What’s Happening in the Protests The farmers are peacefully protesting in Delhi. They have set makeshift homes in tractors, trailers and tents. It is apparent that they are not leaving without an answer, as the implications of this negotiation, or lack thereof, changes the face of the agriculture industry completely. There has been no destruction to property and instead protestors are keeping the city clean through picking up after themselves. They have also helped local homeless individuals through feeding them through the langar seva. During these protests, the worldwide community has gathered to feed these protestors at no cost and through volunteerism, a solid langar system. Volunteers have also set up schooling for the kids present in the Delhi protest, alongside handing out additional necessities such as blankets and shoes for the cold weather. International Impact Internationally, people of Indian descent are supporting people back home through rallies to show the implications of these bills. Some people are not sure what raising awareness and representation in country’s outside of India will do. The answer is quite simple. This protects and shows solidarity with our farmers back home. In no means are we even close to experiencing what the farmer’s back in Punjab and the other states are going through however, this is a way for us to tell them that we hear them and we are standing with them. By raising awareness, we are also urging country’s to cover the matter to ensure that there is a greater light shed on the issue. This is our way to ensure that we are doing what we can to protect our farmers. Evidence of this impact was also witnessed when India wanted to speak to Canada’s ambassador regarding the comments made by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, where he stood up for the farmer’s right to peacefully protest. This act alone is evidence that India is being pressured by how its international reputation is being viewed. So, let’s not stay silent, if not for our sake, then for the sake of our farmers back home. How you can support the movement
Continue to educate yourself on the movement. Thanks to social media, we are able to hear the voices of the oppressed. With the Indian media shadow-banning and releasing biased reports suggesting ulterior motives for the protests, it’s up to us to ensure we set the record straight. The Punjabi music industry has also stepped up to make songs to educate individuals about the cause, by incorporating the history of these lands through their lyrics. There are also many organizations who are donating money to farmers during the protests to stay safe. An organization I personally support is Khalsa Aid and they have been accepting e-transfers and using the funds to take care and support the farmers who are sacrificing their lives by leaving their homes and marching to the protest in Delhi. Conclusion Suicide has been a sad and a more increasing reality for Punjab farmers, it has increased by 12 times over the last five years. Poor working conditions coupled with the lack of government support has devastated the livelihood of these farmers. These farmers are already struggling to take care of their lands with the lack of support and the unfair rates the government grants them for their crops. With little to no choice, the farmers take up large loans but without any way to pay them off, they get buried in debt which has been correlated to the increase in suicide rates for these farmers. Instead of the government creating laws to support them (as it currently exists in many Western nations) they have chosen to introduce bills that continue to threaten their well-being and only benefit corporate interests. With these laws, it is only a matter of time until the farmer's way of life in India worsens. Farmers feed the world and it’s time we feed them the respect and the support that they deserve. Because if there are no farmers, there’s no food. By: Karen Randhawa and Sukhdeep Kullar The headline may not catch the attention of those in developed nations. However, it is integral to the Indian economy. Nearly 60-70% of India’s economy is dedicated agriculture. The agriculture sector is composed of:
This is the largest and poorest segment due to the disparity of power. These laws eliminate the commission agent (arthiya) which has been integral to the farming economy, as the arthiya employs individuals who load and offload trucks, weigh the products, and find price rates. Each town has multiple arthiyas and individuals who work with them. This goes on to have a huge impact on the logistics industry since local truckers will be losing their livelihood. There was a “go green revolution in the 60s” where India asked Punjab and Haryana to feed the nation by planting wheat, so that they would no longer need to rely on foreign imports. The method for farming ruined the land, through various chemicals being introduced to the very same agricultural crops that feed the nation. Punjab and Haryana land specifically has sacrificed so much to feed India, but now that India needs them - everyone is turning their backs. Punjab’s economy is heavily agriculturally based, given that it is endowed with five rivers and fertile land. That being said, are Punjab’s interests always upheld at the national level through the saddening increase in farmer suicide rates over the years and the lack of governmental support for shopping local or fair pricing. As someone who practices the Sikh faith, I have been seeing a lot of the teachings of Sikhism in the hard work and determination of the farmers. In Sikhism, the first Guru, Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji laid the principles as “Kirt Karo (an honest and earnest living), Naam Japo (pray) and Vand Chhako (share the fruits of your labour with others).” The first and third principles have deep roots in farming, as farming was seen as a practice of being self-sufficient and serving the community. This has also helped to develop the practice of langar through feeding individuals free meals, which can be seen in Gurudwaras across the world. During the pandemic, langar seva overseas for those who could not make ends meet, was witnessed around the world - to any person of the human race. By: Karen Randhawa and Sukhdeep Kullar As the movement continues to get strong, I thought it was a good idea to share it with the readers of LB. My ancestors were farmers, hence why this issue becomes personal. I wanted to try my best to do this issue justice with regards to explaining the bills in detail to those who may not be aware of why the “Farmers Protest” matters, and that too on this side of the world. It’s important to mention that you do not have to have any family connection to farmers, to acknowledge and understand the threat this bill poses to the livelihood of farmers, the very same people who continue to feed the world.
