Double Hearsay

Early elections and referenda in BC: democratic accountability or political cover?

DH — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 21:43:55 +0000

Former BC Attorney General Geoff Plant, now a partner with the law firm of Heenan Blaikie, says that none of the five candidates for the leadership of the BC Liberal Party were elected to be premier during the last election. This, he says, is justification for deviating from the fixed election timetable implemented when he was AG nine years ago.

Plant’s quoted as saying: “People can debate the politics of it, the reality is none of the five leadership candidates will be able to go into the legislature and look at the assembled members and say that they have a mandate directly given to them by the people of British Columbia to lead the government.”

We at DoubleHearsay think we know what Plant actually meant to say: when people voted in the last election, they voted on the assumption that the MLA they were choosing was a member of the political party that was led by Gordon Campbell. If we thought our local MLA was being run by, say, Christy Clark or Kevin Falcon (or Moira Stillwell), we may well have voted for the NDP or Green Party candidate. Or we may not have voted at all.

While we hate to state the obvious, it’s disappointing – and a bit puzzling – that a constitutional lawyer like Geoff Plant would take such liberties in describing the electoral process in BC. We don’t directly elect anyone to be Premier – ever.

Even the folks in Vancouver-Point Grey (Gordon Campbell’s constituency) weren’t directly elected to be Premier. For that, he only needed the support of the BC Liberal Party, and – speaking simplistically — for the Libs to capture a greater share of seats in the Legislature than any other party.

As for the issue at hand, namely whether it is appropriate for a new leader to seek a clearer mandate by going to the polls ahead of the next scheduled election date, arguably we encounter crossroads at which a clearer mandate might be warranted more often than governing political parties change their leaders.

In any election campaign, there are a given set of “issues” weighing on voters’ minds and which typically determine the results. Invariably, those issues change or shift relative priority between elections. Sometimes, those issues change significantly between elections. Maybe there was a fundamental shift in the economy. Maybe we found ourselves at war. Maybe we faced the prospect of making substantive changes to our tax system.

Whenever the “issues of the day” change significantly, our political leaders have two choices. They can take the position that they were elected because the voters believed they represented a shared set of fundamental values, and that those values ought to direct how our leaders, as our elected representatives, address those new issues. Or they can seek political cover by going to the polls – either by referendum or through a general election – and letting the voters decide.

In the case of the HST, it’s clear that people in government knew during the last election campaign that shifting to the HST might be an option. Rather than making it a political issue, it seems that our leaders took the position that, if re-elected, they ought to make decisions on the HST as our elected representatives and proceed accordingly.

When the BC Liberals failed abysmally at communicating the rationale for the shift to the HST, Gordon Campbell “agreed” to a referendum on the issue. As if the “right” answer to whether the HST is best for BC might change depending on whether it was implemented by decision of Cabinet, a free vote of all MLAs, or by plebiscite. If the HST gets shot down in a referendum, the Liberals might think they are no longer blameworthy for the resulting economic decline. Perhaps. But if they could be blamed for anything, it would certainly be for their lack of leadership.

Seems to us that Christy Clark’s call for an earlier election is not much different than taking an important issue like the HST to referendum. Either way, it’s a politically expedient way to take cover when making unpopular decisions.

AGBC to Dave Basi: The legal fees are on the house.

DH — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 05:25:27 +0000

Those following the BC criminal trial of Dave Basi, Bobby Virk and Aneal Basi might not have been surprised to hear that Special Prosecutor William Bernardino worked out a plea deal that brought an end to the criminal proceedings arising from Basi and Virk’s alleged breach of trust concerning the sale of BC Rail. That the deal came before the trial was set to resume with testimony from key political insiders, including former finance minister Gary Collins and Premier Gordon Campbell, was necessarily shrugged off as coincidence. The timing of the deal, coming just before Premier Campbell was set to hit the airwaves with a televised full-throated defence of the HST — and his government’s decision to implement the tax despite having unequivocally promised not to during the previous election campaign — was pure happenstance. After all, Bernardino’s integrity is above reproach. That’s why we have special prosecutors that are fully independent from government and all of its political wants and needs.

