PLICATION by Marley Greenglass against Air Canada. File No.: U3570/13-01171

PLICATION by Marley Greenglass against Air Canada.

File No.: U3570/13-01171




INTRODUCTION

[1] Marley Greenglass filed an application with the Canadian Transportation Agency (Agency) pursuant to subsection 172(1) of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, c. 10, as amended (CTA) against Air Canada regarding its policy that allows the carriage of pets in aircraft cabins, as it relates to Mrs. Greenglass’s allergy to dogs.

[2] The Agency stayed Mrs. Greenglass’s application pending the adjudication of cat allergy cases and the issuance of Decision No. 227-AT-A-2012 (Allergy Decision), which sets out the Agency’s final determination of the accommodation measures to be provided by Air Canada, Air Canada Jazz and WestJet to persons whose allergy to cats results in a disability for the purposes of Part V of the CTA.

[3] Following the issuance of the Allergy Decision, the Agency found, on a preliminary basis, that the accommodation measures relating to cat allergies provided by Air Canada pursuant to the Allergy Decision also constitute the appropriate accommodation needed to meet the disability‑related needs of persons who are disabled by an allergy to other pets accepted in the cabin, including dogs. The Agency then advised Mrs. Greenglass that, if she believed that the accommodation measures ordered by the Agency in the Allergy Decision did not address her disability-related needs as it relates to her allergy to dogs, she was required to establish, through evidence, including medical evidence, that she needed a different form of accommodation. Mrs. Greenglass requested that the accommodation measures determined by the Agency for persons with a cat allergy disability be provided by Air Canada to persons with a dog allergy disability.

[4] In response to the Agency’s preliminary finding, Air Canada filed comments with respect to its obligation to carry service dogs and the implications regarding the accommodation measures to be provided to persons with a dog allergy disability, and Mrs. Greenglass subsequently responded to Air Canada’s comments. The Agency recognized, in Decision No. LET-AT-A-82-2013 (Show Cause Decision), that service dogs are commonly used by persons with disabilities, including as part of air travel, and agreed to consider the parties’ submissions with respect to the carriage of service dogs in the cabin in its determination of the accommodation measures to be provided to persons with a dog allergy disability.
THE LAW

[5] When adjudicating an application pursuant to subsection 172(1) of the CTA, the Agency applies a three-step process to determine whether there is an undue obstacle to the mobility of a person with a disability. The Agency must determine whether:
the person who is the subject of the application has a disability for the purposes of the CTA;
an obstacle exists because the person was not provided with appropriate accommodation to address their disability-related needs. An obstacle is a rule, policy, practice, physical barrier, etc. that has the effect of denying equal access to services offered by the transportation service provider that are available to others; and,
the obstacle is “undue.” An obstacle is undue unless the transportation service provider demonstrates that there are constraints that make the removal of the obstacle either unreasonable, impracticable or impossible, such that to provide any form of accommodation would cause the transportation service provider undue hardship. If the obstacle is found to be undue, the Agency may order corrective measures necessary to remove the undue obstacle.
BACKGROUND

[6] In the Show Cause Decision, the Agency made three final determinations and one preliminary finding.
Final determinations

[7] The Agency made final determinations with respect to disability, appropriate accommodation and obstacle.
Disability

[8] The Agency found that Mrs. Greenglass is a person with a disability for the purposes of Part V of the CTA as a result of her allergy to dogs.
Appropriate accommodation

[9] The Agency found that the following provides the appropriate accommodation required to meet the needs of Mrs. Greenglass and persons with disabilities as a result of their allergies to dogs when at least 48 hours advance notification is provided by persons with a dog allergy disability, with best efforts to do the same when less than 48 hours advance notification is provided:
With respect to dogs carried as pets

[10] On aircraft with air circulation/ventilation systems using High Efficiency Particulate Air(HEPA) filters or which provide 100 percent unrecirculated fresh air:
a seating separation that is confirmed prior to boarding the flight and that provides a minimum of five rows between persons with a dog allergy disability and pet dogs, including during boarding and deplaning and between their seat and a washroom; or,
a ban on pet dogs in the aircraft cabin in which a person with a disability as a result of their allergy to dogs is travelling.

[11] On aircraft without air circulation/ventilation systems using HEPA filters and which do not provide 100 percent unrecirculated fresh air:
a ban on pet dogs in the aircraft cabin in which a person with a disability as a result of their allergy to dogs is travelling;

[12] When advance notification of less than 48 hours is provided by persons with a dog allergy disability, a ban on pet dogs is to be provided if no person travelling with a pet dog has already booked their travel on the selected flight. If a person travelling with a pet dog has already been booked on the flight, persons with a dog allergy disability must be provided with the same flight ban accommodation within 48 hours on the next flight available on which there is no person with a pet dog already booked. If the next available flight is beyond the 48-hour period, persons with a dog allergy disability must be given priority and provided with the accommodation measures applicable when the 48-hour advance notice is given by the person with a dog allergy disability.
With respect to service dogs

[13] On aircraft with air circulation/ventilation systems using HEPA filters or which provide 100 percent unrecirculated fresh air:
a seating separation that is confirmed prior to boarding the flight and that provides a minimum of five rows between persons with a dog allergy disability and service dogs, including during boarding and deplaning and between their seat and a washroom.

[14] On aircraft without air circulation/ventilation systems using HEPA filters or which do not provide 100 percent unrecirculated fresh air:
give the booking priority to whoever of the person with a dog allergy disability and the person travelling with a service dog first completed their booking. A person with a dog allergy disability and a person travelling with a service dog will not be accepted on the same flight using an aircraft that does not have HEPA filters or which does not provide 100 percent unrecirculated fresh air.
Obstacle

[15] The Agency found that, as Air Canada does not currently provide the appropriate accommodation measures, Air Canada’s policy/procedure, as it relates to the carriage of dogs in the aircraft cabin in which a person with a disability due to an allergy to dogs is travelling, constitutes an obstacle to the mobility of Mrs. Greenglass and of other persons with a dog allergy disability.
Preliminary finding

[16] The Agency also made a preliminary finding in the Show Cause Decision, which will be addressed in this Decision.
Undue obstacle

[17] The Agency found, on a preliminary basis, that Air Canada’s policy/procedure, as it relates to the carriage of dogs in the aircraft cabin in which a person with a disability due to an allergy to dogs is travelling, constitutes an undue obstacle to the mobility of Mrs. Greenglass and of other persons with a dog allergy disability.

[18] The Agency provided Air Canada with an opportunity to show cause why the Agency should not finalize its preliminary finding with respect to undue obstacle, and Mrs. Greenglass was provided with an opportunity to file a reply to Air Canada’s answer to the show cause direction.

[19] In this Decision, the Agency will finalize its preliminary finding. The Agency’s final finding will be based on the preliminary finding set out in the Show Cause Decision and on the submissions filed by the parties in this case.
PRELIMINARY MATTER
Comments on appropriate accommodation

[20] Air Canada refers to the appropriate accommodation determined by the Agency in the Show Cause Decision as being a “proposed accommodation”. In addition, Air Canada provides comments on the Report Addendum: Cat and Dog Dander in the Aircraft Cabin, May 23, 2008by Dr. Sussman (the expert on allergies retained by the Agency as part of its adjudication of other allergy complaints, including the cat allergy cases) and the impact of Dr. Sussman’s findings on the determination of appropriate accommodation.

[21] Mrs. Greenglass suggests that Dr. Sussman’s report be updated to include studies that have been prepared since 2008.

