of the DOvE study, which has been running at the Research Institute of the MUHC for the past 4 years.
“As the killer variety of ovarian cancer is not really cancer of the ovary, we have to rethink the current diagnostic test, or these cancers will be missed,” says Dr. Gilbert who is also an Associate Professor of Medicine at McGill University. “Put bluntly, we had the name wrong, the staging wrong, and the diagnostic testing wrong. It is no wonder we have lost so many lives to this disease.”
The DOvE project was initiated in May 2008 with the aim of assessing symptomatic women for ovarian cancer at the earliest possible stage, when the chances of recovery are highest. During the pilot phase of the study, 1,455 women aged 50 years or more who presented with symptoms, were carefully assessed. As a result, cancers were diagnosed earlier, when 73% of women could benefit from complete surgery, leaving no visible disease. This is not usually feasible in HGSC.
Each year 216,000 women worldwide are diagnosed with ovarian cancer, and 70% of them will die unless we act on the information we have without delay. We encourage healthcare professionals around the world to be aware that high grade serous cancer often starts in the Fallopian tubes. So the traditional tests – ultrasound scan of the ovaries and the one-off Ca125 blood test – are not enough to diagnose HGSC in time.
”In Montreal, we are setting up a network of 12 satellite clinics. This way we facilitate access to testing for women who have symptoms, but the tests are interpreted centrally at the MUHC to ensure that no cancer is missed and at the same time unnecessary operations are avoided,” says Dr. Gilbert. A map identifying the 12 satellite centres (including the main DOvE centre) is attached.
About the study
Investigators include Olga Basso, Claudia Martins, Jing Feng, Ilia Pacili, Sabrina Piedimonte, Louise Quintal, Agnihotram V Ramanakumar, Janet Takefman, Maria S Grigorie, Giovanni Artho, Natacha Albarracin, Srinivasan Krishnamurthy (all from the McGill University Health Centre); Igor Karp (University of Montreal and University of Montreal Hospital Research Centre); John Sampalis (MUHC & JSS Medical Research Inc.) and members of the DOvE Study Group.
Co-investigators/ collaborators from the satellite clinics : Dr Paul Vezina (Clinique médicale du Haut-Anjou), Dr Luis-Marie Simard (Lachine Hôpital, 650 16eme avenue, Lachine), Dr Michel Welt (Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur De Montréal), Dr. Louise Quintal (St Lambert & Queen Elizabeth Health Complex), Dr Robert Hemmings (St Mary’s Hospital), Dr Hanaa Zacharia (Clinique-Plein Ciel, De la Cote-Vertu, Ville St-Laurent), Drs Richard Germain & Daniel Saxon (Lakeshore General Hospital), Dr Louise Desserault (Clinique Familiale Pas-à-Pas), Ms. Phaneuf Manon (Maurice Duplessis), Dr Guido Colantoni (Polyclinique Cabrini), Dr Christian Lauriston (Clinique Perrier), Dr Adele Adjami (Centre Médical Saint-Henri)
This research was supported by grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Montreal General Hospital Foundation, Royal Victoria Hospital Foundation, Cedar’s Cancer Institute, and La Fondation du Cancer Monique Malenfant-Pinizzotto
About ovarian cancer
Symptoms include: feeling full after eating only a few bites or loss of appetite, change of bowel habits, bloating, distension of abdomen, clothes around the waist feel too tight, feel an abdominal mass, weight loss, but not because of dieting, nausea, vomiting heartburn, gas, burping, indigestion, increased urinary frequency, need to urinate more urgently, pressure on the bladder, burning sensation when urinating, need to urinate but unable to do so, unable to empty bladder completely, feeling full after urinating, vaginal discharge, bleeding, spotting, deep pain on intercourse, Discomfort or pain in the abdomen, pelvic region, or lower back.
Related links:
McGill University Health Centre (MUHC): http://www.muhc.ca/
Research Institute of the MUHC (RI MUHC): www.cusm.ca/research/dashboard
McGill University: www.mcgill.ca
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR): http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/
“Our results show that women over 50 years with vague symptoms (such as bloating, urinary frequency, and abdominal or pelvic discomfort) are about 10 times more likely to have ovarian cancer than women without symptoms. But the most startling finding is that the deadliest type of ovarian cancer, high grade serous cancer (HGSC), which accounts for 90% of deaths, often starts in the Fallopian tubes rather than in the ovaries,” says Dr. Lucy Gilbert, Director of Gynecologic Oncology at the MUHC, and principal investigator of the DOvE study, which has been running at the Research Institute of the MUHC for the past 4 years.
“As the killer variety of ovarian cancer is not really cancer of the ovary, we have to rethink the current diagnostic test, or these cancers will be missed,” says Dr. Gilbert who is also an Associate Professor of Medicine at McGill University. “Put bluntly, we had the name wrong, the staging wrong, and the diagnostic testing wrong. It is no wonder we have lost so many lives to this disease.”