But can the same really be said of the Government’s decision to waive its entitlement to recover at least some of Dave Basi’s estimated $3 million in legal defence fees? The government lent its credit card to Messrs. Basi and Virk when charges were laid years ago, but only on condition that the fees be paid back. So clever was the government in securing its rights that the Province took a mortgage interest in Dave Basi’s home. Granted, it was a second mortgage, but a mortgage nonetheless.

You’ll forgive us for being absolutely perplexed by the AG’s explanation that it would have been too costly to attempt recovery of the legal fees owed by Basi. The AG’s spokesperson has been quoted as saying that, at best, the Province would only have recovered a “miniscule” amount. The property was last assessed at $518,000. Given that 2010 property tax assessments in BC were somewhat deflated, we would expect the property to fetch even more than that. (The Globe and Mail recently published an estimate of $857,000). It’s nearly impossible to tell from public documents how much Basi owed on his first mortgage, but assuming it hasn’t been refinanced since the Province secured its charge in 2005 — when the value of Basi’s home was $300,000 less than the most recently assessed value, it stands to reason that there would have been well over $300,000 in untapped equity for the Province to draw on.

Enforcing a mortgage security interest in neither rocket science nor exceptionally expensive. If Basi defaulted on the “loan”, the Province would have been entitled to seek a court order for sale of the property. The first mortgagee would take its cut, and the Province could pull the remainder. There would be a handful of contested court applications to deal with, but, fortunately, the Province has a crack team of litigators to deal with those. Sure, it would have only been a fraction of the $3 million in legal fees owed by Basi, but it would have appropriately allocated at least a portion of the burden of Basi’s legal fees where it belongs.

From a cost-benefit perspective, enforcing the loan would have made sense to us. But even if you’re extremely conservative with the numbers, there was nothing preventing the Province from sitting on its rights for a few more years while letting Basi pick up some further equity in the property and swooping in later to take its cut.

Reports indicate that the Province waived its right to recover Basi’s legal fees as part of the plea deal. While the decision to extend the plea deal was Mr. Bernardino’s alone, the decision to waive the legal fees fell to the Deputy AG and Deputy Minister of Finance. Given that the obvious alternative to reaching a deal was an embarrassingly public airing of the BC Liberals’ dirty laundry in open court, we can’t help but wonder whether waiving Basi’s legal fees was a politically driven call. It certainly wasn’t an economically or principle-driven one.

Puppy sales banned in Richmond, BC

DH — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 20:05:24 +0000

As reported in The Globe and Mail, the municipal council in Richmond, British Columbia has voted to ban puppy sales at pet stores. Motivating the bylaw was a feeling that the retail sale of puppies was fuelling sales by puppy mills as well as impulse purchases that eventually led to buyer’s remorse.

Impulse purchases and buyer’s remorse? Seriously. This is why we don’t give credit cards to eight year-olds. If parents (or lonely adults) are being bamboozled en masse into buying puppies as they stroll past pet store windows at the mall — as if they were mindlessly picking up a pack of gum at the checkout aisle — we’d like to know about it. While we imagine there is no shortage of children who walk past these displays and instantly decide they must have a puppy (please, please, please, I’ll be really good I promise and feed it and walk it always, promise!), common sense suggests that parents on the receiving end can usually postpone any decision-making with a “Let me think about it”, “Ask your mom/dad”, or a “Let’s see how well you behave for the next week/month/year.” And if it’s really the case that kids are breaking down into screaming fits and refusing to leave the store without a puppy, we suspect a bylaw of this ilk will hardly make a dent in improving the lives of said kids’ lucky parents.

Instead, we see this bylaw as simply forcing parents — and lonely adults — to commute to neighbouring municipalities to pick up their puppies. Fortunately, Richmond has rapid transit connections, so packing up the kids in the minivan and schlepping to the next town isn’t a definite must.

It’s unfortunate that Richmond’s City Council didn’t try an alternative approach that was less disruptive (or fatal) to local pet store owners. If states can require people to pass a waiting period for handguns, surely some sort of similar regulation could be applied to the considerably less controversial domain of dog ownership.

While they’re at it, perhaps the City Council should consider banning all pet store fish sales. Had such a bylaw been in place years ago, this blogger would have saved a bundle on fish that never seemed to survive more than a week in my sketchily maintained freshwater tank.