[22] In Decision No. LET-AT-A-46-2013, the Agency provided Air Canada with an opportunity to comment on obstacle/appropriate accommodation, in addition to filing undue hardship arguments with respect to the Agency’s preliminary finding of appropriate accommodation and to propose another form of accommodation. Following this, the Agency finalized its determination of appropriate accommodation in the Show Cause Decision. The Show Cause Decision did not provide Air Canada with an opportunity to re-argue its case regarding obstacle/appropriate accommodation, but rather to comment on the Agency’s preliminary finding of undue obstacle. Similarly, the Show Cause Decision did not provide Mrs. Greenglass with an opportunity to comment on the Agency’s final determinations with respect to obstacle/appropriate accommodation.

[23] The Agency will therefore not consider Air Canada’s further arguments with respect to appropriate accommodation. In addition, the Agency will not consider Mrs. Greenglass’s submission regarding Dr. Sussman’s report.
Mrs. Greenglass’s reply

[24] In her reply to Air Canada’s answer to the Agency’s Show Cause Decision, Mrs. Greenglass asks that “the issue of any animals in the cabin be readdressed” for all air carriers under the Agency’s jurisdiction. In making such a request, Mrs. Greenglass is seeking to expand the scope of her complaint to encompass the carriage of other animals in the aircraft cabin and the related policies of other air carriers.

[25] Expanding the scope of Mrs. Greenglass’s application at this point of the proceedings, as suggested by Mrs. Greenglass, would require that the Agency re-open the pleadings on the basis of an amended application, which would unduly prolong the adjudication process. The Agency rejects Mrs. Greenglass’s request to expand the scope.
PRELIMINARY FINDING – DOES AIR CANADA’S POLICY/PROCEDURE, AS IT RELATES TO THE CARRIAGE OF DOGS IN THE AIRCRAFT CABIN IN WHICH A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY DUE TO AN ALLERGY TO DOGS IS TRAVELLING, CONSTITUTE AN UNDUE OBSTACLE TO THE MOBILITY OF of MRS GREENGLASS AND OF OTHER PERSONS WITH A DOG ALLERGY DISABILITY?
Show Cause Decision

[26] The Agency found, on a preliminary basis, that Air Canada’s policy/procedure, as it relates to the carriage of dogs in the aircraft cabin in which a person with a disability due to an allergy to dogs is travelling, constitutes an undue obstacle to the mobility of Mrs. Greenglass and of other persons with a dog allergy disability.

[27] In the Show Cause Decision, the Agency noted that, pursuant to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Regulation 14 CFR Part 382 (Part 382), Air Canada may, in some situations, require advance notice from a person travelling with a service or emotional support/psychiatric service dog (service dogs) on flights to and from the United States of America. The Agency also found that, in situations where advance notice is not provided, Air Canada did not demonstrate that it could not implement procedures to enable it to establish a seating separation with limited time available after a person travelling with a service dog checks‑in, for example, by reseating either the person with a service dog or the person with a dog allergy disability. Moreover, the Agency expressed the opinion that Air Canada would infrequently be required to establish a seating separation on the day to travel, given:
that the lack of advance notice by a person with a disability travelling with a service dog is limited to flights to and from the United States of America;
that the number of service dogs carried (which, according to data provided by Air Canada, would represent approximately 2.74 service dogs per day system-wide) in relation to the very large number of flights that Air Canada operates on an annual basis, including to and from the United States of America, is immaterial; and,
the fact, as pointed out by Dr. Sussman, that dog allergies are much less common than cat allergies, and Air Canada’s evidence that it has only received 20 Fitness for Travel forms with respect to passengers with cat allergies since the implementation of the cat allergy accommodation ordered by the Agency; considering that dog allergies are less common, it would be a rare circumstance in which both a person with a service dog and a passenger with a dog allergy disabilitywould require accommodation on the same flight.

[28] The Agency also found that, on aircraft without air circulation/ventilation systems using HEPA filters and which do not provide 100 percent unrecirculated fresh air, the appropriate accommodation is for Air Canada to give the booking priority to whoever of the person with a dog allergy disability and the person travelling with a service dog first completes their booking. The Agency acknowledged that this may result in Air Canada having to deny boarding to a person travelling with a service dog, thereby contravening Part 382.117, which requires air carriers to accept service animals for carriage. However, for the reasons set out above, the Agency expressed its opinion that only in rare situations would Air Canada have to deny boarding to a person travelling with a service dog on flights to and from the United States of America. Moreover, if this situation were to arise, the Agency noted that Part 382.9 provides a conflict of laws waiver mechanism to give appropriate consideration to requirements of foreign law applicable to foreign carriers, which would allow Air Canada to ask for a waiver of its obligation to accept service dogs on flights to and from the United States of America on which a person with a dog allergy disability has first completed their booking and which uses an aircraft without an air circulation/ventilation system using HEPA filters and which does not provide 100 percent unrecirculated fresh air.

[29] The Agency found that Air Canada had not demonstrated that it cannot establish a seating separation prior to departure to meet the needs of persons with a dog allergy disability on flights that will include a dog (whether it be a service animal or a pet).
Positions of the parties
Air Canada

[30] In its response to the Show Cause Decision, Air Canada provided arguments, as set out below, in respect of denied boarding and advance notice; seating assignment; assessment of disability; and booking priority.
Denied boarding and advance notice

[31] Air Canada states that, pursuant to Part 382.19, a carrier cannot refuse to provide transportation due to a person’s disability, except as otherwise provided under Part 382. Air Canada submits that Part 382 does not contain any provisions that would permit a carrier to deny transportation based on “conflicting disabilities.” Air Canada adds that, even if it were to argue, pursuant to Part 382.19(c)(1), that a carrier can determine that there is a disability-related safety basis for refusing to provide transportation, it would result in the carrier giving preferential treatment to one disability over another.

[32] In terms of the aircraft for which Air Canada has concerns regarding denied boarding, Air Canada points out that its 60 Bombardier Dash-8 aircraft, which do not have HEPA‑type filters, are operated by Air Canada Express and are used exclusively for short distances within Canada and on transborder routes to and from the United States of America. Air Canada states that there are 60 Air Canada flights per day to and from the United States of America using such aircraft. Air Canada submits that the prevalence of these aircraft in terms of a possible conflict of law is of the “utmost significance.”

[33] Air Canada states that, pursuant to Part 382.25, a carrier cannot require a passenger with a disability, whether it be a passenger with a dog allergy disability or a person travelling with a service dog, to provide advance notice of their intention to travel. Air Canada submits that due to the lack of advance notice in some cases, “conflicting disability situations” at the gate would be more frequent. Air Canada adds that, in these situations, it is “much more difficult” to reassign seats in order to provide the required seating separation or advise a passenger that they may not travel as planned.
Seating assignment

[34] Air Canada states that, pursuant to Part 382.87, a carrier cannot exclude a passenger with a disability from any seat or, conversely, require that a passenger with a disability sit in a particular seat on the basis of disability, except to comply with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or the applicable foreign government safety requirements. Air Canada submits that providing a seating separation to accommodate a person with a dog allergy disability could require that a person travelling with a service dog be seated in a particular seat not of their choosing. Air Canada contends that providing a seating separation at the last minute when no advance notice is provided could result in the contravention of provisions of Part 382. These provisions provide, in part:

382.81(c) For a passenger with a disability traveling with a service animal, [the carrier] must provide, as the passenger requests, either a bulkhead seat or a seat other than a bulkhead seat.

382.87(d) If [the carrier] has already provided a seat to a passenger with a disability to furnish an accommodation required by this subpart, [it] must not (except in the circumstance described in §382.85(a)(2)(ii)) reassign that passenger to another seat in response to a subsequent request from another passenger with a disability, without the first passenger’s consent.