This series hopes to describe to our readers the largest protest in the world’s largest democracy, the significance for farming, and why it is a violation of rights. Laws are passed for the betterment of society. However, it is beneficial to contact and keep those individuals who are impacted in mind, in order to pass effective legislation. Yet common farmers had no part in the process of drafting and approving the legislation. The unity amid a pandemic and the resilience displayed by the farmers who left the comfort of their home to protest, is commendable to say the least. What Legislation is Being Opposed? In September 2020, amid a pandemic, the government passed 3 laws deregulating the agriculture sector. Bill #1 - Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020 Eliminate all government subsidies for the farmers Currently, the government guarantees farmers a minimum support price for at least a few grain crops which range from 10 to 15 USD for 100 kilos of grain products. Currently, farmers trade their crops within a Mandi system, that allows them to trade in a market with minimum support pricing (MSP). Think of the Mandi as the middle man/ farmer’s market. With the passing of this bill, this law will eventually diminish within a year or two because of the lack of regulation that forces farmers to deal with the demands of big corporations. Going forward, the farmers will have to do contract farming with corporations on an agreed upon price and the corporation will dictate the specifications of products produced. Any excess product will not be purchased, and thus will go to waste. To explain it in comparable terms, it is the equivalent of eliminating a minimum wage or a price floor. The farmers now do not have any price stability and are at a greater risk of being taken advantage of. Bill #2 - The Farming Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill If the farmer gets into a dispute with a private company, they cannot go to the courts. Under contract law, will these corporations choose to perform in good faith? In this situation, what are the repercussions if the corporations decide against that? There is a clear power imbalance that tips the scale in the favour of corporations. There is no legal recourse for 50-60% of India's population in cases where a big corporation takes part in exploitation. In the event a dispute occurs, an arbitration will happen but who will have the bargaining power? You guessed right - the corporation not the farmer. Such a bill gives the corporations even more power so that they continue winning every single time, leaving nothing up to the farmers. Bill #3 - The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Bill Any person or entity can hoard or store an unlimited quantity of any essential commodity or product. A large corporation has the capacity to use their financial resources to purchase and hoard agricultural products.. Unfortunately, farmers do not have the capital to invest in storage. This becomes an issue because these very same corporations will have the ability to buy crops in bulk at a lower price. This will undercut the market for these crops on which farmers gain their profits thus leaving them with significantly less to take home. By: Karen Randhawa and Sukhdeep Kullar We would like to thank our healthcare workers who have worked tirelessly to test, diagnose, and care for patients during this pandemic. This pandemic shaped the way our society looks, interacts and operates. While many are staying home, healthcare workers are risking their own safety for our wellbeing. But what about those individuals who choose not to abide by the rules of social distancing, wearing masks or isolating when returning from travel? The issue that arises is whether doctors have the right to refuse treatment to COVID patients that have been contributorily negligent. That is, patients who have voluntarily failed to follow public health guidelines. There are individuals who don’t believe that the pandemic is even real, whether it be because of the conspiracy theories, the lack of physical symptoms unlike the bubonic plague or the privilege of not knowing anyone who is battling with the disease. Some of these individuals engage in self-destructive habits. It can be seen through protests on the TTC where individuals have proclaimed they do not want their body to be regulated by the state and that masks hinders their freedom of expression. I ask these same individuals who went to school here, dress codes were also enforced – where was this energy when children weren’t allowed to wear spaghetti straps to class? Another example is Bill 21 in Quebec, banning religious symbols such as the hijab, niqab and turbans. The freedom of expression argument is an interesting take, is it more important than the right to life, liberty and security of the person? Wearing a mask has a utilitarian purpose, protecting individuals from spreading the virus to one another. If healthcare workers can wear it for hours a day, we can wear them for limited time periods, when leaving our homes to run errands or going to work. The way COVID-19 impacts individuals differ greatly based on their immunity levels. While some can overcome it without knowing they even had it, others require ventilators to breathe and have reduced lung capacity once treated. Since there is no one cure fits all approach, the spectrum of treatment varies in costs, treatment time and resources. Labour boards across Canada have outlined a four step test to justify refusal to work because of unsafe or dangerous conditions:
