RSS FeedWhen Dan Hamilton Was Put in a Cage
Family Matters: Fundamentals of Child Support
Civil liberties suspended in Toronto during G20?
The G20 summit in Toronto has come and gone, but not before leaving a trail of destruction in its wake. I’m not just referring to all the shattered glass and burned out husks of police cars; I’m talking about Torontonians’ faith in the rule of law.
Our Ontario police forces, particularly the Toronto Police Service, are some of the finest and most professional in the world. They have worked hard to build community relations and win the respect of the public. Just as we rely on the police to keep us secure, the police rely on public cooperation to effectively do their jobs.
When the public trust in police is diminished, and people begin to see the police as an enemy, it puts our safety in jeopardy. That is precisely what is happening. The police are coming under heavy criticism for the perceived overzealous tactics they used this weekend. I have heard of many strong supporters of the police, some of whom were caught up in the mass detentions, beginning to question whether their support was misplaced.
The front page of the Office of the Independent Police Review Director’s website has been changed to add a special notice about G20-related complaints. I suspect the new bureaucratic agency will have to expand just to handle all of them.
Preliminary reports of apparent civil rights violations are coming in from all over the city. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association says that these were not isolated incidents.
I saw many with my own eyes. I was in downtown Toronto to take photos of this once-in-a-lifetime event. What I saw terrified me and broke my heart.
The disgraceful actions of a relatively small, hardcore group of criminals running amok in the city have been used to justify the biggest suspension of civil liberties in Toronto’s history.
Peaceful protesters and onlookers at the designated “free speech zone” in Queen’s Park were attacked with batons, pepper spray, and rubber bullets with little or no warning (I was there; I heard none). Nine hundred people were rounded up and arrested, including credentialed journalists, pedestrians walking their dogs, and even a TTC worker in full uniform. Ordinary people at Queen and Spadina were surrounded on all sides by riot police. One by one, seemingly for no reason at all, people were snatched from the trap by force and then disappeared behind a wall of riot police. The fear is vividly captured in this video (watch the whole thing or just skip ahead to 7:30).
Those arrested were taken to the Eastern Ave. Detention Centre, a specially constructed temporary facility. What happened inside that facility is not yet fully known. Openly homosexual and transgendered people allege that they were segregated into separate cells by homophobic police. Women have made shocking accusations of being threatened by their jailors with rape. The unconfirmed allegations made by Amy Miller in this video are so terrifying that they defy belief. At the very least, corroborated reports describe the conditions inside as deplorable:
Cramped and filthy cells, mismanagement and disorganized paperwork, lack of food, water and toilet paper, and denial of legal aid and access to lawyers.
Taylor Flook said she spent almost 24 hours in detention before being released without charge and witnessed strip searches of women by male officers, as well as sexist remarks made by several officers.
Hundreds of people have since been released without charge; the vast majority of those arrested weren’t doing anything illegal in the first place!
And then there was the controversial G20 security law. A regulation, quietly passed by the Ontario cabinet under the Public Works Protection Act, empowered police to stop and search anyone attempting to enter the G20 security perimeter. Police Chief Blair now admits that he deliberately misled the media and public as to the scope of the law. He claimed (and the media reported) that it covered a 5-meter area outside of the fence. In fact there were only a few areas outside of the fence which were covered by the regulation. I was misled too (hey, I can admit a mistake).
Trouble is, apparently the Chief failed to tell his own officers about the limited scope of the law. They were enforcing that law all over Toronto, even though it didn’t apply there. When pedestrians far from the security zone were stopped by police, and demanded to know the source of the police authority, they were told: “Public Works Protection Act, you can look it up.” I myself saw people stopped and searched in this manner.
Closer to the security zone, people who were just cycling by, with no intention of trying to enter, were stopped and told they had to surrender their bags for a search or be arrested. Despite the Chief’s claims that “if they refuse and they have the right to refuse, then they leave and they will leave without being arrested,” these people had no option to leave.
Elsewhere, people were stopped on the street and subjected to searches without reasonable suspicion that they were involved in a criminal offence. They were told they were under investigative detention. In the video below, a woman is stopped at King and University (a fair distance from the security zone) and told she must submit to a search of her bags or face arrest. While the officer was polite and respectful, I’ll let you decide whether he violated ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter (hint: see R. v. Mann, 2004 SCC 52 and R. v. Suberu, 2009 SCC 33).