Don’t build that common bawdy house just yet

DH — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 04:12:58 +0000

(Michael Turschic/CBC)

Despite the CBC’s attention-grabbing headline in its article, “Prostitution laws struck down by Ont. court“, absolutely nothing has changed — yet — with Canada’s anti-prostitution laws. Here’s a quick refresher on why the Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s decision in R. v. Bedford hasn’t yet resulted in a free-for-all in our nation’s red light districts.

Firstly, as is now the norm in any court challenge to the constitutionality of a law, the Court’s declaration of invalidity has been suspended for 30 days to allow the government time to work through certain “kinks”, such as the possibility that “unlicensed brothels may be operated in a way that may not be in the public interest”. (As an aside, we note the Court took the surprising position that delaying the declaration of invalidity for a longer period would somehow contribute to the danger faced by prostitutes, even though it cited the fact that the laws in question “are rarely enforced” as a reason not to strike down the law without leaving time to enact something in its place.)

Second, and let’s be absolutely clear here, despite the name of the Court this decision does not have binding effect throughout Canada. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice is the court of first instance in this matter. If someone else was charged with a similar offence elsewhere in Ontario, a judge of the same level court might (but need not necessarily) apply the same result for reasons of consistency. But there’s nothing forcing trial judges in other provinces from reaching the exact opposite conclusion on the same issue.

Even if this decision were upheld on appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal, the decision would at best be “persuasive” to judges in other provinces. It would take a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada — something that isn’t likely to happen for at least several years — or corresponding judgments in the courts of appeal in other provinces, for the effect of the “striking down” of this legislation to be felt outside of Ontario. That’s right, even though prostitutes in BC are subject to the same Criminal Code of Canada as prostitutes in Ontario, the interpretation of these provisions can diverge from province to province.

And that’s assuming the 30 day stay of the decision isn’t extended by further court order.

How Harper could have called a time out without calling Rideau Hall

DH — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 05:14:21 +0000

With all the focus lately on Prime Minister Harper’s self-serving request that the Governor General prorogue Parliament, there has been surprisingly little commentary on whether Mr. Harper could have kept Parliament shut down during the Olympics without resorting to that blunt instrument Canadians now commonly know as Prorogation. And just what did we lose when all those Bills died on the Order Paper?

The rules of procedure for the House of Commons provide that the days or times of parliamentary sittings may be altered through special order. Examples of this being done before are listed on Parliament’s website itself [emphasis added]:

to eliminate a sitting in order to allow some Members to attend a political convention;
not to sit when ceremonies are taking place to mourn the passing of public figures;
to make a statement of apology to former students of Indian Residential Schools;
to start a sitting earlier on given days in order to consider Government Orders;
for the installation of a new Governor General;
to begin a sitting earlier or later in order for a visiting leader or head of state to address both Houses;
not to sit on days on which the House would otherwise sit;
and to sit on days on which the House would not otherwise sit, including Saturdays and Sundays.

Although none of the reasons cobbled together by Mr. Harper for shutting down Parliament for an extended period of time rise to the level of making a landmark apology to victims of Indian Residential Schools, the fact remains that there was a process available for altering — even drastically — the schedule of Parliament without proroguing the parliamentary Session.

The difference between prorogation and an (albeit extended) adjournment is significant. Upon prorogation, all parliamentary committees cease and all orders of reference lapse. Committee memberships (other than for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs) are terminated. No documents can be tabled (including reports of parliamentary officers like the parliamentary budget officer, or the auditor general). A new throne speech must be read and debated. And, most significantly, by default Bills which have not received Royal Assent before prorogation are “entirely terminated” and must be reintroduced at the next Session as if they had never existed. (And yet Mr. Harper complains about Bills getting stalled in the Senate!)

Here, by the way, is a list of Bills that died on the Order Paper when Parliament was prorogued:

This list doesn’t include the four government Bills introduced in the Senate, the 45 public bills from the Senate, or the 353 private members’ bills in the House (which admittedly weren’t likely to get anywhere anyway). All of which died on the Order Paper.

