From the Ottawa Citizen, Tuesday February 11, 2014, Pp.#A1, A2, and here:
‘Legal odyssey’ ends in victory for unions
Tax auditor’s ‘legal odyssey’ ends with Supreme Court affirming rights (to your money) of labour unions
By KATHRYN MAY, OTTAWA CITIZEN
OTTAWA — Bureaucrat Elizabeth Bernard lost a 23-year battle to stop her employer, the Canada Revenue Agency, from giving her home address and phone number to public service unions in a Supreme Court ruling that reaffirms labour’s rights and responsibilities.
In a majority decision, The Supreme Court of Canada found that providing home contact information didn’t breach her privacy rights or her Charter right to freedom of association or its flip side, the freedom not to associate, and not belong to a union.
“In our view the compelled disclosure of home contact information in order to allow a union to carry out its representational obligations to all bargaining unit members does not
engage violate Ms. Bernard’s freedom not to associate with the union,” said the ruling.”
It took them only 23 years to come up with a decision which is Dead Wrong!
In a ruling released Friday, the high court upheld a Public Service Labour Relations Board’s decision that CRA had to provide home contact information for all employees in a bargaining unit so a union can fulfil its representational duties.
“Providing Ms. Bernard’s home contact information to the union was reasonably found by the board to be a necessary incident of the union’s representational obligations to her as a member of the bargaining unit. Based, on the court’s jurisprudence, therefore, Ms. Bernard’s freedom from association has no legal claim.”
The two dissenting judges also rejected her argument that disclosure of information would violate her freedom not to associate.
Bernard, a tax auditor at CRA, wanted to keep her personal information from the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC), the union that represented tax auditors. She exercised her right not to join the union but as a “Rand formula member” she had to pay dues for the benefits of union representation.
She argued the disclosure of her home address and phone number breached her privacy rights and her right not to associate with the union.
Unions called the decision a “significant victory” for union rights and responsibilities, especially in what they see as a hostile labour environment. They are facing legislation with new rules for certifying and decertifying unions and mandatory disclosure of financial transactions, including political activities. At the same time, proposals are being floated to scrap the Rand formula and bring in “right to work” legislation that would make union dues optional.
Peter Engelmann, a lawyer representing PIPSC, said the ruling reaffirms the union rights enshrined in the landmark cases, such as Lavigne, which upheld mandatory union dues and the Advance Cutting and Coring case, which upheld mandatory union membership in the Quebec construction industry.
WHEN GROUPS HAVE RIGHTS, ALL REAL LIVE INDIVIDUAL HUMANS LOSE THEM
If successful, Bernard’s challenge could have significantly reduced the threshold for workers to invoke the Charter’s freedom not to associate with unions, opening the door for opting out of unions and of paying dues.
“This case is much broader than Elizabeth Bernard. This is a case about the responsibilities of trade unions to represent all individuals in the bargaining units for which they are certified. The court has recognized unions’ duties and why being able to communicate is so important for them,” said Engelmann.
“We have a right to your money, and you have a right to pay us! Fair, no?”
If only all extortionist gangster criminals could be so lucky, eh mon freres?
The court also concluded the disclosure of home contact information didn’t breach the Privacy Act because the union’s use of it was “consistent” with the employment reasons that CRA collected the information for in the first place.
Sure – your work has your home address etc to contact you, and now so do these criminals, so everyone should be allowed to have it, just for “consistency!”
The government and union had also agreed to 15 safeguards to ensure the information was protected and only used as intended.
Right: because governments and unions contain no fallible criminal humans!
Bernard’s battle, described by the court as a “legal odyssey,” wound through three labour board hearings, and two judicial reviews in the Federal Court of Appeal before landing at Canada’s highest court. It attracted much attention in legal and labour circles, including a dozen interveners in the case for the Supreme Court’s hearing. Bernard represented herself.
Bernard’s battle first began in 1991 when she began working at the tax agency and refused to join her union, but this case dated to 2005 when the Public Service Labour Relations Act was amended and expanded the representational duties of unions. That’s when PIPSC decided to get contact information from employees, such as name, addresses, titles, positions and home emails. Bernard refused.
The court noted that “majoritarian exclusivity” is a core principle of labour relations in Canada. That means once a majority of workers vote for a union to represent them, that union becomes the exclusive bargaining agent for all employees in that group.
“Majoritarian exclusivity” = court-sanctioned group might made rights; aka:
They have a duty to represent them in collective bargaining, grievances, workforce adjustment, conducting strike or final-offer votes.
Employees can decide whether to join the union or not but they can’t waive their right on whether to be fairly and “exclusively” represented by the union.
So:“You can refuse to join the union, but you must still pay them to ‘represent’ you anyway! Whee!”
The court agreed unions cannot rely on work contact information. Communications such as email are controlled by the employer, who can vet or monitor it.