After what I saw this weekend, I believe that the government must call a public inquiry into what happened. I fear we will discover that civil liberties throughout Toronto were effectively suspended — the most troubling encroachment on civil rights in Canada since the FLQ crisis. There are lessons to be learned. The police have admitted that mistakes were made. We must have a full accounting of those mistakes to ensure that they are not repeated.
G20 Declaration
THE G-20 TORONTO SUMMIT
DECLARATION
June 26 – 27, 2010
Preamble
1. In Toronto, we held our first Summit of the G-20 in its new capacity as the premier forum for our international economic co-operation.
2. Building on our achievements in addressing the global economic crisis, we have agreed on the next steps we should take to ensure a full return to growth with quality jobs, to reform and strengthen financial systems, and to create strong, sustainable and balanced global growth.
3. Our efforts to date have borne good results. Unprecedented and globally co-ordinated fiscal and monetary stimulus is playing a major role in helping to restore private demand and lending. We are taking strong steps toward increasing the stability and strength of our financial systems. Significantly increased resources for international financial institutions are helping stabilize and address the impact of the crisis on the world’s most vulnerable. Ongoing governance and management reforms, which must be completed, will also enhance the effectiveness and relevance of these institutions. We have successfully maintained our strong commitment to resist protectionism.
4. But serious challenges remain. While growth is returning, the recovery is uneven and fragile, unemployment in many countries remains at unacceptable levels, and the social impact of the crisis is still widely felt. Strengthening the recovery is key. To sustain recovery, we need to follow through on delivering existing stimulus plans, while working to create the conditions for robust private demand. At the same time, recent events highlight the importance of sustainable public finances and the need for our countries to put in place credible, properly phased and growth-friendly plans to deliver fiscal sustainability, differentiated for and tailored to national circumstances. Those countries with serious fiscal challenges need to accelerate the pace of consolidation. This should be combined with efforts to rebalance global demand to help ensure global growth continues on a sustainable path. Further progress is also required on financial repair and reform to increase the transparency and strengthen the balance sheets of our financial institutions, and support credit availability and rapid growth, including in the real economy. We took new steps to build a better regulated and more resilient financial system that serves the needs of our citizens. There is also a pressing need to complete the reforms of the international financial institutions.
5. Recognizing the importance of achieving strong job growth and providing social protection to our citizens, particularly our most vulnerable, we welcome the recommendations of our Labour and Employment Ministers, who met in April 2010, and the training strategy prepared by the International Labour Organization (ILO) in collaboration with the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
6. We are determined to be accountable for the commitments we have made, and have instructed our Ministers and officials to take all necessary steps to implement them fully within agreed timelines.
Guest Post: The Lawyer Philanthropist
Is law school a good way to wait out the recession? Is it still a financially viable career? Idealism may come to the fore for many people. For the altruistic individual, a career in law holds a great potential for both making a positive difference in the lives of others, as well as providing a viable source of income.
Dreams of potential lawyers.
Most people who attend college have a dream that motivates them in their pursuit of education. For some it’s money and/or technological innovation. For many others, it’s to make a career out of helping people. All too often, this dream dies when they enter the job market and realize that the costs of raising a family and saving for retirement aren’t compatible with a non-profit salary. Lawyers who work for non-profits are more financially secure than social workers and program directors.
Government incentives for do-good-er lawyers.
Aside from the obvious bonus of benefiting society, welfare advocates are well provided for when employed by the Canadian government. Several private and federal programs are available to help pay off student loans. While Canadian law students take out significantly less in student loans to fund their college career, the debt taken on by American law students can be onerous. An American’s options are generally limited to either working as a corporate lawyer at a high-end firm, or accepting student loan government loan repayment in exchange for time spent as a state attorney.
A broader reach.
Most professions founded upon philanthropy and community outreach are limited in scope. Social workers and similar professionals are only qualified to work with a very specific subset of the population. Lawyers, on the other hand, have the potential to better the lives of many people of various backgrounds. The same lawyer who serves as an advocate for abused children can also work to change laws regarding unemployment benefits.
Since the recession began, much attention has been directed toward the job market and employment policies. Lawyers will be in a strong position to ensure that workers rights are upheld in the wake of new employment and taxation policies.