If we are to believe Mr. Harper’s claim that time was needed for MPs to participate in the Olympics and simultaneously buckle down on figuring out how to manage the economy — and we don’t — then surely he could have seen fit to introduce a motion for a special order modifying the Parliamentary schedule to accommodate this through an extended adjournment. Sure, he would have had to convince more people than just the Governor General, but at least a case could have been made that the time was right for a snow day. And, when MPs got back to work after the Olympics and figuring out that pesky economy, they could have picked up where they left off debating those Bills they thought important enough to consider over the 13 days of sittings they had already had before the break. (The first break, that is: admittedly this manoeuvre would have required an Order of the House of Commons itself. But there was plenty of time to arrange that, either when Parliament was scheduled to resume on January 25, or earlier if Mr. Harper asked the Governor General to advance the date on which Parliament was set to resume.)

Now that the prorogation ship has sailed, the least Mr. Harper can do is support a move to resurrect Bills that died on the Order Paper (such as Mr. Layton’s proposal), or even bring one himself. The Standing Orders provide that Bills can be reinstated at the start of a new session at the same stage they had reached at the end of the previous session, either with unanimous consent, or by motion after notice and debate.

So, we at DoubleHearsay say “Bring Back the Bills!” If Harper doesn’t pledge to do it first, I suspect the opposition parties would find a lot of public support for moving to reinstate some of these themselves. If there’s one thing Canadians won’t be able to stand more than watching MPs take an extended winter vacation to help the Prime Minister avoid accountability, it’s watching those MPs waste time re-”debating” legislation all over again.

Open Sourcing the Law?

DH — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:24:33 +0000

DoubleHearsay recently got wind of a(nother) seemingly altruistic movement afoot aimed at making legal information freely available to the public. LexPublica is a website community that develops free contract templates and supporting information to serve individuals and small businesses who can’t afford high-priced lawyers to draft these up for them.

Contract “precedents” (the word lawyers use to describe “templates”, for no other reason I can discern than to make them sound less pedestrian) are worth their weight in gold to a lawyer. Thanks to precedents, lawyers can re-use some or all of a previously drafted agreement — usually at another client’s expense — and churn out an appropriate document fit for use by another client. Law firms allocate significant resources to build up fancy precedent databases to allow their lawyers to search for and easily find useful precedents ready to be adapted for the task at hand. Smaller firms and solo lawyers typically lend precedents to colleagues, extending a sort of tit-for-tat exchange of information. For clients paying for legal services using the billable hour method, contract precedents make it possible for legal transactions to occur for relatively low cost.

But until now, the legal profession has largely served as the gatekeeper to this fount of valued information. Even as do-it-yourself will and divorce kits abound, it has generally been understood that “you get what you pay for” when it comes to cobbling together legal documents using resources that cost $20 or less. A common refrain in response to these DIY guides is that legal documents require precision in drafting in order to give effect to the actual intentions of the parties involved. Using a “one size fits all” approach to legal transactions is a recipe for disaster, as blind allegiance to boilerplate can lead to a document that doesn’t reflect at all what its users thought it did. And who wants to leave a will that inadvertently results in one’s estate being escheated to the Crown?!

LexPublica confronts some of these challenges by collaborating with lawyers, law students, “legal experts”, and others to create the contract templates. And, they say, the templates include “supporting information” to explain how to properly use the agreement. LexPublica makes very clear that it is not providing, and is no substitute for, legal advice. If in the course of preparing an agreement using a LexPublica template a user realizes that the matter is more complicated than expected, LexPublica recommends checking in with a lawyer.

So far, LexPublica has five contract templates available for download: a Confidentiality Agreement, Consulting Agreement, Employment Agreement (for use in British Columbia), an Intellectual Property Assignment, and a Website Privacy Policy. Each has a few highlighted fields indicating where users need to fill in information unique to the transaction being contemplated.

But it’s the “supporting information” that really makes this service worthwhile. At the time of writing, most of the agreements noted above include “Guidelines for Use” documents that explain to users some of the ins and outs of the particular contract. The Employment Agreement, for example, does a remarkable job of explaining why certain terms default to statutory requirements under provincial employment standards legislation and should only be modified upward, if at all. The “General Considerations” document accompanying the Consulting Agreement includes a useful summary of the law for determining whether an individual is an “employee” or “independent contractor”. Without these tools, lay users could easily fall into traps by changing contract terms without realizing the consequences of doing so.