The DOvE project was initiated in May 2008 with the aim of assessing symptomatic women for ovarian cancer at the earliest possible stage, when the chances of recovery are highest. During the pilot phase of the study, 1,455 women aged 50 years or more who presented with symptoms, were carefully assessed. As a result, cancers were diagnosed earlier, when 73% of women could benefit from complete surgery, leaving no visible disease. This is not usually feasible in HGSC.
Each year 216,000 women worldwide are diagnosed with ovarian cancer, and 70% of them will die unless we act on the information we have without delay. We encourage healthcare professionals around the world to be aware that high grade serous cancer often starts in the Fallopian tubes. So the traditional tests – ultrasound scan of the ovaries and the one-off Ca125 blood test – are not enough to diagnose HGSC in time.
”In Montreal, we are setting up a network of 12 satellite clinics. This way we facilitate access to testing for women who have symptoms, but the tests are interpreted centrally at the MUHC to ensure that no cancer is missed and at the same time unnecessary operations are avoided,” says Dr. Gilbert. A map identifying the 12 satellite centres (including the main DOvE centre) is attached.
About the study
Investigators include Olga Basso, Claudia Martins, Jing Feng, Ilia Pacili, Sabrina Piedimonte, Louise Quintal, Agnihotram V Ramanakumar, Janet Takefman, Maria S Grigorie, Giovanni Artho, Natacha Albarracin, Srinivasan Krishnamurthy (all from the McGill University Health Centre); Igor Karp (University of Montreal and University of Montreal Hospital Research Centre); John Sampalis (MUHC & JSS Medical Research Inc.) and members of the DOvE Study Group.
Co-investigators/ collaborators from the satellite clinics : Dr Paul Vezina (Clinique médicale du Haut-Anjou), Dr Luis-Marie Simard (Lachine Hôpital, 650 16eme avenue, Lachine), Dr Michel Welt (Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur De Montréal), Dr. Louise Quintal (St Lambert & Queen Elizabeth Health Complex), Dr Robert Hemmings (St Mary’s Hospital), Dr Hanaa Zacharia (Clinique-Plein Ciel, De la Cote-Vertu, Ville St-Laurent), Drs Richard Germain & Daniel Saxon (Lakeshore General Hospital), Dr Louise Desserault (Clinique Familiale Pas-à-Pas), Ms. Phaneuf Manon (Maurice Duplessis), Dr Guido Colantoni (Polyclinique Cabrini), Dr Christian Lauriston (Clinique Perrier), Dr Adele Adjami (Centre Médical Saint-Henri)
This research was supported by grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Montreal General Hospital Foundation, Royal Victoria Hospital Foundation, Cedar’s Cancer Institute, and La Fondation du Cancer Monique Malenfant-Pinizzotto
About ovarian cancer
Symptoms include: feeling full after eating only a few bites or loss of appetite, change of bowel habits, bloating, distension of abdomen, clothes around the waist feel too tight, feel an abdominal mass, weight loss, but not because of dieting, nausea, vomiting heartburn, gas, burping, indigestion, increased urinary frequency, need to urinate more urgently, pressure on the bladder, burning sensation when urinating, need to urinate but unable to do so, unable to empty bladder completely, feeling full after urinating, vaginal discharge, bleeding, spotting, deep pain on intercourse, Discomfort or pain in the abdomen, pelvic region, or lower back.
Related links:
McGill University Health Centre (MUHC): http://www.muhc.ca/
Research Institute of the MUHC (RI MUHC): www.cusm.ca/research/dashboard
McGill University: www.mcgill.ca
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR): http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Incidents and accidentsThe A380 has been involved in one aviation occurrence and no hull-loss accidents as of January 2012[update]
Incidents and accidentsThe A380 has been involved in one aviation occurrence and no hull-loss accidents as of January 2012[update].[225][226]
On 4 November 2010, Qantas Flight 32, en route from Singapore Changi Airport to Sydney Airport, suffered an uncontained engine failure, resulting in a series of related problems, and forcing the flight to return to Singapore. There were no injuries to the passengers, crew or people on the ground despite debris falling onto the Indonesian island of Batam.[227] The A380 was damaged sufficiently for the event to be classified as an accident.[228] Qantas subsequently grounded all of its A380s that day subject to an internal investigation taken in conjunction with the engine manufacturer Rolls-Royce plc. Other operators of Rolls-Royce-powered A380s were also affected. Investigators later determined the cause of the explosion to be an oil leak in the Trent 900 engine.[229]
On 4 November 2010, Qantas Flight 32, en route from Singapore Changi Airport to Sydney Airport, suffered an uncontained engine failure, resulting in a series of related problems, and forcing the flight to return to Singapore. There were no injuries to the passengers, crew or people on the ground despite debris falling onto the Indonesian island of Batam.[227] The A380 was damaged sufficiently for the event to be classified as an accident.[228] Qantas subsequently grounded all of its A380s that day subject to an internal investigation taken in conjunction with the engine manufacturer Rolls-Royce plc. Other operators of Rolls-Royce-powered A380s were also affected. Investigators later determined the cause of the explosion to be an oil leak in the Trent 900 engine.[229]
Friday, February 17, 2012
B.C. courts see more cases tossed ... Accused internet sex predator and drunk driver walk free due to delays
Four more suspected criminals — including an accused Internet child predator and an alleged drunk driver — have escaped convictions because of the bloated caseload of British Columbia's courts, prompting one judge to issue a direct attack on Premier Christy Clark and her government's handling of the matter.