382.87(e) [The carrier] must never deny transportation to any passenger in order to provide accommodations required by this subpart.
Assessment of disability

[35] Air Canada states that under Part 382, carriers generally may not require proof of disability, although they may require a medical certificate for travellers with severe allergies in Canada. Air Canada asserts that this may create confusion over whether a passenger’s allergy should be treated by the carrier as a disability for flights to and from the United States of America.
Booking priority

[36] Finally, in terms of giving priority to whoever of the person with a dog allergy disability and the person travelling with a service dog first completes their booking, Air Canada states that the date on which a booking was completed may not be “accessible or accurately accessible” at the airport.
Mrs. Greenglass
Denied boarding and advance notice

[37] With respect to Air Canada’s concerns that it would be placed in a position of contravening the United States of America legislation by applying measures imposed by the Agency, Mrs. Greenglass suggests that Air Canada should immediately seek a waiver from the DOT to determine whether an issue actually exists.
Assessment of disability

[38] Mrs. Greenglass is of the opinion that a person with a dog allergy disability should not have to substantiate their disability; conversely, she adds that a doctor’s note indicating the severity of the disability should be sufficient. She submits that if a person with a dog allergy disability has to substantiate their disability, then a person using a service dog should also have to substantiate their need for a service animal.
Booking priority

[39] Mrs. Greenglass argues that Air Canada should provide more details on the system limitations that would prevent its gate agents to determine who of the person with a dog allergy disability and the person travelling with a service dog would be denied boarding. Mrs. Greenglass also argues that Air Canada should explain how its system could be modified to provide this information and that guidelines should be developed to address these situations where one passenger will be denied boarding.

[40] Mrs. Greenglass is of the opinion that it is unfair for a person who booked months in advance to have to worry about checking-in at the airport unusually early to “protect themselves;” rather, she suggests giving the priority to the person who first booked their travel. She believes that persons travelling with a service animal, like persons with an animal allergy disability, must pre‑register in order to avoid conflict at the gate.
Analysis and final finding
Denied boarding and advance notice

[41] Air Canada notes that Part 382 does not contain a provision that would permit a carrier to deny transportation based on “conflicting disabilities.”

[42] However, the Agency notes that the guidance material for Part 382 accepts a first-come, first‑served approach as being a non-discriminatory one to address competing disability needs. It states, in part:

It is unlikely that the mere presence of an animal in the same cabin would [...] produce a severe allergic reaction rising to the level of a disability. However, if there was strong evidence that this was the case, it could be necessary to rebook one of the passengers on another flight. Since one disability does not trump another, the carrier should consider a disability-neutral means of determining which passenger would have to be rebooked (e.g., which passenger made the earlier reservation). We emphasize that we expect any such situation to be extremely rare, and that carriers should not rebook a passenger absent strong evidence that the mere presence of an animal in the cabin, even in a location distant from the allergic passenger, would produce an allergic reaction rising to the level of a disability.

[43] The Agency is also of the opinion that a first-come, first-served approach would ensure a non‑discriminatory treatment of “conflicting disabilities”. In light of the foregoing, the Agency is of the opinion that it may not be necessary for Air Canada to ask for a waiver of Part 382.19 in situations where a person with a dog allergy disability and a person travelling with a service dog wish to travel on the same flight to and from the United States of America using an aircraft which does not have HEPA filters or does not provide 100 percent unrecirculated fresh air. Nevertheless, the Agency is of the opinion that nothing precludes Air Canada from requesting a waiver, should it be of the view that it would facilitate the implementation of the appropriate accommodation.

[44] Air Canada raises a concern with respect to the number of flights to and from the United States of America operated using Dash-8 aircraft in terms of a possible conflict of law. While it is possible that both a person with a dog allergy disability and a person with a service dog may wish to travel on the same flight, the carrier’s duty to accommodate is not diminished. In addition, as set out above, the Agency is of the opinion that Air Canada may be able to book passengers with “conflicting disabilities” on a first-come, first-served basis, without a conflict of law. The Agency finds that Air Canada has not demonstrated undue hardship in terms of the number of flights operated between Canada and the United States of America using Dash-8 aircraft.

[45] In response to Air Canada’s concern that, because Part 382 does not allow it to require advance notice of a person’s disability-related needs, passengers would only be notified of the impossibility to travel at the airport, as set out in the Show Cause Decision, the Agency is of the opinion that it would be a rare circumstance in which both a person travelling with a service dog and a passenger with a dog allergy disability would require accommodation on the same flight. Air Canada provided no evidence to the contrary in its answer to the Show Cause Decision. In addition, as reflected in the Show Case Decision, if Air Canada is concerned about such an occurrence, it may want to reduce its likelihood by informing its customers of the risk of not being able to travel when planned through communication of a first-come, first-served approach.

[46] Notwithstanding, if, as a result of the inability to require advance notice, Air Canada must establish a seating separation with little time before a flight, the Agency is of the opinion that Air Canada did not establish that it would face undue hardship as a result. Air Canada submits that it would be “much more difficult” to reassign seats in order to implement a seating separation. However, difficulty in providing accommodation does not mean that it is unreasonable, impracticable or impossible to provide accommodation.
Seating assignment

[47] Air Canada refers to Part 382.87(a) which states that a carrier cannot exclude a passenger with a disability from sitting in a particular seat or, conversely, require that a passenger with a disability sit in a particular seat, except to comply with the FAA or the applicable foreign government safety requirements.

[48] Although the Agency fully expects that passengers with a dog allergy disability would agree to sit in a certain area of the aircraft in order to be seated at least five rows away from a passenger travelling with a service dog, the Agency notes that the guidance material in respect of Part 382 reflects that ability of a carrier to provide specific seating and possibly reseat passengers to separate those travelling with a service animal and those disabled by an allergy to animal dander. In addition, Part 382.83(a)(1) permits carriers to “block” seats in order to provide seating accommodation to persons with disabilities, including those travelling with a service animal. In light of the foregoing, the Agency is of the opinion that Air Canada would not be prevented from providing a seating separation to accommodate those with a dog allergy disability.

[49] In light of the above, the Agency rejects Air Canada’s argument with respect to providing a seating separation at the last minute when no advance notice is given could possibly result in the contravention of Part 382.87(e).

[50] The Agency recognized, in the cat allergy cases, that the ability of any passenger to reserve their preferred seat is always subject to its availability. For example, there are situations where two persons with disabilities need the same seat. A first-come, first-served approach could be used in those situations.

[51] Finally, the Agency notes that Air Canada is required, pursuant to Decision No. 227-AT-A-2012, to implement a seating separation to accommodate cat dander allergies in respect of flights to and from the United States of America. Specifically, Air Canada is required to provide a seating separation in situations where no advance notice is given by a passenger with a cat allergy disability. The Agency is of the opinion that Air Canada should be equally able to provide a seating separation in situations where no advance notice is given by a passenger with a dog allergy disability.

[52] In light of the foregoing, the Agency finds that Air Canada did not establish that it would face undue hardship as a result of seating assignment requirements.
Assessment of disability

[53] Air Canada submits that Part 382 does not generally allow carriers to require proof of disability. However, U.S. DOT’s guidance material on Part 382 sets out the following:

There may be situations in which, with respect to a passenger who brings a very serious potential allergy situation to the attention of your personnel, it is appropriate to seek a medical certificate for the passenger.

[54] The Agency does not require carriers to ask for medical information from their passengers. The Agency is of the opinion that it is up to Air Canada to determine whether it requires medical information to establish whether a passenger has a dog allergy disability and to implement whatever related process it considers necessary, as it has done in respect of cat allergy disabilities.