Will LexPublica and services like it replace the need for lawyers? Surely not. The service is intended for individuals and small businesses that can’t afford hiring a lawyer to draft The Perfect Agreement. For these users, the status quo is either muddling through an entirely self-drafted document (and hoping it never needs to be enforced) or skipping a written agreement altogether. Even larger companies routinely need to decide whether to retain counsel to draft a Cadillac-style contract that takes into account all the “what-if’s” and comes with a correspondingly high cost to prepare, or to settle for a relatively “quick and dirty” version that gets the job done quickly and cheaply. With services like LexPublica, we hope individuals and small businesses will be closer to having a similar choice.

“Canada’s Most Reliable Network” is No More

DH — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:04:22 +0000

Rogers Communications Inc. will no longer be able to tout itself as offering Canada’s most reliable network, thanks to an injunction obtained by Telus Communications Co.

On November 24, 2009, the Supreme Court of British Columbia issued reasons for judgment in a case challenging Rogers’ legal right to advertise that it provides Canada’s fastest and most reliable network. Telus based its challenge on section 52 of the federal Competition Act, which prevents “knowingly or recklessly mak[ing] a representation to the public that is false or misleading in a material respect.”

As explained in the reasons issued by Mr. Justice Grauer, wireless service in Canada has historically been provided using two different network protocols, the “Global System for Mobile Communications” (GSM) and “Code Division Multiple Access” (CDMA). Telus and Bell historically operated on CDMA networks, while Rogers operated on a GSM network.

By 2006, Rogers was using a second generation “EDGE” network that provided peak data speeds of up to 384 Kbps, while Telus had developed a third generation “EVDO” network that increased peak data speeds to 2 Mbps.

Rogers launched its advanced third generation HSPA technology on top of its existing GSM/EDGE network in September 2007. In the 25 Canadian cities tapped for the HSPA upgrade, Rogers’ customers are provided with peak data speeds of up to 7.2 Mbps. Elsewhere, Rogers’ customers rely on the existing GSM/EDGE network.

Based on Rogers post-2007 upgrade, which provided an advantage for data transmission capability (enabling Rogers, in turn, to exclusively market the iPhone), Rogers advertised its network as both Canada’s fastest and most reliable. Since then, Rogers switched its focus to its reputation as “Canada’s Most Reliable Network”, including in a campaign launched November 2, 2009 and scheduled to run until December 28, 2009.

Meanwhile, Telus joined forced with Bell to construct a new national wireless network using the most advanced HSPA technology available. Telus essentially built the western half while Bell built the eastern half, both in parallel to their existing EVDO networks. The new national network launched on November 5, 2009. Telus argued that, in doing so, it completely nullified Rogers’ advantage, and has actually leap-frogged ahead of Rogers because Telus’ HSPA technology is newer and available more widely.

Thus, Telus argued, it was false or at least misleading for Rogers to continue to advertise that its network is Canada’s fastest and most reliable.

Telus’ claims under the Competition Act haven’t been decided yet. But the victory for Telus flows from the Court’s ruling that, for now, Rogers must back away from its advertising claims of having Canada’s most reliable network.

The timing of the injunction hasn’t been finalized yet, nor has its terms. The Court acknowledges that the busy Christmas shopping season is upon us. Both Rogers and Telus have been summoned back to Court on November 29^th to determine the precise wording of the injunction order, including the amount of time Rogers will be granted to pull its offending advertising materials. One things seems certain, though: Rogers’ highly successful and uniquitous advertising slogan is headed for the dustbin.

An interesting point argued by Rogers was that, even if its advertising was misleading, Telus could easily launch its own competing advertising campaign to set the record straight. The Court dismissed this “marketplace of ideas” line of argument, however. Requiring this of Telus would be too much to ask, the Court stated. We imagine Telus will find a way of getting the word out regardless, probably with the help of those cute animals we’ve come to enjoy seeing in those “The World is Friendly” ads.

Good Fences Make Good Neighbours

DH — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:09:57 +0000

XW9DER24FJGB

Suzuki v. Munroe, a judgment released yesterday by the BC Supreme Court, is the kind of case that begins to read like many other unfortunate squabbles. You half expect it to break out into Denningesque prose. Homeowner installs central air conditioning; neighbour complains about the noise. Homeowner installs surveillance camera that creeps into neighbour’s yard; neighbour complains about the invasion of privacy. It’s the kind of case you expect to end with the judge declining to intervene and reprimanding both parties for refusing to play nicely and wasting the Court’s time. Except not.