Breaking stereotypes.
Lawyers have acquired a reputation for being immoral or opportunistic. In reality, lawyers do more and have more potential to make the world a better place than many other professionals. When combined with a higher-than-average salary potential, law becomes a very attractive option to a philanthropy-minded college student.
Bio: Alexis Bonari is a freelance writer and blog junkie. She is currently a resident blogger at onlinedegrees.org, researching areas of online education programs. In her spare time, she enjoys square-foot gardening, swimming, and avoiding her laptop.
Democracy Now! in Toronto
They’re covering the G20.
Secret Laws and Extraordinary Police Powers: G20
Normally, Canadians have the right to be left alone by police. Pedestrians generally don’t have to answer police questions and don’t have to identify themselves. They certainly don’t have to submit to searches by police. Not so this weekend in Toronto!
Following up on Pulat’s post regarding the legality of G20 police cordons in Toronto, if you’re going to be down near the G20 security zone in Toronto, you should be on notice. This weekend, police will have extraordinary powers to stop, search, and arrest anyone who comes within 5 meters of the zone.
The source of this power is the Public Works Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.55. The Act allows the government to designate areas as “public works.” Once an area has been designated as a public work, police and appointed “guards” have special powers to secure the area. Police and appointed guards can:
- require anyone approaching the zone to identify themselves (s. 3(a));
- search, without a warrant, anyone who is approaching the zone (s. 3(b));
- search, without a warrant, any cars whose driver or passenger attempts (or is suspected of having attempted) to enter the zone (s. 3(b));
- use as much force as is necessary to prevent a person from entering the zone (s. 3(c));
- arrest anyone who refuses to comply with their directions (s. 5(2)).
But failure to comply with directions doesn’t just get you arrested. It is a provincial offence punishable by a maximum $500 fine and/or 2 months in jail (s. 5(1))!
So where does the “Secret Laws” part of my title fit into all this?
Well, as it turns out, the Ontario cabinet quietly designated a 5-meter radius around the G20 security area as a “public work” without really telling anyone.
The regulation authorizing these powers in relation to the G20 zone was filed on June 14, 2010 and went into force a week later. But to my knowledge, the government made no announcement of the regulation. Worse yet, it has not been published in the Ontario Gazette (it will only be published in July, after it is no longer in force). Since the regulation is not yet part of Ontario’s consolidated law, the only way to access the regulation is to look it up in the “source law” section of the e-Laws website here.
For all practical purposes, this is a “secret law,” because of the failure of the government to publicize it.
This law authorizes extraordinary police powers, and it significantly derogates from our ordinary civil rights. There is a real risk of people being arrested and charged when exercising the same rights to refuse to answer questions and submit to searches that apply everywhere else. In my opinion, the government should have been more forthcoming about the law to minimize that risk.
Guest Post: 5 of the most Difficult or Dangerous Countries to Visit
5 of the most Difficult or Dangerous Countries to Visit
While every traveler has their own unique motivation for visiting any part of the word, there are certain areas which no matter what the tourist appeal may be, are probably best avoided. While anytime you want to leave your homeland you’re most likely going to need a passport, several countries have additional requirements of entry. Some countries also carry conditions or costs for exit. In the case of these 5 nations, in addition to passports and visas, escorts, in some cases armed, may also be handy tools for travelers.
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea or North Korea
Travel Logistics: Up until January 2010, travel to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) was severely restricted for US citizens, and remains difficult, though not impossible for citizens of many countries. As it stands, North Korea can only be visited through organized tours or with escorts. Foreigners are not allowed to roam freely or use local currency around the country. There is no embassy for North Korea in Canada or the US and only a United Nations head quarters in New York City. Most people wishing to travel to North Korea must obtain their Visas in another country, most often China. As a result of tensions between North and South Korea, most travelers will need to pass through China before entering the DPRK anyway, making a Chinese Visa a necessity as well. Although since the visit there is not wasted. In addition to the standard forms, Chinese visas are bound for expiration the moment they are issued, meaning that one must apply for one as close to their date of departure as possible. In order to get a DRPK Visa in China one must arrive at least a day early, and send the Visa application and passport information at least 5 weeks ahead of time.