However, the situation is different for healthcare professionals given the nature of their work. Doctors have a mandate to help the ill. Healthcare professionals cannot dictate how patients live their lives, nor can they withhold treatment based on the disparity in standards of morality. Physicians are not in the position to determine when self-destructive behaviours warrant treatment. If this were the case, healthcare professionals could refuse cases related to smoking, eating disorders or sports injuries since it could be argued that is “self-destructive” behaviour. Doctors are expected to provide equal treatment for all, without their biased judgment and projected complications. The difference between those cases, and COVID-19 is the risk of contracting the virus. Healthcare professionals are putting themselves, their families and others in close proximity at a heightened risk of infection because it is unknown how this disease is spread. Regardless, the code of ethics highlights that the patients’ welfare be placed above their own self-interest. How can it be monitored if a patient was negligent? Would specific measures need to be in place to assess if they broke by-laws such as congregating with more than 10 individuals? Went shopping without a mask? Should it be that people need to surrender their health card if they break a law to say that they are willing to risk everything, their health included to live a lifestyle that cannot be supported at this moment in time? As a member country for the World Health Organization (“WHO”), Canada is committed to providing healthcare for every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition. Therefore, physicians in Canada owe a legal duty of care to patients and there is a limited right to refuse the work based on the four step test identified by the labour board. By: Karen Randhawa About the App Last week, Prime Minister (“PM”) Trudeau announced there will be a voluntary nationwide contact tracing app coming soon. According to the PM, this app will alert Canadians if they’ve come into contact with someone who tested positive for COVID-19. Ontario will be the first to get this app on July 2. The government emphasizes that it will be important to use during the potential second wave as the Canadian economy slowly enters reopening. How it works? People who test positive upload their results anonymously COVID Alert, the app, using a temporary code that is given to them by a healthcare provider. Using bluetooth technology, the phone records and stores all app users that have come into close contact. If an individual has tested positive, they anonymously upload their results to the app. The app would then notify all close-contacts and may direct them to self-isolate for up to 14 days. The information that is uploaded will then be shared with other users to see if they have been near someone who has tested positive. How anonymous is anonymous? Although the app uses bluetooth technology, privacy remains a concern. Could uses be tracked using bluetooth identifiers? App Specifics from the Government The government considers this app to be low maintenance, as it runs in the background, uses bluetooth, no geotagging or location services of any sort. The federal Privacy Commissioner worked on the app, in an effort to connect cases and better document the spread of the virus. The intellectual property rights for the app will be granted to the federal government. Although healthcare falls within provincial jurisdiction, the pandemic is a national emergency and concern which has led to the federal government playing an increasing role in healthcare. The development and ownership of the app are the federal government’s intellectual property. What are Tech Companies Doing about this? Google and Apple have been limited to creating one COVID tracking app per country. I find this to be helpful as information is synced on one platform for all users in that nation. This provides streamlining the information. There are issues regarding syncing app information with that which exists through Alberta’s pre-existing app. Although this restriction creates a limited marketplace which forces