Like many Canadians getting accustomed to the effects of global warming, Janice and Richard Munroe found their poorly ventilated Coquitlam home to be uncomfortable in warm weather. In 2006, they purchased and installed a central air conditioning unit outside their home, which happened to be just a few feet away from neighbouring May and Kazuo Suzuki. The Suzukis, who rely on open windows for cooling and ventilation, returned home one Sunday evening in June only to learn that their pesky neighbours had put in a new air conditioning unit. The resulting noise, which the Suzukis described as sounding “like a lawnmower”, kept Mrs. Suzuki awake all night. Mr. Suzuki retreated to a corner of his basement.

The very next day, Mrs. Suzuki complained to the City of Coquitlam about the noise. She also says she negotiated a ceasefire agreement with the Munroes’ son (which the Munroes deny), pursuant to which the Munroes agreed not to operate the AC after 9pm. If it ever existed, the truce didn’t long. A few days later, the AC started running until “nearly midnight” and was cranked up again as early as 5:30 in the morning. None of this mattered as far as the City of Coquitlam’s bylaw inspector was concerned, though. The inspector couldn’t find evidence of any bylaw infraction, although, as the Court pointed out, it wasn’t obvious the air conditioner was turned on when the inspector dropped by for a visit.

It didn’t take long before the Suzukis and the Munroes lawyered up. Nuisance claims were filed. Experts were retained. Psychological injury was claimed. Injunctions were sought and obtained.

Oh, and then there was the issue of the Munroes’ surveillance camera. Mounted on the side of their home between the two houses, its view took into a portion of the Suzukis’ entrance, front yard and driveway. In response, the Suzukis amended their Statement of Claim to add a claim of nuisance in relation to the surveillance camera.

After going through the law of nuisance and reviewing the evidence of chronic stress disorder, acoustic decibel levels, and the standard fare of “he said – she said”, Mr. Justice Verhoeven referenced what might be described as the Law of Neighbourliness: “The Munroes did not consult with the Suzukis prior to installing the air conditioning unit just a few feet away from the Suzukis’ property. This would have been neighbourly and prudent, but they were not obliged to do so.”

But, after considering the “social utility” of air conditioners and the lack of evidence about the Suzukis being “abnormally sensitive individuals”, Justice Verhoeven concluded that the noise caused by the Munroes’ air conditioner was indeed unreasonable by objective standards. Nuisance established.

As for the surveillance camera, the Court had no doubt that it was an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the Suzukis’ property, especially since there was no reason why the Munroes couldn’t redirect their camera to avoid capturing the neighbouring property. The resulting inference: the Munroes installed the camera and refused to redirect it in order to provoke and annoy the Suzukis. Nuisance established.

The result: $4,000 to Mrs. Suzuki and $2,000 to Mr. Suzuki (who was less affected psychologically by the nuisances than his wife). And an injunction: the Munroes may not operate their air conditioner such that it causes sound beyond 55 decibels between 7am and 10pm, and 45 decibels during the rest of the day, “measured at any point along the Munroe-Suzuki property line”.

The Munroes are also prohibited from using a surveillance camera that monitors any part of the Suzukis’ property.

And the tell-tale sign that these neighbours don’t really get along: the Court required each of the Munroes to execute a statutory declaration to be delivered to the Suzukis confirming compliance with the order prohibiting use of the surveillance camera.

We shudder to think of the legal fees billed on this file. Read the entire judgment (and find coordinates for fun with Google Street View) here: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/09/14/2009BCSC1403.htm

ManageMyDivorce.com

DH — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:54:11 +0000

In what’s certain to be a sign of the times, Internet-based legal tools are propping up everywhere with fierce intensity. You’ve seen the do-it-yourself Will kits and bargain basement pricing for boilerplate contract precedents. But now, if ManangeMyDivorce.com finds traction in the online legal marketplace, people could soon be masterminding their divorce and separation battles with the proverbial click of a button.

The site advertises itself as beinig able to provide clients with a road map, structure and support throughout the divorce process. Resources include video tutorials, “general background advice”, and suggestions from a team of professionals that includes a social worker, a “business/executive coach”, and, curiously, a freelance journalist. ManageMyDivorce.com’s self-described ”holistic” approach offers “time management and self-reflection tools available to help clients look after themselves.”