In one ruling out of New Westminster, B.C., Judge Daniel Steinberg called the current state of the provincial court in B.C. "abysmal."
"There are no amount of press releases or talk show appearances that are going to fix the over-stretched limits of our institutional resources," Steinberg said in a ruling posted Wednesday on the provincial court website.
"There is only one course of action that will fix the current situation and that is action, not words."
Clark, a former radio talk show host, appeared on her old station's airwaves Monday to discuss her government's priorities, including the conundrum in the justice system. Steinberg's decision is dated Jan. 25 and was posted Wednesday on the provincial court website.
Last week, Clark promised a complete review of the court system to discover why delays and costs are increasing while crime goes down.
Five-month review
Suggested solutions for the problem are at least five months away as lawyer Geoffrey Cowper investigates the problem. But in the meantime, hundreds of cases may be timing out of the system.
Steinberg stayed charges against David Blattler — who was accused of attempting to lure an underage teenager over the Internet — because he'd waited 27 months for his case to get to trial.
"I find that the consequences of the government's decision-making and priority-setting have meant the creation in this case, as in many others, of an intolerable delay that offends the ... [Charter of Rights]," he concluded.
"It offends the very real need ... to suppress predatory behaviour on the Internet."
In Chillwack, Judge Wendy Young stayed the case of Wilfred Friesen who was accused of drunk driving because his trial took almost three years to get to court.
And earlier this week in Kelowna, Judge Robin Smith threw out marijuana cultivation charges against Lin To and her brother Quo To because they had waited years to get their day in court.
Smith said the government has a constitutional obligation to provide sufficient resources to prevent unreasonable delays.
"This is a pretty simple, straight-forward case that ought not require 23 months of systemic delays to be heard just because resources aren't available to have it heard earlier."
Smith brushed off the government announcement last week that nine new judges had been appointed, saying it only replaces retiring judges.
Even with the nine new appointments, there are still 14 fewer judges working in the B.C. courts than there were in 2005.
Backlog growing
The backlog of cases is still growing.
Statistics show there are more than 7,000 provincial court criminal cases that have been pending for a year or more and over 2,000 cases have been waiting in the system for 18 months.
B.C. New Democrat Leader Adrian Dix said the delays are the direct result of years of inaction by the government.
"It didn't happen overnight," Dix told the legislature. "It's one thing to complain about judges, which is apparently what the government is doing. It's another thing to take the issue seriously and the government hasn't."
Clark said her government is taking real action and that includes the appointment of 23 new judges recently, hiring new sheriffs, more money for legal aid and more money for jail capacity in the Interior.
"That is a substantial investment in a system that needs it," she said. "Because stays and delays are unacceptable for victims, they're unacceptable for society, no one wants the system to work that way."
Cowper's review is expected to look for efficiencies and how to accelerate the court process and is expected to be completed by July.
The provincial government spends about $1.4 billion dollars a year on the justice system.
In one ruling out of New Westminster, B.C., Judge Daniel Steinberg called the current state of the provincial court in B.C. "abysmal."
"There are no amount of press releases or talk show appearances that are going to fix the over-stretched limits of our institutional resources," Steinberg said in a ruling posted Wednesday on the provincial court website.
"There is only one course of action that will fix the current situation and that is action, not words."
Clark, a former radio talk show host, appeared on her old station's airwaves Monday to discuss her government's priorities, including the conundrum in the justice system. Steinberg's decision is dated Jan. 25 and was posted Wednesday on the provincial court website.
Last week, Clark promised a complete review of the court system to discover why delays and costs are increasing while crime goes down.
Five-month review
Suggested solutions for the problem are at least five months away as lawyer Geoffrey Cowper investigates the problem. But in the meantime, hundreds of cases may be timing out of the system.
Steinberg stayed charges against David Blattler — who was accused of attempting to lure an underage teenager over the Internet — because he'd waited 27 months for his case to get to trial.
"I find that the consequences of the government's decision-making and priority-setting have meant the creation in this case, as in many others, of an intolerable delay that offends the ... [Charter of Rights]," he concluded.