individuals to use one app, I would consider this app to be synonymous with Amber Alerts on our phones, as opposed to multiple GPS app options. What are other nations doing? Many countries across the globe introduced COVID-19 tracking apps to their population post March 2020. While in some countries these apps are voluntary to download (Australia, Japan, and Germany), other countries (India, South Korea) mandated their citizens to download the app. The goal of the app, reiterated by governments, is to track those who have the virus and where they’ve been to caution close contacts and the general public from visiting hotspots. Is this democratic? These are questions that come to mind. The world we live in today people already voluntarily gives out a lot of personal information through cookies, accepting terms and agreements without reading them, and through the usage of social media to store our ideas into the virtual space forever. What makes this app different? Well we’re downloading something onto our device, what would it have access to? In Alberta, the COVID app, ABTrace Together, uses bluetooth as opposed to wifi, and it doesn’t require a phone number or name to be associated with the mobile phone itself. It differs from Australia where it is mandatory to provide these personal characteristics (but the information is said to be stored for only 21 days). In Italy, the app deletes information by the end of the year while keeping it anonymous. The right to delete the data when this pandemic is over, is an important factor to consider. There is a concern of how effectively the centralized system can dispose of personal data, and if users can verify that it has been done. Can an argument be made that this is for the public good? I would agree that this app would be important in knowing where an individual who contracted COVID has visited to ensure that others get tested. But would this be a way to outcast individuals from society and where is this information going to be stored? Can it be used to prejudice individuals from opportunities (e.g. access to medical information for employers, which is something that is currently still protected in Ontario that we aren’t required to share our medical history, decreasing a ground that we cannot be discriminated against). At the start of this pandemic, we have seen that Asian-Canadians experienced more racism. This app is a double edged sword - while it provides the benefit of protecting public health, it can also alienate & amplify stereotypes. Data in this society is crucial. Especially with big data analytics being on the rise. Companies profit from selling information about consumer preferences. So where does this app come in? Data has no boundaries, so can this app be considered domestic or can the data be stored across the world? The threat of IP theft continues as the cyber spy agency warns that foreigners could try to steal intellectual property from Canadians as being guise as COVID-19 relief impacts. My Opinion The fact that this app is voluntary will create a disparity in the results. Evidently, governments should not have authority over what the population should download on their phones. Pierre Trudeau’s comment “There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation” could be updated to say that the state has no place in the cellphones of individuals. However, with the implementation of a voluntary contact tracing app, there needs to be significant uptake for the data to be representative and effective. I do think not everyone who tests positive will be uploading their results in fear that the information will come back to haunt them later in life. I also am skeptical to see how many people will download the app, will it be one person per household or everyone in it? My guess is that there will be very limited usage but that is just an observation based on the individuals I’ve spoken to. This app seems like it could disenfranchise individuals through the government having control over health related data via technology. Primarily, my concern is with data storage. These apps are being developed by Apple and Google. Although it is voluntary, low maintenance and requires little battery, there is a lot on the line. Storing information as such on a grand scale is different from the Health apps that people usually use to track their fitness. This app is one that relates to illness and I don’t know if our world can handle open data about one’s health without having all the answers. By: Karen Randhawa
We’ve decided to halt our COVID-19 series to reinforce something that is of international importance, Black Lives Matter. Amidst a global pandemic, it is especially heartbreaking to see the recent events that have transpired in Minneapolis. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated event. Anti-Black racism is deeply ingrained in our social structures.