Other considerations:
- The lack of a Canadian embassy in DRPK means that all Canadian travelers must instead seek assistance through the Swedish Embassy. Though, the Swedish embassy may not be able to offer much assistance in certain circumstances. The DRPK reserves the right to restrict consular access and little is known about the legal system in this nation.
- The lingering tensions between north and South Korea also pose challenges to a tourist. While the threat of attack is somewhat minimal, the activities of travelers may be highly monitored.
- Cellular phones are prohibited and will be confiscated if discovered. While computers may be allowed, internet access is not. Cameras are permitted but visitors may not take pictures of airports, train stations or government buildings.
- Only government sanctioned tours are allowed, and only to specifically sanctioned parts of the country. Politics remain a driving force in DRPK, making it necessary for any travelers to remain vigilant in their efforts to appear supportive of the Korean government. In fact, all tourist institutions are government owned making tourism dollars a source of government funding.
- Journalists are almost never granted Visas under any circumstances.
Democratic Republic of Congo
Travel Logistics: It takes some doing to visit the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Visas for the DRC mandate an application filled out in triplicate, 3 photos and 3 letters. Those letters are: one letter of Employment, one letter of reference and one letter of invitation. An itinerary, proof of financial support and a yellow fever vaccination will also be required. In most case travelers will also need a multi-entry pass, which can cost upwards of $300. Aside from the legal papers being expensive; some travelers also report having been asked by security personnel to pay “special fees” upon entry. On the way out, travelers will also be obligated to pay a departure fee called the “Redevance de Développement des Infrastructures Aéroportuaires” without paying this and receiving the accompanying “Go Pass” one would not allowed to board their returning flight.
Other considerations:
- The general lawlessness in the DRC make this a highly unadvisable place to travel. A Canadian Embassy exists in Kinshasa but may be of limited assistance in some circumstances.
- Civil unrest among the country’s inhabitants combined with foreign interest in the DRC’s vast wealth of natural resources, have resulted in a country fraught with murder, rape, torture, kidnapping and war for the past few decades. Among these resources is Colton, a material used in mobile phones, computers and game consoles, the rapidly increasing demand for these products has only intensified the blood-shed in the DRC.
- Travelers may be exposed to random acts of violence or attacks at any time or place throughout the country even in “safer” areas such as Bukavu.
- Unannounced curfews, border closings and flight suspension may occur at any time.
- Multiple Humanitarian and Non Government Organization (NGO) workers have been victims of attacks, robbery extortion and sexual assault.
- Tourist facilities are limited and road travel can be difficult due to the lack of public transportation and established roads. On what remains of the roads, truck travel may be possible but impeded by fake “security personnel” attempting to extort money or valuables.
Afghanistan
Logistics: In order to travel to Afghanistan, any traveler will need a Visa. An Afghanistan Visa is procurable through the Embassy of Afghanistan in Ottawa and Toronto. While the turn around time and expense of this Visa is reasonable extensive documentation may be required. It may be necessary to present proof of residence, travel itinerary or employment upon return. 2 identical photos with explicit specifications are also necessary. Failing to obtain a Visa prior to entry will likely result in detention or deportation and attempts to enter this country with an Israeli visa or passport stamp will probably end in refusal. Air Entry is the only viable option for security reasons and because roadways into the country are considered dangerous.
Other Considerations:
- While Canada does have an embassy in Afghanistan, the Canadian recommends that citizens avoid all travel.
- All buildings and public area remain at risk for terrorist attacks representing extreme danger to all travelers.
- In addition to attacks, there are landmines throughout the country and the Taliban has identified kidnapping foreigners as a primary goal.
- In addition, health care facilities in Afghanistan are unsanitary, creating severe risk of infection. Medical Evacuation is highly unlikely and certain remote areas of the country may be outside of consular assistance.
Iraq
Logistics: Getting into Iraq my not be as impossible as entering this international war zone would seem. Visas can be obtained through Iraqi Embassies ahead of time, or like with the DRPK, entrance may be obtained from a neighboring country. The most popular places for border crossings are Turkey, Jordan and Iran, and producing an invitation for entry to Iraq may help expedite the process. Though at present time religious Visas are suspended, Iraqi visit Visas are remarkably inexpensive ranging from $30 – $100 for multiple entry Visas. Although, the wait times may be significant, and thorough documentation of identity must be presented. The logistical difficulty of visiting this country lies in the fact that all visitors must be cleared once they have arrived in Baghdad and entry may be denied even after a Visa has been issued. The length of stay is also an issue. Anyone staying in Iraq for more than 10 days must obtain a residency stamp, the procurement of which will require HIV test results in addition to other credentials. In order to leave Iraq visitors must also obtain an exit stamp.