But is this really a do-it-yourself money-and-headache saver, or just another way to reduce your net worth in the course of the divorce process? ManageMyDivorce.com says its primary objective is reducing “the three major expenses of divorce — time, money and emotional turmoil — while providing general background information, rather than specific legal, financial or other personal advice.” No, for that, you’ll need to talk to your own lawyer or other professional advisor. The site readily admits that its services are “not designed to replace these professionals, but rather to compliment [sic] them.”

The key to the site, it seems, is facilitating the gathering, consolidating and sharing of information. Indeed, most of the online tools we looked at were really repositories of basic information that every family lawyer is bound to ask you at your first meeting (of many). While clients will undoubtedly save time and money by knowing what information to gather before talking to a lawyer, we’re not convinced that dumping all of this information on ManageMyDivorce.com (at a monthly rate that ranges from about $30-$37, depending on which stage of the divorce process you’re already in, and with additional charges for data stored in excess of the introductory 5MB allotment) adds any meaningful value to what for most will already be a very expensive proposition.

The cynical among us might wonder whether the vaguely described tools this site offers are part of a ploy to prey on the vulnerable pool of soon-to-be divorcees. Faced with the unappetizing prospect of breaking a family apart and splitting one’s assets through an emotionally-charged (and hugely expensive) battle, it’s easy to imagine many folks seeing this site as an quick and cheap way to save some bucks. After all, what’s a measly $37 monthly fee compared to a family lawyer’s hourly rates? But will it actually help clients “maintain the lines of communication, reduce conflict and stress, and establish civility and accountability” as promised? If so, it may be the best 37 bucks (a month) ever spent, and family lawyers should watch out!

Shelter from the Cold

DH — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:50:32 +0000

According to documents released under access to information legislation, the British Columbia government is preparing legislation that would require homeless people to use emergency shelters during extreme weather conditions.

The idea seems simple enough, and perhaps even sensible. But the BC Civil Liberties Association suggests a sinister motive behind the Assistance to Shelter Act, which has yet to be tabled in the BC Legislature: it could be a tool to get homeless people off the street — and out of sight — during the upcoming 2010 Winter Olympic Games in Vancouver next February.

“The obvious outcome of this legislation will be our homeless hiding to avoid detection where they are at significantly increased danger, but are less of an eyesore for the Olympics,” says BCCLA director Tom Sandborn. “The intent of this legislation isn’t to protect, but to clean up.”

The government-released notes indicate that, under the proposed legislation, a declaration of an extreme weather alert would serve as the trigger for police officers to become empowered to take homeless people to shelters. The police officer would need to be satisfied that the person would be at risk of harm by staying outside. The officer would then engage the person by encouraging them to voluntarily find shelter while advising them that an administrative order could be requested and issued to authorize the officer to transport the individual to a shelter involuntarily.

Sounds like strong medicine for homeless people insistent on fending for themselves. And, as some critics point out, it may even be unconstitutional. In the “Major Issues” section of the briefing materials released by government, it’s pointed out that “requiring people to go to a shelter against their will may make the legislation vulnerable to a Charter challenge. A legal opinion on this issue is pending.”

While it’s clear that involuntary transportation and commital to a shelter engages liberty and security of the person interests under section 7 of the Charter, it’s the section 1 analysis — where government is called on to justify Charter rights infringements — that may yield broader implications. So far, the Courts have rejected the proposition that government has a positive obligation to provide welfare or income assistance to ensure Canadians enjoy a minimum standard of living. But, for the Assistance to Shelter Act to pass constitutional muster, government will need to establish, among other things, that there are no less drastic means of achieving the objectives of this legislation (i.e., presumably, to ensure the safety of homeless persons.)

While it’s certainly cheaper for governments to provide emergency shelter funding in “emergency” weather conditions than on a permanent basis, a comprehensive homelessness strategy that gives Canada’s homeless a meaningful alternative to living on the streets would, it must be said, avoid the distasteful (and constitutionally suspect) scenario in which their liberty interests are suspended, even if ostensibly for their own good. That it is administratively expedient and cheaper to force the homeless into shelters only when deemed necessary for their short-term survival is an unsatisfactory justification for dealing with the underlying problem of homelessness on a more lasting basis.