On May 25, 2020, Derek Chauvin (former police officer in Minneapolis) used knee restraint on George Floyd’s neck, contrary to protocol, resulting in Floyd dying. His neck was pressed for approximately 8 minutes, which can be seen in a bystander’s video surfacing the internet. While bystanders urged the officer to stop, the other police officers on site failed to intervene. Why did the police restrain him? Floyd was at a grocery store when an employee called the police accusing him of passing a counterfeit $20 bill. Upon the police’s arrival, Floyd, who was unarmed, was quickly brought to the ground and restrained. According to the Minneapolis police department, Floyd resisted arrest, but as seen in the bystander’s video, Floyd promptly surrendered. Hence, he was not posing a threat that would warrant the use of violent restraints and force from the police officers. To put things into perspective, America is seen to be a country of opportunities, a superpower, a democratic leader of the “global north.” However, this incident shows that the system is deeply flawed in the nation, where the allegation of a counterfeit bill at a supermarket has resulted in a man losing his life. What’s the current situation with the police officers? Since the death of Floyd, the four responding officers, including Chauvin have been fired. The FBI is currently investigating whether Floyd was deprived of his civil rights. Chauvin has been charged with third degree murder and second degree manslaughter, with bail being set at $500,000. This has left the community extremely outraged. Many believe that Chauvin’s actions constitute first degree murder. The current investigation is taking a deeper look into the obligations of police officers in such situations. The executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, Chuck Wexler, stated that “no police academy teaches a police officer to use their knee to put it on their [the person that they are arresting] neck… because that can impact their breathing and their carotid artery [a crucial vessel that supplies blood to the brain].” In addition, police officers are taught to get their suspect off the ground as soon as possible, to sit or stand to ensure that the suspect could breathe. The Aftermath His last words - “I can’t breathe” - have rung across the world. When this video surfaced on the internet, thousands of demonstrators took to the streets in cities across America. Curfews are being enforced, people are being arrested. Enraged by the persistent disregard of Black lives, protesters have turned to looting to make their message heard. The Problem The issue cannot be summed up in a mere post or two. It is sadly not the first time that police officers have used improper procedures when arresting Black people. These protests are being fuelled by the need for change. Ahmaud Arbery was shot in his neighbourhood while he was jogging on May 5. Since there was video footage of the shooting, Gregory and Travis McMichael were charged for aggravated assault and felony murder. Breonna Taylor was shot seven times in her apartment when police officers came to search her apartment. This spurred the call for action that officers need to wear body cameras while conducting searches to document the events that take place. All three incidents involve the death of an African American, and highlight the unrelenting police brutality against Black individuals. The public outcry has escalated internationally, asserting the need for change. International Implications For those who are reading this outside of the US, it’s not just an American issue, it’s international. Unfortunately, racism is deep-seated in the history of countries around the world. In Canada, we like to live under the misplaced notion that racism, particularly Anti-Black racism, does not exist. However, racism plagues Canadian economic, political and social structures. Black people are systematically discriminated at essentially every touch point, whether it be policing, employment or being subject to comments in social settings. The current events show that it is time we change that and recognize that race is a social construct. By: Karen Randhawa Last week, the Ontario government announced that schools will not be reopening for the school year. Students enrolled in summer school are taking courses online. Universities have sent emails stating that it is likely that the fall semester will be online with smaller classes/labs to be held in person. In light of these updates, two major issues affecting university students have surfaced:
The Res Life University and college residences are not protected by rental rules under the Residential Tenancies Act. At this time, universities are developing a residence strategy for Fall 2020. Universities across the country have done a phenomenal job by posting on their respective pages the housing responses to COVID-19, which are regularly updated. These pages provide information on how to apply for a refund for those who evacuated their residence, and information about summer accommodations for people who are unable to return home. The FAQ pages state that students have two options: either they can receive a refund of their residence deposit by July 15, or have their deposit forwarded to the Winter term. Only single rooms will be open for residence, and common areas will be closed due to the need to practice social distancing. Keeping these changes in mind, is it fair to charge students the same amount of money for residence, given