[55] Therefore, the Agency finds that Air Canada did not establish that it would face undue hardship as it relates to assessing disability.
Booking priority

[56] Air Canada submits that the date on which a booking was completed may not be “accessible or accurately accessible” at the airport, but it provided no explanation for its view. The Agency notes that Air Canada has sophisticated computer systems which capture a substantial amount of information about a passenger’s booking or reservation. Air Canada did not present any evidence of undue hardship in ensuring that information is available to its check-in personnel.

[57] In fact, in the cat allergy cases, Air Canada proposed a policy to address situations in which both a person with a cat allergy disability and a person travelling with a pet cat wish to sit in Air Canada’s Executive Class or Comfort Plus seating. Air Canada’s proposal, which the Agency accepted, was that priority would be given to whoever had already booked a seat in the particular class of service. The Agency is of the opinion that Air Canada would similarly be able to implement a process to determine whether a person travelling with a service dog or a person with a dog allergy disability has already booked a seat on a certain flight.
Final finding and conclusion

[58] The Agency finds that Air Canada has not met its burden of demonstrating that it would face undue hardship if it were required to provide the appropriate accommodation determined by the Agency for persons with a dog allergy disability.

[59] Accordingly, the Agency finds that Air Canada’s policy/procedure, as it relates to the carriage of dogs in the aircraft cabin in which a person with a dog allergy disability is travelling, constitutes an undue obstacle to the mobility of Mrs. Greenglass and of other persons with a dog allergy disability.
CONCLUSION

[60] The Agency makes the following final determination:

The Agency finds that Air Canada’s policy/procedure, as it relates to the carriage of dogs in the aircraft cabin in which a person with a disability due to an allergy to dogs is travelling, constitutes an undue obstacle to the mobility of Mrs. Greenglass and of other persons with a dog allergy disability.
ORDER

[61] The Agency finds that Air Canada has not established that it would face undue hardship that would prevent it from providing the appropriate accommodation to persons with a dog allergy disability. Therefore, the Agency finds that Air Canada’s policy/procedure, as it relates to the carriage of dogs in the aircraft cabin in which a person with a disability due to an allergy to dogs is travelling, constitutes an undue obstacle to the mobility of Mrs. Greenglass and of other persons with a dog allergy disability.

[62] The Agency therefore orders Air Canada to develop and implement the policies and procedures necessary to provide the following appropriate accommodation and to provide the requisite training to its staff to ensure the provision of the appropriate accommodation.
With respect to dogs carried as pets

[63] On aircraft with air circulation/ventilation systems using HEPA filters or which provide 100 percent unrecirculated fresh air:
a seating separation that is confirmed prior to boarding the flight and that provides a minimum of five rows between persons with a dog allergy disability and pet dogs, including during boarding and deplaning and between their seat and a washroom; or,
a ban on pet dogs in the aircraft cabin in which a person with a disability as a result of their allergy to dogs is travelling.

[64] On aircraft without air circulation/ventilation systems using HEPA filters or which do not provide 100 percent unrecirculated fresh air:
a ban on pet dogs in the aircraft cabin in which a person with a disability as a result of their allergy to dogs is travelling.

[65] When advance notification of less than 48 hours is provided by persons with a dog allergy disability, a ban on pet dogs is to be provided if no person travelling with a pet dog has already booked their travel on the selected flight. If a person travelling with a pet dog has already been booked on the flight, persons with a dog allergy disability must be provided with the same flight ban accommodation within 48 hours on the next flight available on which there is no person with a pet dog already booked. If the next available flight is beyond the 48-hour period, persons with a dog allergy disability must be given priority and provided with the accommodation measures applicable when the 48-hour advance notice is given by the person with a dog allergy disability.
With respect to service dogs

[66] On aircraft with air circulation/ventilation systems using HEPA filters or which provide 100 percent unrecirculated fresh air:
a seating separation that is confirmed prior to boarding the flight and that provides a minimum of five rows between persons with a dog allergy disability and service dogs, including during boarding and deplaning and between their seat and a washroom.

[67] On aircraft without air circulation/ventilation systems using HEPA filters or which do not provide 100 percent unrecirculated fresh air:
give the booking priority to whoever of the person with a dog allergy disability and the person travelling with a service dog first completed their booking. A person with a dog allergy disability and a person travelling with a service dog will not be accepted on the same flight using an aircraft that does not have HEPA filters or which does not provide 100 percent unrecirculated fresh air.

[68] Air Canada has until September 16, 2013 to comply with this order.


Member(s)

Raymon J. Kaduck
J. Mark MacKeigan

federal by-election candidates,

Diana Burke





Twitter: @TeamDianaBurke


Official Bio: "Diana Burke immigrated to Canada from Jamaica over 40 years ago, the first of a large and successful family of new Canadians who developed a passion for their adopted country: a strong, free, tolerant and welcoming home.


Diana is a visionary technology pioneer with invaluable skills and experience. As a senior executive of Royal Bank Financial Group worldwide (Chief Information Security Officer, in her last position), she foresaw the advent of a cashless society and played a leadership role in building the complex, fast and secure networks we have all subsequently come to take for granted.


Because of her unique background and talents, Microsoft named her to its global advisory body on information security. In a world increasingly operating through cyber-networks and threatened by cyber-terrorism, these knowledge and skill sets have become invaluable.


Diana is a hard-working and charismatic person whose ability to attract and manage large numbers of volunteers and employees is well-established--both in business and in community endeavours. These traits transfer well to electoral politics. She also has a bachelors degree in history from Queens University.


Diana's many community and charitable commitments are diverse and remarkable. One of her favourite projects has resulted in early childhood computer learning through "Tech de Bus", a school bus equipped with computers, an electrical generator and a satellite dish which moves among the remote mountain villages of Jamaica. She is the recipient of the Tony Coelho Award and many other distinctions. She was President of the International Women's Forum - Toronto Chapter a global organization of outstanding women leaders, and was instrumental in leading the largest fundraiser for their 2010 conference which attracted over 800 attendees and was hosted in Montreal.


Diana enjoys financial independence and is committed to devoting herself full-time
to nomination and election campaigns and understanding the community needs. She is aware of the nature and scale of the challenge and is ready and willing to undertake whatever it requires to succeed."


Why she's running:


"In recent years, I have begun to feel that the Canada of great opportunity and equality that I chose and love is under siege. I have come to the conclusion that running for office under the banner of the Liberal Party of Canada that gave me hope is the best way for me to give back to this country and to our community of Toronto Centre, where I have lived for 25 years."


Chrystia Freeland


Twitter: @cafreeland


Official bio: "An esteemed Canadian journalist and author, Chrystia Freeland was born in Peace River, Alberta and studied at Harvard University where she received a B.A. in History and Literature.


Freeland continued her studies on a Rhodes Scholarship at Oxford University, where she completed her Master's of studies degree.


After cutting her journalistic teeth as a Ukraine-based stringer for the Financial Times, Washington Post, and The Economist, Freeland went on to wear many hats at the Financial Times, including deputy editor, UK news editor, Moscow bureau chief, Eastern Europe correspondent, editor of its weekend edition, and editor of FT.com.


Freeland served as deputy editor of Canada's The Globe and Mail between 1999 and 2001, before becoming the U.S. managing editor of the Financial Times.


In 2010, Freeland joined Canadian-owned Thomson Reuters as editor-at-large. She most recently worked as Managing Director and Editor of Consumer News.


Freeland was a weekly columnist for the Globe and Mail, writing extensively about the challenges facing the middle class.