Employees can’t expect privacy with electronic communications at work. or at home any more, obviously !
Also, some employees, such as those on leave, are not reachable at work.
(BTW this link no longer works; I have no idea about how the Citizen’s Google archiving policies – don’t – work)!😉Top Court Upholds Provincial Right To Seize Property
“JUDGES” REVERSING THE ONUS TO GUILTY UNTIL NEVER PROVEN INNOCENT; DEMANDING THEIR VICTIMS PROVE A NEGATIVE!
(i.e: “YOU HAVE TO PROVE YOU OWN YOUR PROPERTY, WE DON’T HAVE TO PROVE YOU STOLE IT, SO WE’RE TAKING IT”)!
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that provincial governments can
seize steal cash, homes, and property suspected to be proceeds of crime
By Janice Tibbetts, The Ottawa Citizen – Friday, April 17 2009
OTTAWA — Provincial governments have the constitutional right to seize cash, homes and other property suspected to be proceeds of crime, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday.
The unanimous decision upholds provincial laws that permit police to confiscate goods they suspect they suspect are ill-gotten, even if they do not have enough evidence to lay charges.
THUS THE SUPREME COURT HAS MADE ITSELF DIRECTLY COMPLICIT IN THESE ILLEGAL THEFTS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS!
The court rejected an Ontario man’s argument that provincial seizure laws, adopted in recent years to deter crime and compensate victims, tread on federal jurisdiction over criminal law.
“Crime imposes substantial costs on provincial treasuries,” Justice Ian Binnie wrote in the 7-0 decision.
“It would be out of step with modern realities to conclude that a province must shoulder the cost to the community of criminal behaviour but cannot use deterrence to suppress it.”
“PRE-EMPTIVE DETERRENCE” OF CRIME BY PRE-CONFISCATING ALL PROPERTIES FOUND IN CITIZENS’ POSSESSION IS ILLEGAL!
Crime Prevention (‘Deterrance’) is impossible and thus to even attempt it is a crime!
Robin Chatterjee, a former student at Carleton University in Ottawa, was en route to his parents’ Toronto home in March 2003 when police pulled him over and seized his money and goods.
Chatterjee was stopped because his car was missing a front licence plate. Police also found a light ballast, one light socket and an exhaust fan — items that law enforcement officers contend could be used for marijuana grow operations. They also
confiscated stole $29,000 cash.
Police did not arrest the young man because they said they did not have enough evidence.
But Ontario’s Civil Remedies Act, a 2001
forfeiture theft law targeted at organized crime, does not require a criminal conviction.
WHICH MAKES THIS COMPLETELY ILLEGAL “LAW” A CRIME IN ITSELF!
CREATED WHEN MIKE HARRIS WAS (TORY) PREMIER OF ONTARIO, AND ANNE MCLELLAN (LIBERAL) WAS FED ATTORNEY GENERAL.
A key issue is the case is whether provinces have the power to seize goods they suspect were ill-gotten, given that criminal law is a federal matter.
Most provinces have similar forfeiture laws and eight provinces participated in the Supreme Court case to argue they have the constitutional power to seize the proceeds of crime.
BUT WITHOUT FIRST HAVING TO PROVE ANY SUCH ONLY ALLEGED CRIMES EVER TOOK PLACE! WHEE!
Ontario, which led the charge, maintained that its Civil Remedies Act is not criminal law, but rather a civil process designed to compensate victims of crime and help with crime prevention by making it less attractive to pursue.
IT’S A PROCESS FOR SUING PEOPLE FOR GOODS THE GOVERNMENT CAN’T PROVE THEY STOLE IN THE FIRST PLACE!
As of August 2007 the province had seized $15 million in assets, according to court records.
Chatterjee’s lawyers countered that crime is a federal responsibility and, therefore, the Ontario government’s legislation forcing the forfeiture of everything from houses to cash is outside provincial jurisdiction.
British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia all have forfeiture laws, according to arguments filed in the Supreme Court.
Two lower courts sided with the Ontario government in the case, including the Ontario Court of Appeal, which ruled in May 2007 that the criminal law is not a “watertight compartment” that precludes provincial involvement.
SURE, DOESN’T REALLY NEED THE CONSTITUTIONAL DIVISION LAW ANYWAY!
Another issue in the case is whether property seizure constitutes punishment. The Ontario government says it does not, because it is confiscating something that never rightfully belonged to the person in the first place.
WITHOUT ACTUALLY HAVING TO PROVE THAT SLANDEROUS ASSERTION IN A COURT OF LAW FIRST!
– Article from The Ottawa Citizen.