Other considerations:
- Iraq is at present in a state of war with extremely dangerous, and life threatening activities occurring in most regions.
- Travel by road, particularly at night, can be extremely dangerous and Railway travel is discouraged.
- A strict curfew is imposed at midnight and curfews may be enforced at any given time throughout the day.
- Security escorts should accompany all travelers due to the extremely high risk of danger and the high number of civilian deaths as a result of random acts of violence.
Somalia
Logistics: While Visas are required for Somaliland and Puntland, visiting the majority of Somalia does not mandate obtaining a visa. Primarily because for the past 18 years Somalia has had a complete lack of government which has made the creation of an organized Visa issuing process nearly impossible. At present, the closest one can get to Somalia is Somaliland, and Visas to this small nation can only be obtained through the UK or Ethiopia. Even if one were to get into Somalia the sealed borders and frequent shutting down of the airport could prohibit departure. Here, a body guard, preferably armed, is more important than a Visa.
Other considerations:
- This is another nation that comes with strenuous advisories of avoidance. The complete lawlessness and lack of a governing body makes for a highly dangerous environment.
- Guerilla attacks, pirating, explosives, and gunfire can be expected at any time in all places. Here, residents harbor extremely anti-western sentiments, representing a particular danger to US and Canadian citizens.
- Foreigners here are frequently kidnapped or assassinated.
- Land travel is difficult because road conditions are dangerous and made even more so by the threat of landmines and flash floods.
- There is no consulate aid available to any Canadians within these borders.
Article provided by Canadian Pardons Service – For Canadians who need help obtaining US Entry Waivers. – CanadianPardons.ca
The legality of G20 police cordons in Toronto
Toronto is a changed city this weekend. Various police forces have cordoned off a big part of downtown searching and checking IDs of those wishing to enter. We in Canada are not used to ID checks and car searches on public streets. Canadians are usually free to walk in public areas, and the police cannot stop people and force them to show ID or even answer questions without a good reason to suspect them of a crime. When a big part of a crowded and bustling city becomes off limits, many people will probably wonder if G20 is worth it. Many lawyers will perhaps ask a different question: does the police have the power to cordon off downtown Toronto. The answer is yes.
The simplest and shortest explanation is in s. 10.1(2) of the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act (FMIOA), which charges the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) with the security of “intergovernmental conferences” in Canada. Section 10.1(2) of the act expressly grants the RCMP the power “to take appropriate measures, including controlling, limiting or prohibiting access to any area to the extent and in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances.” The Integrated Security Unit that includes the RCMP is responsible for securing G8/G20 events. The RCMP’s role is “the Summit site and surrounding areas,” so presumably it is the RCMP that has cordoned off a part of downtown Toronto. It has a statutory power to do so.
An Act of Parliament grants the RCMP this power to cordon off streets. That ends the real-life analysis. But imagine there was no law like that or imagine the Toronto Police tried to cordon off a few blocks in Toronto. Would the police still have the cordon-off power? This is an interesting theoretical question because many police powers do not come from statute, and it’s important to know when the police exceed their authority. The FMIOA doesn’t apply to Toronto police, and Ontario’s Police Services Act and City of Toronto Act don’t grant the cordon-off power to the Toronto Police Service. (The FMIOA presumably allows the federal government to delegate RCMP’s cordon-off power to other police services (s. 10.1(4)), but let’s pretend it’s not the case.)
In Ontario, police powers come not only from statute (express acts of the provincial legislature or the federal parliament) but also from common law (courts’ judgements). Police existed before any act of parliament incorporated it, and during that period courts had the final word on police powers. When legislatures recognized police powers under statute, sometimes they continued police powers that existed at common law. Under s. 42(3) of the Police Services Act, “[a] police officer has the powers and duties ascribed to a constable at common law.” This provision allows the courts to continue to adjudicate police powers not expressly granted by the legislature.