Freeland is the author of Sale of a Century: The Inside Story of the Second Russian Revolution (2000) and Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else (2012).


She is the recipient of the prestigious Lionel Gelber Award and the 2013 National Business Book Award.


Freeland is married and the proud mother of three children."


Why she's running:


The decline of "broad middle class prosperity," which Freeland said underpins democracy, is the reason she's running now. "That sounds like a highfalutin kind of point, but that's what I've been writing about and thinking about."


It's the "big challenge of our generation," she said. "I think it should be at the centre, really, of all political discourse." Solutions can't be boiled down to a "five-page position paper," Freeland said, but she mentions social mobility, entrepreneurship and aligning large corporations with the public good as a way of returning the middle class to something like "the golden post-war era." - Toronto federal vacancy attracts media stars for Liberals, NDP (CBC.ca)


Todd Ross


Twitter: @tejross


Official bio: "Todd is a committed and experienced community organizer with an approach that is collaborative. He has a solid track record of driving community engagement to generate results, and his track recordspeaks for itself.


Born and raised in New Brunswick, Todd began his career in the Canadian Armed Forces as a Naval combat information operator and served on HMCS Saskatchewan. He studied political science at the University of New Brunswick, as well as at Atkinson College at York University.


Todd is a proud Métis and lives in Toronto with his partner Kirk."


Why he's running:


"Hi, I'm Todd. I'm also known as Wabanquot - Migizi doodem
 (White Cloud - Eagle Clan). I'm a proud Metis, a proud Liberal, and a proud member of the Toronto Centre community.


Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau says "we need to be a party of community leaders, devoted to community service."


I believe Justin has it right. There is too little engagement with our communities in the Harper government. For this reason, I am pleased to announce that I will seek the federal Liberal nomination in Toronto Centre.


For the past 19 years I have helped build communities by bringing devoted and passionate people together across our riding. These efforts have created real change on key issues such as health care, immigration, the environment, housing, and aboriginal and human rights. I want to bring this experience to create real change in Ottawa - for the people of Toronto Centre and Canada.





New Democrats














Jennifer Hollett





Twitter: @jenniferhollett


Official bio: "Jennifer Hollett is an award winning broadcast journalist with a commitment to social justice. At present, she is seeking the Toronto Centre Federal NDP Nomination in the upcoming by-election.


As a television host and reporter, Jenn has worked for the CBC, CTV, and is a former MuchMusic VJ. In 2002, Jenn travelled to Kabul to host A MuchMusic Special: Afghanistan, a Gemini nominated documentary. She hosted the CBC's G20 Street Level blog during the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto which won a Canadian Online Publishing Award, and was recognized by Amnesty International Canada with a 2009 Media Award for her CBC radio reporting from Israel/Palestine.


Human rights and social justice have been a consistent focus in Jenn's work. She previously managed e-communications for Plan Canada, worked with Journalists for Human Rights to train journalists in Sierra Leone, and volunteered to create YouthCARE, a youth engagement program with CARE Canada. She is a strong advocate for women's and girls' rights, and has been proud to moderate the G(irls)20 Summit in Toronto (2010), Paris (2011), Mexico City (2012), and Moscow (2013).


A leading digital expert and visionary, Jenn recently developed the critically acclaimed 'Super PAC App', which helped make television campaign ads more transparent to viewers during the 2012 U.S. election. Technologically savvy, Jenn has worked in digital communications since the late '90s, when she became the youngest manager ever at Sony Music Canada, and developed new media strategies for the label's top artists.


Jenn has a Bachelor of Arts with Distinction in Journalism and Communications from Concordia University in Montreal, and a Master in Public Administration from Harvard University.


She currently consults on digital projects, and works with The Leading Change Network to train community activists with Marshall Ganz, who designed the 2008 grassroots strategy for Barack Obama. She lives in, and loves, Toronto Centre and feels it captures the best of the city and country."


Why she's running:


Growing up in St. Catharines, Ont., in a single-mother family, Hollett said she first became attracted to politics when she met NDP leader Jack Layton. But she wasn't sure about entering politics, she said, until she found out about Layton's death. "I wasn't sure what I was waiting for ... it's a reminder when someone dies. The time is now."


Although Toronto Centre has been owned by the Liberals for a decade, Hollett points out that the nearby ridings of Trinity Spadina and Davenport, also once said to be safe Liberal seats, fell to the NDP in recent elections. "If you're standing in Toronto Centre and you look east and you look west, it's orange."


Asked about the Liberal focus on the middle class, Hollett said, "As someone who grew up in a very modest middle class upbringing, it's something I connect with." In Toronto Centre, she said, at the door, the issue comes back to joblessness, especially for youth, and especially for immigrants who came to Canada hoping to become members of the middle class.


-Toronto federal vacancy attracts media stars for Liberals, NDP (CBC.ca)


Linda McQuaig





Twitter: @LindaMcQuaig


Official bio: "Journalist and best-selling author Linda McQuaig has developed a national reputation for challenging the establishment.


As a reporter for The Globe and Mail, she won a National Newspaper Award in 1989 for a series of articles which sparked a public inquiry into the activities of Ontario political lobbyist Patti Starr, and eventually led to Starr's imprisonment.


As a Senior Writer for Maclean's magazine, Linda (along with Ian Austen) probed the early business dealings of Conrad Black, uncovering how Black used political connections to avoid prosecution. An irate Black suggested on CBC radio that McQuaig should be "horsewhipped."


In 1991, she was awarded an Atkinson Fellowship for Journalism in Public Policy to study the social welfare systems in Europe and North America.


Linda has been a rare voice in the mainstream media challenging the prevailing economic and political dogma -- as a columnist in the financial pages of the National Post in the late 1990s, and since 2002, as an op-ed columnist in the Toronto Star.


She has also taken on the status quo in a series of controversial books - including seven national best-sellers - such as Shooting the Hippo (short-listed for the Governor General's Award for Non-Fiction), The Cult of Impotence and It's the Crude, Dude: War, Big Oil and the Fight for the Planet. Her most recent book (written with Osgoode Hall law professor Neil Brooks) is The Trouble with Billionaires: How the Super-Rich Hijacked the World and How We Can Take It Back.


Born and raised in Toronto, Linda has lived in her current Toronto Centre home for the past 13 years. She and her beloved daughter Amy, now 22 and just graduated from university, have recently adopted an adult rescue dog named Chance, who never leaves Amy's side.


Central to Linda's social life (and fitness regime) is a weekly, pickup basketball game whose core membership has been together since their student days at U of T. As a fan, however, Linda's emotions rise and fall most dramatically on the fortunes of the Jays."


Why she's running: "I've dedicated my professional life to writing and speaking publicly about issues that I care about deeply - countering income inequality and the austerity agenda, protecting and enhancing our public programs, tackling climate change and other environmental threats, and returning Canada to a constructive role in the world.


I now want to move from advocacy to action. After years as an observer and critic, I want to join a team actively fighting to build a Canada that is equal, inclusive and responsible - a Canada that is seriously under threat by Stephen Harper's Conservative government."






Pirate Party














Travis McCrea (acclaimed)





Twitter: @vote_travis


Official bio: Not available on website


Why he's running:


I have been the leader of the Pirate Party for a few months now, and the one thing I have learned from our members is they don't just want to sit on the sidelines and yell at the big parties to clean up their act, they want the Pirate Party to succeed. Our members are asking us to run in elections and they want us to win those elections. Until now, our campaigns talked about winning as if it were an unachievable joke.