FROM HER FOLLOW-UP ARTICLE, PUBLISHED THE NEXT DAY:
reverse-onus state-theft “laws” unanimously endorsed by these convoluted twisters:
THE POLICE CAN NOW ACT ON ONLY THEIR OWN INTUITIVE SUSPICIONS AND WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL ‘SEIZE’ (STEAL) CITIZEN’S POSSESSIONS WITHOUT WARNING NOR COMPENSATION TO ‘REMEDY’ THESE LACK-OF-CRIMES.
THIS WAS AN UNANIMOUS SUPREME-COURT ‘DECISION’ ENDING THE SLIPPERY SLOPE.
IT’S ALL HERE NOW, SO WELCOME TO THE CANADIAN POLICE STATE; SIEGE HELL!
Court rules provinces can seize crime bounty
-whether or not it’s ever determined to be ‘crime bounty!’ This removes their onus of doing so – of ever again actually having to charge and try people under the aegis of evidentiary rules – we are all now merely statistics to the state actors, and they’ve just lowered the bar and so the boom on us peons, in their favour at 49/51 % (because “beyond a resonable doubt” just got demoted to “on the balance of probabilites” when mere citizens ‘interact’ with – er, I mean ‘get sued by’ the state’s now wholly self-policing ‘authority’ of mindless fear)!!!
Welcome to the uniformed mafia.
BY JANICE TIBBETTS The Ottawa Citizen
Sat, 18 Apr 2009
Provincial governments were spared the prospect of returning millions of dollars in seized property When the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday that the Crown has the power to confiscate the proceeds of crime.
The unanimous decision preserves provincial laws adopted across Canada in recent years permitting governments to attempt to take the profit out of crime and to compensate victims by ordering the forfeiture of ill- got-ten goods.
The ruling rejected an Ontario man’s argument that the province’s Civil Remedies Act is unconstitutional because it treads on federal jurisdiction over criminal law.
“Each level of government bears a portion of the costs of criminality and each level of government, therefore, has an interest in its suppression,” Justice Ian Binnie wrote in the 7-0 decision.
“SUPPRESSING” (PUNISHING) CRIMESBEFORE THEY’RE COMMITTED IS A CRIME!
Robin Chatterjee, a former student at Carleton University, was en route to his home in Thornhill, Ont, in March 2003 when police pulled him over because his car was missing a front licence plate.
They discovered he was breaching a court order to live in Ottawa and upon searching his car, found a ight ballast, one light socket and an exhaust fan items commonly used for marijuana grow opertions. He also had $29,000 cash.
Police did not charge the young man because they said they did not have enough evidence.
Ontario’s Civil Remedies Act, however, does not require a criminal conviction, so the province moved in and seized the goods after receiving judicial approval. A judge can give permission based on a balance of probabilities that the goods were proceeds of crime, a standard that is not as high as the criminal test of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
THIS MIGHT MAKE SENSE IN A PRIVATE LAWSUIT, BUT FOR GOVERNMENT OPINION TO DECIDE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP = ILLEGAL!
British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia all have forfeiture laws, according to documents filed in the Supreme Court.
Chatterjee’s lawyer, James Diamond, predicted a spike in forfeitures following the Supreme Court’s endorsement.
Also, provinces that have put their efforts on hold pending the ruling can now proceed, he said.
“I certainly expect that all the provinces will step up their efforts,” said Diamond.
Seven provinces joined the court challenge to side with Ontario in its successful argument that seizing proceeds of crime falls under provincial power over property and civil rights, rather than federal jurisdiction to craft criminal law.
WHAT SORT OF “REMEDY” LAW “REMEDIES” ACTS NOT PROVEN TO HAVE BEEN CRIMES IN THE FIRST PLACE?!
“Forfeiture is the (FORCED!!!) transfer of property from the owner to the Crown,” wrote Binnie. “Forfeiture does not result in the conviction of anybody for any offence.”
THEN IT’S STATE THEFT, PURE AND SIMPLE.
As of August 2007, Ontario had seized $15 million in property, according to court records.
Friday’s Supreme Court decision upholds two previous rulings in the lower courts, including the Ontario Court of Appeal, which ruled in May 2007 that the criminal Law is not a “watertight compartment” that precludes provincial involvement.
THEN WHY EVEN BOTHER TO HAVE A CONSTITUTIONALLY-MANDATED DIVISION OF POWERS AT ALL?!
SO MUCH FOR THE RULE OF WRITTEN LAW; IT’S ALL JUDGE-MAKE (AND NOW COP-MADE, TOO) INTERPRETIVE BS!
WHO NEEDS THE COURTS AT ALL ANY MORE, ESPECIALLY SINCE THEY’VE ABDICATED BY ENDORSING STATE THEFT?!
The government also can freeze assets, as it did in January, in a case involving an alleged Ottawa crack house at 155 Spadina Ave.
British Columbia’s Civil Forfeiture Office reported last August that it had seized $5.6 million in assets, mainly from illicit drug cases, since its law took effect in 2006.
CANWEST NEWS SERVICE