"It offends the very real need ... to suppress predatory behaviour on the Internet."
In Chillwack, Judge Wendy Young stayed the case of Wilfred Friesen who was accused of drunk driving because his trial took almost three years to get to court.
And earlier this week in Kelowna, Judge Robin Smith threw out marijuana cultivation charges against Lin To and her brother Quo To because they had waited years to get their day in court.
Smith said the government has a constitutional obligation to provide sufficient resources to prevent unreasonable delays.
"This is a pretty simple, straight-forward case that ought not require 23 months of systemic delays to be heard just because resources aren't available to have it heard earlier."
Smith brushed off the government announcement last week that nine new judges had been appointed, saying it only replaces retiring judges.
Even with the nine new appointments, there are still 14 fewer judges working in the B.C. courts than there were in 2005.
Backlog growing
The backlog of cases is still growing.
Statistics show there are more than 7,000 provincial court criminal cases that have been pending for a year or more and over 2,000 cases have been waiting in the system for 18 months.
B.C. New Democrat Leader Adrian Dix said the delays are the direct result of years of inaction by the government.
"It didn't happen overnight," Dix told the legislature. "It's one thing to complain about judges, which is apparently what the government is doing. It's another thing to take the issue seriously and the government hasn't."
Clark said her government is taking real action and that includes the appointment of 23 new judges recently, hiring new sheriffs, more money for legal aid and more money for jail capacity in the Interior.
"That is a substantial investment in a system that needs it," she said. "Because stays and delays are unacceptable for victims, they're unacceptable for society, no one wants the system to work that way."
Cowper's review is expected to look for efficiencies and how to accelerate the court process and is expected to be completed by July.
The provincial government spends about $1.4 billion dollars a year on the justice system.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
University says it is reviewing the findings of a major research project into the asbestos industry and cancer caused by exposure to the fibrous material.
MONTREAL - McGill University says it is reviewing the findings of a major research project into the asbestos industry and cancer caused by exposure to the fibrous material.
David Eidelman, the university's dean of medicine, says allegations in a CBC report that several decades of research led by J. Corbett McDonald could have been influenced by the asbestos industry must be taken seriously.
But he also says holding scientific views different from those of the majority does not constitute research misconduct.
McDonald, who is now retired, began studying mortality rates associated with asbestos in 1966, looking at about 11,000 Quebec miners and millers of chrysotile, an asbestos fibre.
He and his research team published a series of studies between 1971 to 1998 which were funded in part by the Institute of Occupational and Environmental Health of the Quebec Mining Association, something which McDonald acknowledged.
While Eidelman says McDonald drew different conclusions about the safe use of asbestos from some current-day authorities, he did demonstrate that asbestos is a carcinogen associated with lung cancer and mesothelioma.
Eidelman says McGill researchers perform their work to the highest ethical standards and the university is not currently getting any funding from the asbestos industry.
David Eidelman, the university's dean of medicine, says allegations in a CBC report that several decades of research led by J. Corbett McDonald could have been influenced by the asbestos industry must be taken seriously.
But he also says holding scientific views different from those of the majority does not constitute research misconduct.
McDonald, who is now retired, began studying mortality rates associated with asbestos in 1966, looking at about 11,000 Quebec miners and millers of chrysotile, an asbestos fibre.
He and his research team published a series of studies between 1971 to 1998 which were funded in part by the Institute of Occupational and Environmental Health of the Quebec Mining Association, something which McDonald acknowledged.
While Eidelman says McDonald drew different conclusions about the safe use of asbestos from some current-day authorities, he did demonstrate that asbestos is a carcinogen associated with lung cancer and mesothelioma.
Eidelman says McGill researchers perform their work to the highest ethical standards and the university is not currently getting any funding from the asbestos industry.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: Reference re Broadcasting Act, 2012 SCC 4 Docket: 33884 Date: 20120209
Source: http://scc.lexum.org/en/2012/2012scc4/2012scc4.html
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Citation: Reference re Broadcasting Act, 2012 SCC 4
Date: 20120209
Docket: 33884
IN THE MATTER OF the Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. 11;
AND IN THE MATTER OF the Canadian Radio-Television and
Telecommunications Commission’s Broadcasting Regulatory Policy
CRTC 2009-329 and Broadcasting Order CRTC 2009-452;
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by way of a reference to the
Federal Court of Appeal pursuant to ss. 18.3(1) and 28(2) of the
Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7.
Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists,
Canadian Media Production Association,
Directors Guild of Canada and Writers Guild of Canada
Appellants
v.
Bell Aliant Regional Communications, LP, Bell Canada, Cogeco Cable Inc.,
MTS Allstream Inc., Rogers Communications Inc.,
TELUS Communications Company, Videotron Ltd.
and Shaw Communications Inc.
Respondents
- and -
Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission
Intervener
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Karakatsanis JJ.