Today, I announce my candidacy for the Toronto Centre riding and I am running to win. The odds are against me, the money is in the hands of the big parties, and the little guys are getting shut out from debates and media. Other countries Pirate Parties are making strong campaigns to win, and we can win too.


I ask that not only my Toronto Pirates support me, but I am asking for all Canadians to step up and support the underdog. Pirates can win, I can win... voter turn out is at a record low and all I need to do is get 50% of non-voters to turn out to vote for me and I would win the election.


Lets do this #votetravis #votepirate



As yet, there's been no word on who may be in the running for the Conservatives or the Green Party -- I've sent queries to those respective riding associations, however, and will let you know what, if anything, I hear back.

Compliance Review: Final Report and Recommendations : This compliance review stemmed from a legal challenge regarding the conduct of the May 2, 2011 federal general election in the Ontario electoral district of Etobicoke Centre.

Compliance Review: Final Report and Recommendations

Compliance Review Context

This compliance review stemmed from a legal challenge regarding the conduct of the May 2, 2011 federal general election in the Ontario electoral district of Etobicoke Centre.

Ontario Superior Court Decision

A judicial recount for that election had declared the winning candidate to be the elected Member of Parliament by a margin of 26 votes. The second place candidate applied to the courts requesting the election be overturned on the basis that "irregularities" had affected the result.Footnote 1

The case was heard by Justice Thomas R. Lederer of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, who on May 18, 2012 issued a decision declaring the results of the contested election to be "null and void".Footnote 2

In the written judgement, reasons to void the election centred on evidence that election officers had made a significant number of serious administrative errors. This was determined through a detailed review of documented voting records in ten out of that district's 236 polling stations.

The judge found that, in these ten polls, procedural "irregularities" invalidated 79 votes. Some 52 votes were invalid because election officers made serious errors in the administration of voter registration procedures, and the remaining 27 cases involved serious errors within the application of identity vouching procedures.

Of the 79 votes this judgement "set aside", 41 were deemed invalid because no required documentation could be found. Twenty-seven other votes were rejected because individual election officers had improperly recorded legally "material" information, or not recorded it at all. Eleven votes were rejected because election officers had not applied a legal requirement to ensure that each person vouching for the identity of another voter was first established to be a registered voter, and confirmed to be living within the same polling division boundaries as the voter for whom they were vouching.

Because 79 "irregular" votes within these ten polls exceeded the 26-vote plurality that had originally decided the election, and citing case law precedents that established "if the number of irregular votes exceeds the plurality of votes cast, the election cannot stand",Footnote 3 Judge Lederer declared the Etobicoke Centre election overturned.

It should be noted this decision was made on the basis that important procedural requirements had not been met, and not due to evidence indicating that ineligible voters had been permitted to vote.

Supreme Court of Canada Decision

The sitting Member of Parliament for Etobicoke Centre promptly appealed the judgement of the Ontario Superior Court to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court's October 25, 2012 judgement was a split 4/3 decision, ruling in favour of the appellant and confirming the original election result in Etobicoke Centre. Most appeal argument centred upon exactly what constituted "irregularities that affected the result of the election".Footnote 4 The majority and dissenting views cast markedly different perspectives on that central argument.

The majority held that "only votes cast by persons not entitled to vote are invalid".Footnote 5

The minority view was that irregular votes should be considered invalid, and that sufficient proven administrative "irregularities" were a valid reason to annul an election. They stated:

The term "irregularities" . . . should be interpreted to mean failures to comply with the requirements of the Act, unless the deficiency is merely technical or trivial.Footnote 6

The majority view did not disagree with this approach to defining "irregularities". However, with the view that enfranchisement is the paramount democratic principle to protect, they established that two tests need to be met in order to demonstrate that an "irregularity" affected the result of an election.

First, it is necessary to show that a statutory safeguard associated with establishing entitlement to vote was not properly administered. Second, the judge must decide, based on all evidence before the court, whether a person who voted was not entitled to.

The majority ruling found no proof that administrative breaches of statutory provisions had resulted in ineligible persons voting. On this basis, the evidence before the Court was deemed not to meet the test for annulment of an election prescribed by the Canada Elections Act.

Nonetheless, the case found that election officers made many serious errors in their duties on Election Day in the 2011 Etobicoke Centre election, and the Supreme Court made it clear that such errors in other circumstances could contribute to a court overturning an election.

Public Trust at Risk

Perhaps of more importance than the legal precedent established, publicity surrounding the court case brought into question the impact of administrative errors on the integrity of the electoral process. Election Day administration is widely understood by the public to involve election officers ensuring that every participating elector meets certain registration and identification requirements before they are issued a ballot. These are widely recognized as essential procedural safeguards that must be enforced consistently for election results to be considered legitimate and meaningful.

Citizens' trust in their electoral institutions and democratic processes are put at risk when established voting rules and procedures are seen not to be followed. Even the perception of problems can be extremely detrimental to this trust. Public trust in an electoral process is fundamental to perceptions about the legitimacy of democratic governance.

The Compliance Review

It was within this overall context that the compliance review was initiated. While the court case was still underway, Marc Mayrand, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, publicly committed Elections Canada placing "a major priority on strengthening measures aiming to improve compliance with procedures and standards applicable on voting days".

He went on to outline the foundations upon which the review was subsequently designed:

Our intention is threefold: first, to review the voter registration and voting process based on what transpired in Etobicoke Centre; second, to assess the effectiveness of existing checks and balances; and third, to engage key stakeholders in implementing solutions for the 2015 election.Footnote 7

Over the summer of 2012 Elections Canada managers agreed to a general process and timetable for the compliance review, and selected an independent Reviewer. The Reviewer's mandate appears in Annex F of this report; the Reviewer's biography is in Annex G.

The first task the Reviewer undertook was to develop a detailed workplan proposing the review's exact approach, stakeholder engagement strategy, analysis methods and support requirements. The workplan for the compliance review was agreed to on September 27, 2012 and work started immediately.

Information Gathering

The workplan was founded on information gathering. The Reviewer started with interviews of election administrators and officials at all levels federally and in various provinces and territories. Then came design and assignment of a formal research project to study 'best practices' for election officer compliance at national and international levels.Footnote 8 A historical analysis of the evolution of the legislated duties of federal poll officials was also designed, and commissioned to an academic authority.Footnote 9 The Reviewer himself undertook a detailed analysis of legislation related to compliance requirements, and a comprehensive review of election officer procedures and training materials.Footnote 10

A detailed "conformity audit" conducted on the voting records of the ten disputed polls in Etobicoke Centre was followed with a random 1,000-poll national audit, as well as audit measurements of conformity with Election Day procedures in three federal by-elections held on November 26, 2012. Those audits, which confirmed election officer non-compliance to be a systemic problem in federal elections across Canada, are summarized in Annex C.

First-hand information gathering and detailed election observation was conducted during by-elections in the ridings of Durham, Calgary Centre and Victoria in October and November, 2012. Further interviews were conducted with election administrators who managed those elections, and the Reviewer observed and interacted with election officers, in all roles at numerous locations, during training sessions and on Election Day.

Stakeholder Engagement

The review framework's second structural component was a series of activities designed for the review process to engage genuinely and meaningfully with representatives from key stakeholder groups. These groups were identified as:

1. political party technical experts (on elections);
2. front-line election workers from the three by-elections;
3. federal election field management personnel;
4. Chief Electoral Officers from provinces/territories across Canada; and
5. senior management and staff at Elections Canada headquarters.

Annex E lists representatives from each of these groups that were involved in compliance review consultations.