When Canadian courts resolve a dispute in which a complainant questions the existence of a police power, they apply the Waterfield test, named after an English case that explained police powers at common law (also known as the ancillary police powers). A court applying this test would see first if a police action interfered with personal liberty or property without statutory authority. If yes, the court would see if “(a) such conduct falls within the general scope of any duty imposed by statute or recognised at common law and (b) whether such conduct, albeit within the general scope of such a duty, involved an unjustifiable use of powers associated with the duty.” (R. v. Waterfield [1963] 3 All E.R. 659 (C.C.A.) at 661). Basically, at common law the police can do anything necessary to discharge their lawful duties as long as the use of their powers is justified.
Judicial precedents guide us as to what is justified. For example, in Knowlton v. R., a 1975 Supreme Court decision, the court held that cordoning off the sidewalk in front of a hotel hosting a foreign leader is justified. A photographer who tried to break through the cordon was arrested and charged with obstruction of police. Part of the reason for closing the sidewalk was a previous assault on this foreign leader in another Canadian town. This and the fact that everyone knew about the widely publicized assault helped the court conclude that the cordoning off was justified even if the police didn’t explain their legal authority to the photographer. The court held that the photographer should have known the police had a duty to protect the foreign dignitary in these circumstances. The photographer also had a chance to get his pass but missed it.
I haven’t heard of a court case that looked at something on the scale of G20 events in Toronto, but Knowlton gives us some idea what a court would say. It would emphasize the history of violence at such events and the massive publicity reaching probably every resident of Canada. Closing off the downtown core is not the same as blocking a sidewalk but the number of dignitaries is many times higher and it’s common to believe that the world is less secure today than 35 years ago. The courts would likely defer to police judgement on the size of the cordoned area given the courts’ relative ignorance of operational security issues. The reasoning will be similar to the rationale behind s. 10.1(2) of the FMIOA. The police would tell the courts that cordoning off a chunk of downtown Toronto is necessary to protect foreign leaders and keep order and the way they do it is justified. The court would likely accept that.
Presumably, if cordoning off passes the Waterfield test, it will also be justified under s. 1 of the Charter. (I am not going into detail on this, but see R. v. Clayton, 2007 SCC 32 for a related discussion.) Of course, unless a court finds that we have a Charter right to freely go downtown, s. 1 won’t even come up.
I am not happy with the G20 summit’s impact on Toronto. It will hurt downtown businesses (except hotels), cause traffic chaos, and bring clashes between the police and protesters. Having to show ID and submit to searches to move around your own city is a sacrifice of our liberties and it simply looks bad in a democracy. Walls separating city quarters are notorious in history, and we probably don’t want any resemblance here. But the police likely have full legal authority to cordon off streets for the G20 summit, and any challenge to such cordons should be not legal but political.
(Post sponsored by AdviceScene)
FOR YOUR EYES ONLY.
Confidentiality Notices in emails from law students make me roll my eyes. Except this one:
“POSSIBLY” CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email communication may or may not contain private, confidential, or legally privileged information, depending on what the author is saying and how he feels like that day. Usually, it will be intended for the sole use of the designated recipient(s); however, at times, you will be expected to guess who he actually wants this email going to. If you are not the intended recipient, please undertake an existential inquiry into the spirit of mankind and human relation, and let this inform your decision about whether the email is intended for you. Do not act hastily and delete it. You may want to inform the author of any fruits of your existential search into the human condition.
Shout out to NC!
Weird Legal News: Ancient Archery Law and God’s Ambassadors on the Bench
Here’s another digest of some articles I collected this week that are either funny, interesting, or just plain weird.
- Wiltshire vicar revives ancient archery law – BBC
A vicar in England has relied on an unrepealed law from the middle ages to require all men in her village to report to archery practice. Residents complying with the law were rewarded with a BBQ. No word on what happened to the violators. - San Diego Christian lawyers lose bids to be judges – CBS
A quartet of Christian lawyers vowing to be “God’s Ambassadors on the bench” will not be donning judicial robes — at least not in this electoral cycle. Critics raised concerns that the lawyers’ religious agenda would threaten the impartiality of the court system and violate the separation of church and state. Nevertheless, the candidates won between 35-40% of the votes in their respective districts. - Cop Caught Flashing Lights, Speeding To Get Coffee – CBS
A New York City traffic cop is under investigation for abusing his power to get to a Dunkin Donuts. The donut-desiring cop was spotted unnecessarily using his emergency lights, speeding, blowing through stop signs, and weaving in and out of traffic, all while chatting on his cell phone. When a city councilman caught this misbehaviour on camera, the cop stopped to give him a ticket for his troubles! - Predictions are fine, but there are better ways to protect a population – The Guardian
After a magnitude 6.3 earthquake struck Abruzzo, killings hundreds, the Italian government swung into action. Its response was to issue manslaughter indictments for seismologists who failed to predict the quake! Not surprisingly, the international scientific community is protesting the charges, given that earthquakes are presently impossible to predict.