Reasons for Judgment:
(paras. 1 to 11):
The Court
Note: This document is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form in the Canada Supreme Court Reports.
reference re broadcasting act
IN THE MATTER OF the Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. 11;
AND IN THE MATTER OF the Canadian Radio‑Television and Telecommunications Commission’s Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009‑329 and Broadcasting Order CRTC 2009‑452;
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by way of a reference to the Federal Court of Appeal pursuant to ss. 18.3(1) and 28(2) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F‑7.
Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists,
Canadian Media Production Association,
Directors Guild of Canada and Writers Guild of Canada Appellants
v.
Bell Aliant Regional Communications, LP,
Bell Canada, Cogeco Cable Inc., MTS Allstream Inc.,
Rogers Communications Inc., TELUS Communications Company,
Videotron Ltd. and Shaw Communications Inc. Respondents
and
Canadian Radio‑Television and Telecommunications Commission Intervener
Indexed as: Reference re Broadcasting Act
2012 SCC 4
File No.: 33884.
2012: January 16; 2012: February 9.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Karakatsanis JJ.
on appeal from the federal court of appeal
Communications law — Broadcasting — Internet — Internet service providers providing end‑users with access to broadcasting over the Internet — Whether Internet service providers are broadcasters when they provide end‑users with access to broadcasting through the Internet — Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. 11, ss. 2, 3.
The Canadian Radio‑television and Telecommunications Commission referred to the Federal Court of Appeal the question of whether retail Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) carry on, in whole or in part, “broadcasting undertakings” subject to the Broadcasting Act when, in their role as ISPs, they provide access through the Internet to “broadcasting” requested by end‑users. The court held that they do not.
Held: The appeal should be dismissed.
The terms “broadcasting” and “broadcasting undertaking”, interpreted in the context of the language and purposes of the Broadcasting Act, are not meant to capture entities which merely provide the mode of transmission. The Broadcasting Act makes it clear that “broadcasting undertakings” are assumed to have some measure of control over programming. The policy objectives listed under s. 3(1) of the Act focus on content. When providing access to the Internet, which is the only function of ISPs placed in issue by the reference question, they take no part in the selection, origination, or packaging of content. The term “broadcasting undertaking” does not contemplate an entity with no role to play in contributing to the Act’s policy objectives. Accordingly, ISPs do not carry on “broadcasting undertakings” under the Broadcasting Act when they provide access through the Internet to “broadcasting” requested by end‑users.
Cases Cited
Referred to: Electric Despatch Co. of Toronto v. Bell Telephone Co. of Canada (1891), 20 S.C.R. 83; Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers, 2004 SCC 45, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 427; Capital Cities Communications Inc. v. Canadian Radio‑Television Commission, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 141.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. 11, ss. 2(1) “broadcasting”, (3), 3(1).
Telecommunications Act, S.C. 1993, c. 38, s. 2(1) “telecommunications common carrier”.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal (Noël, Nadon and Dawson JJ.A.), 2010 FCA 178, 322 D.L.R. (4th) 337, 404 N.R. 305, [2010] F.C.J. No. 849 (QL), 2010 CarswellNat 2092, in the matter of a reference brought by the Canadian Radio‑Television and Telecommunications Commission regarding the Broadcasting Act. Appeal dismissed.
Thomas G. Heintzman, Q.C., and Bram Abramson, for the appellants.
John B. Laskin, Yousuf Aftab and Nicole Mantini, for the respondents Bell Aliant Regional Communications et al.
Nicholas McHaffie and Dean Shaikh, for the respondent Shaw Communications Inc.
The following is the judgment delivered by
The Court —
[1] In a 1999 report, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (“CRTC”) concluded that the term “broadcasting” in s. 2(1) of the Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. 11, included programs transmitted to end-users over the Internet. At that time, the CRTC concluded that it was not necessary to regulate broadcasting undertakings that provided broadcasting services through the Internet. It exempted these “new media broadcasting undertakings” from the requirements of the Broadcasting Act. In 2008, after public hearings, the CRTC revisited this exemption. One of the issues raised was whether Internet service providers – ISPs – were subject to the Broadcasting Act when they provided end-users with access to broadcasting through the Internet. The CRTC opted to send this issue to the Federal Court of Appeal for determination on a reference (2010 FCA 178, 322 D.L.R. (4th) 339). The specific reference question was:
Do retail Internet service providers (“ISPs”) carry on, in whole or in part, “broadcasting undertakings” subject to the Broadcasting Act when, in their role as ISPs, they provide access through the Internet to “broadcasting” requested by end-users?
[2] ISPs provide routers and other infrastructure that enable their subscribers to access content and services made available on the Internet. This includes access to audio and audiovisual programs developed by content providers. Content providers depend on the ISPs’ services for Internet delivery of their content to end-users. The ISPs, acting solely in that capacity, do not select or originate programming or package programming services. Noël J.A. held that ISPs, acting solely in that capacity, do not carry on “broadcasting undertakings”.