Face-to-face compliance workshops were organized and held with members of the first three stakeholder groups listed, with each session facilitated by the Reviewer. These focused on causes of non-compliance by election officers, and established what types of effective solutions are available to implement in time for the 2015 general election. Group workshop participants tackled the compliance problem with great energy and enthusiasm, providing rich detail and significant insights.

Interim Report

The third major element in the review workplan called for an "Interim Report"Footnote 11 to document and distill what had been learned to that point through the process of gathering information and engaging stakeholders. The Reviewer prepared this report for translation and distribution in both official languages to all review participants and members of stakeholder groups, who received it in the third week of January, 2013.

The Interim Report served as a way to develop a more complete shared understanding, between review participants, of the causes of non-compliance and of potential solutions to the problem. Secondary purposes were: to obtain critical review and feedback on anything the report may have overlooked; to identify any other additional causes of non-compliance; and to have review participants state the solutions they preferred in the context of what they had learned to that point. Most of the 105 review participants who received the Interim Report offered superb detailed feedback.

Final Report and Recommendations

The review planning framework's fourth and final structural element called for an examination and analysis of all feedback provided by review participants. It also allowed time for further detailed research as deemed necessary and, finally, for the Reviewer to develop and document his findings, make recommendations and prepare and submit this report.

---

Return to source ofFootnote 1 Section 524(1)(b) of the Canada Elections Act states: "Any elector who was eligible to vote in an electoral district, and any candidate in an electoral district, may, by application to a competent court, contest the election in that electoral district on the grounds that . . . there were irregularities, fraud or corrupt or illegal practices that affected the result of the election."

Return to source ofFootnote 2 Wrzesnewskyj v. Attorney General (Canada), 2012 ONSC 2873 (CanLII); available online at:http://www.iijcan.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2012/2012onsc2873/2012onsc2873.html

Return to source ofFootnote 3 Wrzesnewskyj v. Attorney General (Canada), at para. 71 citing O'Brien v. Hamel, supra, at para. 25.

Return to source ofFootnote 4 Canada Elections Act, sec. 524(1)(b); available online at: http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&document=index&dir=loi/fel/cea&lang=e

Return to source ofFootnote 5 Supreme Court of Canada, Opitz v. Wrzesnewskyj, 2012 SCC 55; Introduction of majority opinion, second para., page 6; available online at: http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/12635/1/document.do

Return to source ofFootnote 6 Opitz v. Wrzesnewskyj; Introduction of dissenting opinion, third para, page 10.

Return to source ofFootnote 7 Parliament of Canada, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Evidence, Tuesday, May 29, 2012. Available online, between markers 1140 & 1145, at:http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=5614754&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=1

Return to source ofFootnote 8 Best Practices for Ensuring Compliance with Registration and Voting Procedures, prepared by Rohan Kembhavi, Elections Canada Policy and Research Analyst. Available online at: http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=cons/comp/bp&document=index&lang=e

Return to source ofFootnote 9 'The Evolution of the Duties to be Fulfilled by Poll Staff with Regards to Registration and Voting on Polling Day and Advance Polling Days, 1920 to 2012', prepared by Professor Louis Massicotte, Université Laval.

Return to source ofFootnote 10 See Annex A: Table of Legislated Responsibilities for Election Officers and Annex B: Polling Station Process Flow.

Return to source ofFootnote 11 Compliance Review – Interim Report. Available online at: http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=cons/comp/crir&document=index&lang=e

Electoral Officer Responds to Conclusion Reached by the Commissioner of Canada Elections OTTAWA, Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Electoral Officer Responds to Conclusion Reached by the Commissioner of Canada Elections

OTTAWA, Tuesday, July 30, 2013

• The Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, Marc Mayrand, has been informed of the results of the review conducted by theCommissioner of Canada Elections, Yves Côté, in the matter of the Liberal Party of Canada's 2006 leadership contest. Following that contest, several of the party's leadership contestants were left with substantial unpaid loans and claims.
• The Chief Electoral Officer referred the matter to the Commissioner once the relevant extension periods permitted under the Canada Elections Act for repayment of outstanding loans and claims had expired and the necessary audits were completed. The Commissioner is the independent officer appointed under section 509 of the Canada Elections Act whose duty is to ensure that the Act is complied with and enforced.
• The Chief Electoral Officer has stated publicly on a number of occasions that the current Canada Elections Actprovisions regarding loans and other unpaid claims are unworkable.
• The conclusion of the Commissioner, which was reached following a thorough review of the relevant provisions of theCanada Elections Act and extensive consultations with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, confirms the Chief Electoral Officer's position and highlights the urgent need for legislative reform in this area.
• The Chief Electoral Officer has written to the Minister of State for Democratic Reform to advise him of the outcome of this matter and to again stress the need to include changes to the political loans regime in the expected electoral reform legislation.

"It is clear that the leadership contestants who continue to have unpaid debts from the Liberal Party of Canada's 2006 leadership contest are not in compliance with the Canada Elections Act," said Mr. Mayrand. "However, the Act, as currently drafted, does not provide a means by which these contestants can be sanctioned or compelled to repay their outstanding debts."

Mr. Mayrand further stated: "The recent conclusion reached by the Commissioner of Canada Elections points to a significant gap in the legislation that allows candidates and leadership contestants to fund their campaigns through loans which they do not repay, thereby defeating the strict limit on contributions set out by the Canada Elections Act. Legislation is urgently needed to provide effective remedies to guard against this practice and to maintain the integrity of our political financing regime."

Backgrounder

Vote. Shape your world.

Elections Canada is an independent body set up by Parliament.

Unpaid Loans and Claims of 2006 Liberal Leadership ContestantsCommissioner of Canada Elections

Unpaid Loans and Claims of 2006 Liberal Leadership Contestants Overview of the Issues


On December 3, 2006, a Liberal leadership contest was held that resulted in several contestants being left with substantial unpaid loans and claims. The relevant extension periods permitted under the Canada Elections Act for repayment of outstanding loans by these contestants have now expired.


Earlier today, the Commissioner of Canada Elections announced that no enforcement action can be taken against the leadership contestants in relation to their unpaid debts. After having thoroughly reviewed the matter in light of the relevant provisions of the Canada Elections Act, and following extensive consultations with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Commissioner has concluded that the Act, as currently drafted, lacks sufficient clarity to support prosecution in the criminal courts with respect to loans or claims that remain unpaid following the expiration of all extensions.


The Chief Electoral Officer has stated publicly on a number of occasions that the current Canada Elections Act regime respecting loans and other unpaid claims is unworkable. The recent conclusion reached by the Commissioner of Canada Elections highlights the urgent need for legislative reform in this area. Upon receiving the results of the review conducted by the Commissioner, the Chief Electoral Officer wrote to the Minister of State for Democratic Reform to advise him of the outcome of this matter and to again stress the need to include changes to the political loans and unpaid claims regime in the expected electoral reform legislation.


Although there is no effective legislative mechanism to sanction their non-compliance, it is clear that the affected leadership contestants did not comply with the legal requirement to repay their loans or claims from leadership campaign funds. Despite these difficulties, Elections Canada will continue to administer the regime relating to loans and unpaid claims in keeping with the spirit of the legislation. This means that Elections Canada will strongly encourage candidates and leadership contestants to respect their obligations and repay loans in a timely, transparent and accountable manner, as Canadians would expect.
Legislative Framework and Recommendations


The Canada Elections Act includes an offence for not paying a “claim for leadership campaign expenses” within 18 months (a similar provision requires candidates in an election to pay their claims within four months). The requirement to pay within the prescribed time does not apply in a situation where a contestant or candidate has requested and is granted an extension by the Chief Electoral Officer or a judge, or in the case of a legal dispute regarding the claims.