The previous installment of Weird Legal News is here.
What can the mayor of Toronto really do?
Toronto will go to the polls to elect its mayor on October 25 this year. There is a lot of media interest in mayoral candidates and scandals surrounding some of them. The incumbent mayor, David Miller, also attracted media attention and intense feelings among both his supporters and detractors. But is the mayor’s job really that important? What actual powers does the mayor of Toronto have? If we look at the law, the answer is rather surprising. Despite all the attention, the mayor of Toronto doesn’t decide much, and the city’s governance is mostly in the hands of the city council and ultimately the provincial legislature.
The word “Toronto” has two meanings: a place and a corporation. The second meaning refers to the organization that governs the city. This organization is a special corporation created by Ontario legislature through the City of Toronto Act. As a creature of statute, the city has only powers granted by the province. The same statute grants powers to the mayor and to the city council and authorizes the city council to delegate its powers to the mayor. That’s why to get a general idea of the mayor’s powers, you need to review both the City of Toronto Act and city council by-laws.
The city, the mayor, and the city council must exercise their powers within the limits set by Ontario legislature. All three owe their existence to provincial statute and can be abolished by provincial statute. The 1997 ruling in East York v. Ontario confirmed that municipalities do not have an “autonomous” constitutional status and are subject to the will of provincial parliaments. In that case, a group of Toronto residents and some of the municipalities making up the Metro Toronto area challenged amalgamation of cities around the old Toronto into the megacity where we live today. Their challenge failed and the appeal was dismissed.
In 1994, the Supreme Court ruled that the city of Vancouver may not boycott Shell for its cooperation with the apartheid South Africa. The Court’s majority decided that such boycott was not for a municipal purpose as set by British Columbia legislation, specifically the Vancouver Charter, which is the equivalent of the City of Toronto Act. These cases show that municipalities and their mayors are subject to provinces’ will and must act within the authority given by provinces.
The word “mayor” appears only five times in the City of Toronto Act. The statute grants the mayor only two roles: the head of the city council and the “chief executive officer of the City.” In the first role, the mayor’s powers are “to preside over meetings of council so that its business can be carried out efficiently and effectively; to provide leadership to council; to represent the City at official functions; to carry out the duties of the head of council;” and to give the council certain information and recommendations. As the city’s CEO, the mayor must “uphold and promote the purposes of the City; promote public involvement in the City’s activities; act as the representative of the City both within and outside the City, and promote the City locally, nationally and internationally; participate in and foster activities that enhance the economic, social and environmental well-being of the City and its residents.”
The powers of the highly-contested mayor’s office appear almost ceremonial. The mayor doesn’t control the police, cannot influence legislation in his jurisdiction as Premiers or the Prime Minister can, and cannot issue executive orders. And the mayor doesn’t run the city’s operations: it’s the city manager’s job.
The mayor does have one truly great power, but only in emergencies. The City of Toronto Act allows the city council to delegate its legislative authority in limited circumstances. Under Chapter 59, Article VI of the Toronto Municipal Code, the mayor takes over the council’s legislative authority in emergencies. That’s what happened in 1999, when then mayor Mel Lastman called in the Canadian Forces after a massive snowfall in Toronto blocked ambulances from reaching patients.
All in all, Ontario legislature leaves it for the city council to govern Toronto. The council is like a corporate board of directors and the city manager’s office is like managers of a corporation. The mayor can’t do much without the council or the city manager. But the nature and the powers of the mayor’s office certainly make for a lot of publicity, which probably explains why there is so much hoopla over Toronto mayor’s elections this fall.
Pulat Yunusov is a Toronto civil litigation lawyer.
(Post sponsored by AdviceScene)