[3] We agree with Noël J.A., for the reasons he gave, that the terms “broadcasting” and “broadcasting undertaking”, interpreted in the context of the language and purposes of the Broadcasting Act, are not meant to capture entities which merely provide the mode of transmission.
[4] Section 2 of the Broadcasting Act defines “broadcasting” as “any transmission of programs … by radio waves or other means of telecommunication for reception by the public”. The Act makes it clear that “broadcasting undertakings” are assumed to have some measure of control over programming. Section 2(3) states that the Act “shall be construed and applied in a manner that is consistent with the freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence enjoyed by broadcasting undertakings”. Further, the policy objectives listed under s. 3(1) of the Act focus on content, such as the cultural enrichment of Canada, the promotion of Canadian content, establishing a high standard for original programming, and ensuring that programming is diverse.
[5] An ISP does not engage with these policy objectives when it is merely providing the mode of transmission. ISPs provide Internet access to end-users. When providing access to the Internet, which is the only function of ISPs placed in issue by the reference question, they take no part in the selection, origination, or packaging of content. We agree with Noël J.A. that the term “broadcasting undertaking” does not contemplate an entity with no role to play in contributing to the Broadcasting Act’s policy objectives.
[6] This interpretation of “broadcasting undertaking” is consistent with Electric Despatch Co. of Toronto v. Bell Telephone Co. of Canada (1891), 20 S.C.R. 83. In Electric Despatch, the Court had to interpret the term “transmit” in an exclusivity contract relating to messenger orders. Like the ISPs in this case, Bell Telephone had no knowledge or control over the nature of the communication being passed over its wires. This Court had to determine whether the term “transmit” implicated an entity who merely provided the mode of transmission. The Court concluded that only the actual sender of the message could be said to “transmit” it, at p. 91:
It is the person who breathes into the instrument the message which is transmitted along the wires who alone can be said to be the person who "transmits" the message. The owners of the telephone wires, who are utterly ignorant of the nature of the message intended to be sent, cannot be said ... to transmit a message of the purport of which they are ignorant. [Emphasis added]
[7] This Court relied on Electric Despatch in Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers, 2004 SCC 45, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 427, a proceeding under the Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42, to conclude that since ISPs merely act as a conduit for information provided by others, they could not themselves be held to communicate the information.
[8] The appellants in this case argued that we should instead follow Capital Cities Communications Inc. v. Canadian Radio-Television Commission, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 141. In Capital Cities, decided under a 1968 version of the Broadcasting Act, the CRTC had amended Rogers Cable’s licence, allowing Rogers to delete and substitute the television advertisements in the American broadcasts it received before it distributed the broadcast to viewers. The American broadcasting stations argued that the Broadcasting Act was ultra vires Parliament since it purported to regulate systems situated wholly within provincial boundaries. As part of this argument, the American stations attempted to sever the function of receiving television signals from the distribution or retransmission of those signals within a particular province. The Court rejected this severance of reception and distribution, stating that it was a “single system” coming under federal jurisdiction. The appellants argue before this Court that ISPs similarly form part of a single broadcasting system that is subject to regulation under the Broadcasting Act.
[9] Like Noël J.A., we are not convinced that Capital Cities assists the appellants. The case concerned Rogers Cable’s ability to delete and substitute advertising from American television signals. There was no questioning in Capital Cities of the fact that the cable television companies had control over content. ISPs have no such ability to control the content of programming over the Internet.
[10] Contrary to the submissions of the appellants, we need not decide whether the fact that ISPs use “routers” prevents them from being characterized as telecommunications common carriers. Noël J.A. was not asked to decide whether ISPs are a “telecommunications common carrier” under the Telecommunications Act, S.C. 1993, c. 38. Nor, based on the record before us, do we feel it appropriate for us to do so.
[11] We therefore agree with Noël J.A.’s answer to the reference question, namely, that ISPs do not carry on “broadcasting undertakings” under the Broadcasting Act when, in their role as ISPs, they provide access through the Internet to “broadcasting” requested by end-users. We would therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Solicitors for the appellants: McCarthy Tétrault, Toronto.
Solicitors for the respondents Bell Aliant Regional Communications et al.: Torys, Toronto.
Solicitors for the respondent Shaw Communications Inc.: Stikeman Elliott, Ottawa.
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Citation: Reference re Broadcasting Act, 2012 SCC 4
Date: 20120209
Docket: 33884
IN THE MATTER OF the Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. 11;
AND IN THE MATTER OF the Canadian Radio-Television and
Telecommunications Commission’s Broadcasting Regulatory Policy
CRTC 2009-329 and Broadcasting Order CRTC 2009-452;
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by way of a reference to the
Federal Court of Appeal pursuant to ss. 18.3(1) and 28(2) of the
Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7.
Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists,
Canadian Media Production Association,
Directors Guild of Canada and Writers Guild of Canada
Appellants
v.
Bell Aliant Regional Communications, LP, Bell Canada, Cogeco Cable Inc.,
MTS Allstream Inc., Rogers Communications Inc.,
TELUS Communications Company, Videotron Ltd.
and Shaw Communications Inc.
Respondents
- and -
Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission
Intervener
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Karakatsanis JJ.
Reasons for Judgment:
(paras. 1 to 11):
The Court
Note: This document is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form in the Canada Supreme Court Reports.
reference re broadcasting act
IN THE MATTER OF the Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. 11;
AND IN THE MATTER OF the Canadian Radio‑Television and Telecommunications Commission’s Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009‑329 and Broadcasting Order CRTC 2009‑452;
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by way of a reference to the Federal Court of Appeal pursuant to ss. 18.3(1) and 28(2) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F‑7.
Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists,
Canadian Media Production Association,
Directors Guild of Canada and Writers Guild of Canada Appellants
v.
Bell Aliant Regional Communications, LP,
Bell Canada, Cogeco Cable Inc., MTS Allstream Inc.,
Rogers Communications Inc., TELUS Communications Company,
Videotron Ltd. and Shaw Communications Inc. Respondents
and
Canadian Radio‑Television and Telecommunications Commission Intervener
Indexed as: Reference re Broadcasting Act
2012 SCC 4
File No.: 33884.
2012: January 16; 2012: February 9.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Karakatsanis JJ.
on appeal from the federal court of appeal
Communications law — Broadcasting — Internet — Internet service providers providing end‑users with access to broadcasting over the Internet — Whether Internet service providers are broadcasters when they provide end‑users with access to broadcasting through the Internet — Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. 11, ss. 2, 3.
The Canadian Radio‑television and Telecommunications Commission referred to the Federal Court of Appeal the question of whether retail Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) carry on, in whole or in part, “broadcasting undertakings” subject to the Broadcasting Act when, in their role as ISPs, they provide access through the Internet to “broadcasting” requested by end‑users. The court held that they do not.
Held: The appeal should be dismissed.
The terms “broadcasting” and “broadcasting undertaking”, interpreted in the context of the language and purposes of the Broadcasting Act, are not meant to capture entities which merely provide the mode of transmission. The Broadcasting Act makes it clear that “broadcasting undertakings” are assumed to have some measure of control over programming. The policy objectives listed under s. 3(1) of the Act focus on content. When providing access to the Internet, which is the only function of ISPs placed in issue by the reference question, they take no part in the selection, origination, or packaging of content. The term “broadcasting undertaking” does not contemplate an entity with no role to play in contributing to the Act’s policy objectives. Accordingly, ISPs do not carry on “broadcasting undertakings” under the Broadcasting Act when they provide access through the Internet to “broadcasting” requested by end‑users.
Cases Cited
Referred to: Electric Despatch Co. of Toronto v. Bell Telephone Co. of Canada (1891), 20 S.C.R. 83; Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers, 2004 SCC 45, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 427; Capital Cities Communications Inc. v. Canadian Radio‑Television Commission, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 141.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. 11, ss. 2(1) “broadcasting”, (3), 3(1).
Telecommunications Act, S.C. 1993, c. 38, s. 2(1) “telecommunications common carrier”.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal (Noël, Nadon and Dawson JJ.A.), 2010 FCA 178, 322 D.L.R. (4th) 337, 404 N.R. 305, [2010] F.C.J. No. 849 (QL), 2010 CarswellNat 2092, in the matter of a reference brought by the Canadian Radio‑Television and Telecommunications Commission regarding the Broadcasting Act. Appeal dismissed.
Thomas G. Heintzman, Q.C., and Bram Abramson, for the appellants.
John B. Laskin, Yousuf Aftab and Nicole Mantini, for the respondents Bell Aliant Regional Communications et al.
Nicholas McHaffie and Dean Shaikh, for the respondent Shaw Communications Inc.
The following is the judgment delivered by
The Court —
[1] In a 1999 report, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (“CRTC”) concluded that the term “broadcasting” in s. 2(1) of the Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. 11, included programs transmitted to end-users over the Internet. At that time, the CRTC concluded that it was not necessary to regulate broadcasting undertakings that provided broadcasting services through the Internet. It exempted these “new media broadcasting undertakings” from the requirements of the Broadcasting Act. In 2008, after public hearings, the CRTC revisited this exemption. One of the issues raised was whether Internet service providers – ISPs – were subject to the Broadcasting Act when they provided end-users with access to broadcasting through the Internet. The CRTC opted to send this issue to the Federal Court of Appeal for determination on a reference (2010 FCA 178, 322 D.L.R. (4th) 339). The specific reference question was:
Do retail Internet service providers (“ISPs”) carry on, in whole or in part, “broadcasting undertakings” subject to the Broadcasting Act when, in their role as ISPs, they provide access through the Internet to “broadcasting” requested by end-users?