As noted on several occasions by the Chief Electoral Officer, the political loans regime is overly complex and difficult to understand. While loans are not specifically defined as “claims” under the Canada Elections Act, Elections Canada treats unpaid loans as unpaid claims.


There are certain deficiencies in the unpaid loans and claims regime under the Canada Elections Act, particularly in the context of enforcement in the criminal courts, where all of the elements of an offence need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. For example, the Act does not specifically contain an offence for non-payment of claims after the expiry of an extension period, nor does it include an obligation to abide by the conditions of any extensions granted. In addition, the Act “deems” unpaid claims outstanding after 18 months (for leadership contestants) to be “contributions” under the Act, which is a source of confusion. Wilfully exceeding contribution limits is a separate offence under the Act, with a separate burden of proof that cannot be satisfied by a “deeming” provision, and has nothing to do with the timing of the repayment of claims.


This lack of clarity regarding the unpaid claims regime has been the subject of recommendations presented to Parliament by both the former and the current Chief Electoral Officer. In his recommendations report Responding to Changing Needs – Recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada Following the 40th General Election, which was submitted to Parliament in June 2010, Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand presented a detailed series of proposals relating to the treatment of outstanding claims, including loans. He suggested that the rules in this area should be simplified, with a view to improving transparency and effectiveness.


The Chief Electoral Officer repeated these recommendations in his testimony before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in October 2012, on the subject of Bill C-21, the Political Loans Accountability Act, which is still before Parliament. He recommended legislative reform addressing not just loans, but unpaid claims more generally, reiterating his 2010 recommendations as to how to streamline and rationalize the regime. Among other things, he stated that “political loan reform should also propose rules that are simple enough to be understood and followed by both the political entities and the electors supporting them.”
Impact on the Political Financing Regime


Collectively, the 2006 Liberal leadership contestants had outstanding debts of $2,102,229 18 months after the contest date, and $399,300 after the expiration of the court deadlines. As of today, Elections Canada’s records show that an audited amount of $399,300 continues to be outstanding.


The issue of unpaid loans and claims is not limited to leadership contestants. In fact, it is not rare for candidates in elections also to borrow funds or use credit, including from their own resources, to finance their campaigns.


The lack of clarity in the Canada Elections Act to support prosecutions in cases where loans and claims are not paid within statutory deadlines is likely to affect the motivation of financial and official agents to raise funds to repay loans and claims following the conclusion of a contest or election. This, in turn, creates a gap in the contributions regime, whereby financial and official agents or candidates and leadership contestants could potentially use loans and claims as a way to circumvent the contribution rules.
Annex A: 2006 Liberal Leadership Contest: Loans Outstanding 18 Months After Contest Date
Loans Outstanding 18 Months After Contest Date


Names of contestants

Total amounts borrowed

Amounts outstanding in contestants' original returns

Amounts outstanding at June 3, 2008,

18 months after contest date

Amounts outstanding at December 31, 2011 (expiration of the court extension)


Maurizio Bevilacqua

$491,809

$201,809

$241,8091

$0


Scott Brison

$200,000

$150,000

$105,000

$0


Stéphane Dion

$905,000

$755,000

$740,000

$7,500


Ken Dryden

$300,000

$300,000

$300,000

$225,000


Hedy Fry

$153,500

$148,500

$104,500

$69,000


Martha Hall Findlay

$130,000

$130,000

$63,500

$0 2


Michael Ignatieff

$570,000

$529,496

$144,000

$0


Gerard Kennedy

$451,170

$255,420

$230,420

$0


Joe Volpe

$243,556

$195,000

$173,000

$97,800 2


Totals

$3,445,035

$2,665,225

$2,102,229

$399,300

Notes:
This table, which shows the progress made by the leadership contestants in repaying their loans, reflects data available on the Elections Canada website.
The data presented in this table do not include accrued interest on the outstanding loans.



Annex B: Unpaid Loans of Candidates in the 39th, 40th and 41st General Elections (all political parties)



Candidate unpaid loans


39th general election

40th general election

41st general election


Number of candidates

Amount

Number of candidates

Amount

Number of candidates

Amount


Total amounts

324

$4,447,765

289

$4,914,319

208

$3,048,185


Owed at 4 months after polling day (filing deadline)

217

$3,156,742

151

$2,557,323

96

$1,475,532


Owed at 18 months after polling day*

29

$390,476

37

$468,954

39

$741,326

Notes:
The 39th GE occurred on January 28, 2006; the 40th GE, on October 14, 2008; and the 41st GE, on May 2, 2011.
This table, which shows the progress made by candidates in repaying their loans, reflects data available on the Elections Canada website.
The data presented in this table do not include accrued interest on the outstanding loans.


* Last date on which Elections Canada publishes data, as per the Canada Elections Act (subsection 450(4)).


Return to source ofFootnote 1 An additional $40,000 was borrowed by the contestant after the submission of his original return.


Return to source ofFootnote 2 Amounts differ from the amounts referred to in the second court extension request due to audit adjustments.

The University of Ottawa is pleased to announce that Kevin Page has been named to the Jean-Luc Pépin Research Chair of the Faculty of Social Sciences.

Kevin Page, former Parliamentary Budget Officer, has been granted a Research Chair on Canadian Government at the University of Ottawa

OTTAWA, July 29, 2013  —  The University of Ottawa is pleased to announce that Kevin Page has been named to the Jean-Luc Pépin Research Chair of the Faculty of Social Sciences.

In March 2008, after an illustrious 27-year career as a public servant in various federal departments and agencies, including the Department of Finance, the Treasury Board Secretariat, and the Office of the Privy Council, Kevin Page became Canada’s first ever Parliamentary Budget Officer. His appointment to this position ended in March 2013.
“We are thrilled that someone as remarkable as Kevin Page has joined our research team,” stated University of Ottawa president and vice-chancellor Allan Rock. “His experience in the federal public service will be a major asset in developing the public finance and governance projects we have planned.”
The Jean-Luc Pepin Research Chair on Canadian Government is dedicated to research on Canadian political institutions and their transformation in response to the changing conditions and practices of contemporary democratic governance. This endowed research chair is named in honour of Jean-Luc Pepin, a respected politician and political scientist who was a professor at the University of Ottawa.
During the upcoming academic year, Kevin Page will teach two courses at the Faculty of Social Sciences: one in economics and the other in public administration. He also intends to work towards the creation of a new institute dedicated to public finance issues.
“Kevin Page’s experience and professional career complement two of our Schools, namely the Department of Economics and the School of Political Studies,” said Marcel Mérette, Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences. “The research projects that Mr. Page intends to pursue will surely interest several of our professors, and we anticipate that future joint projects between Mr. Page and Faculty researchers will prove to be very rewarding. In addition, his membership among the ranks of our teaching staff will allow us to continue to provide our students with an unparalleled level of experiential learning.”
“For me, having an opportunity to work at a great and historic university in Canada, the University of Ottawa, and the privilege of teaching the next generation of leaders, is a dream come true,” said Kevin Page. “Being named the Jean-Luc Pepin Research Chair on Canadian Government is a humbling experience. Jean-Luc Pepin was a highly respected and well known cabinet minister in Canada. He was a much-loved professor at the University of Ottawa.”
Kevin Page has been appointed to the Jean-Luc-Pepin Research Chair for a three-year term ending on June 30, 2016.
About the University of Ottawa
The University of Ottawa is committed to research excellence and encourages an interdisciplinary approach to knowledge creation, which attracts the best academic talent from across Canada and around the world. The University is an important stakeholder in the National Capital Region’s economic development.