[2] ISPs provide routers and other infrastructure that enable their subscribers to access content and services made available on the Internet. This includes access to audio and audiovisual programs developed by content providers. Content providers depend on the ISPs’ services for Internet delivery of their content to end-users. The ISPs, acting solely in that capacity, do not select or originate programming or package programming services. Noël J.A. held that ISPs, acting solely in that capacity, do not carry on “broadcasting undertakings”.
[3] We agree with Noël J.A., for the reasons he gave, that the terms “broadcasting” and “broadcasting undertaking”, interpreted in the context of the language and purposes of the Broadcasting Act, are not meant to capture entities which merely provide the mode of transmission.
[4] Section 2 of the Broadcasting Act defines “broadcasting” as “any transmission of programs … by radio waves or other means of telecommunication for reception by the public”. The Act makes it clear that “broadcasting undertakings” are assumed to have some measure of control over programming. Section 2(3) states that the Act “shall be construed and applied in a manner that is consistent with the freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence enjoyed by broadcasting undertakings”. Further, the policy objectives listed under s. 3(1) of the Act focus on content, such as the cultural enrichment of Canada, the promotion of Canadian content, establishing a high standard for original programming, and ensuring that programming is diverse.
[5] An ISP does not engage with these policy objectives when it is merely providing the mode of transmission. ISPs provide Internet access to end-users. When providing access to the Internet, which is the only function of ISPs placed in issue by the reference question, they take no part in the selection, origination, or packaging of content. We agree with Noël J.A. that the term “broadcasting undertaking” does not contemplate an entity with no role to play in contributing to the Broadcasting Act’s policy objectives.
[6] This interpretation of “broadcasting undertaking” is consistent with Electric Despatch Co. of Toronto v. Bell Telephone Co. of Canada (1891), 20 S.C.R. 83. In Electric Despatch, the Court had to interpret the term “transmit” in an exclusivity contract relating to messenger orders. Like the ISPs in this case, Bell Telephone had no knowledge or control over the nature of the communication being passed over its wires. This Court had to determine whether the term “transmit” implicated an entity who merely provided the mode of transmission. The Court concluded that only the actual sender of the message could be said to “transmit” it, at p. 91:
It is the person who breathes into the instrument the message which is transmitted along the wires who alone can be said to be the person who "transmits" the message. The owners of the telephone wires, who are utterly ignorant of the nature of the message intended to be sent, cannot be said ... to transmit a message of the purport of which they are ignorant. [Emphasis added]
[7] This Court relied on Electric Despatch in Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers, 2004 SCC 45, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 427, a proceeding under the Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42, to conclude that since ISPs merely act as a conduit for information provided by others, they could not themselves be held to communicate the information.
[8] The appellants in this case argued that we should instead follow Capital Cities Communications Inc. v. Canadian Radio-Television Commission, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 141. In Capital Cities, decided under a 1968 version of the Broadcasting Act, the CRTC had amended Rogers Cable’s licence, allowing Rogers to delete and substitute the television advertisements in the American broadcasts it received before it distributed the broadcast to viewers. The American broadcasting stations argued that the Broadcasting Act was ultra vires Parliament since it purported to regulate systems situated wholly within provincial boundaries. As part of this argument, the American stations attempted to sever the function of receiving television signals from the distribution or retransmission of those signals within a particular province. The Court rejected this severance of reception and distribution, stating that it was a “single system” coming under federal jurisdiction. The appellants argue before this Court that ISPs similarly form part of a single broadcasting system that is subject to regulation under the Broadcasting Act.
[9] Like Noël J.A., we are not convinced that Capital Cities assists the appellants. The case concerned Rogers Cable’s ability to delete and substitute advertising from American television signals. There was no questioning in Capital Cities of the fact that the cable television companies had control over content. ISPs have no such ability to control the content of programming over the Internet.
[10] Contrary to the submissions of the appellants, we need not decide whether the fact that ISPs use “routers” prevents them from being characterized as telecommunications common carriers. Noël J.A. was not asked to decide whether ISPs are a “telecommunications common carrier” under the Telecommunications Act, S.C. 1993, c. 38. Nor, based on the record before us, do we feel it appropriate for us to do so.
[11] We therefore agree with Noël J.A.’s answer to the reference question, namely, that ISPs do not carry on “broadcasting undertakings” under the Broadcasting Act when, in their role as ISPs, they provide access through the Internet to “broadcasting” requested by end-users. We would therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Solicitors for the appellants: McCarthy Tétrault, Toronto.
Solicitors for the respondents Bell Aliant Regional Communications et al.: Torys, Toronto.
Solicitors for the respondent Shaw Communications Inc.: Stikeman Elliott, Ottawa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)