that many facilities will be inaccessible in the new school year? Off Campus Accommodation Ontario published rental changes during COVID-19. The government acknowledges that not everyone can afford to pay their rent, and thus did not create a blanket rule for all to follow. The application of the rules depends on the situation and circumstances. The province-wide strategy encourages landlords and tenants to reach fair arrangements that suit the needs of both parties during these difficult times. The website states “tenants who can pay their rent must do so, to the best of their abilities.” But what about students? Students who may not be moving back this fall but have already signed a lease? This creates room for issues. While some may have been able to sublease their place over the summer, it is difficult to say whether they will be able to do the same for the fall term. The rental scheme includes guidelines for landlords facing financial burdens. Landlords are given the option to discuss with their municipality about assistance with property taxes and municipal service fees. Likewise, banks are willing to cooperate with landlords to defer mortgage payments during this time. In British Columbia, a rental supplemental program was introduced that provides $500/month to low and moderate-income renters experiencing loss of income and hardship due to COVID-19. However, this amount would not suffice in Ontario where the average rent is $1273. In Toronto, there is the Toronto Rent Bank which provides no interest loans to low income renters who face evictions. However, this relief is for two months even though the pandemic is expected to impact the fall term which would mean upwards of six months. Contractual Implications Since April 30, 2018, leases are written in a standard template. This lease is written in simple language and is inclusive of the rental amount, due date, amenities covered in the rent, and the rules about the rental unit. Renter and landlord rights and responsibilities are explained. Since a lease is a contract, it is subject to the laws relating to contracts. Thus, is there a possibility that these leases can end because of COVID-19? Cessation Some leases have cessation clauses, where the tenant has duties and cannot simply walk away from the lease. Extinguishing the lease would create bad blood between the landlord and the long term tenants. Leaving the landlord out to dry and moving the stuff back? Not the most efficient way. Force Majeure A force majeure provision is either an act of God or a defined provision which such as a fire, flood, war or insurrection. There is no common law doctrine of force majeure. In Canada, a force majeure clause can only be relied upon if it exists strictly in the contract. Most leases don’t have a force majeure provision which would allow parties to terminate the lease or other obligations without a penalty. If such a clause exists, university students could most likely rely on this, since governments have imposed travel bans and quarantines. However, by the fall semester most of the economy is expected to open up and stay-at-home orders are likely going to be loosened, which may weaken tenant claims relying on the force majeure clauses. In order for a force majeure provision to be invoked, the destruction needs to be permanent in nature. Other factors besides Force Majeure could be:
If force majeure cannot be established, tenants may seek relief through the doctrine of frustration. Frustration In order to argue a contract has been frustrated, the tenant needs to argue that there was an unforeseen event which is:
There is a high bar to pass according to the test set out for frustration in Davis Contractors v Fareham. The party claiming frustration must show that the nature of the contract has drastically changed and that it would be unjust to hold the parties to the contract. COVID-19 has led to unprecedented circumstances. The government made orders under state of emergency for non-essential businesses, thus impacting wages to pay rent. There is yet to be case law that shows the impact of a pandemic on a frustration argument. In Canary Wharf v EMA, it was decided that Brexit did not frustrate the terms of the lease and rent needed to be paid. In Australia, it is difficult to request rent reduction or abatement, as frustration is not easily arguable in the context of a lease. In India, even if individuals are unable to use the premises during a period of closure, they will be bound to pay rent. Delhi High Court released a decision saying “temporary non-use won’t make rental lease void.” If the contract is found to be frustrated, the Frustrated Contracts Act applies:
Unconscionability Is it unconscionable to ask for rent when the property is not being enjoyed? If the landlords are deferring mortgage payments, but still charging rent, how is this fair? There is no mechanism in place to ensure that landlords who are asking for these deferrals are in fact providing relief to their tenants. This situation further highlights the power imbalances between landlord and tenants. COVID-19 is an unprecedented situation, which has impacted everyone on the planet. The level of uncertainty that university students face when it comes to their future is at an all-time high, arguably worse than the 2008 recession. It is a matter of health and safety. Not moving into private accommodation near the university is a way to promote social distancing. However, if students are required to pay their monthly rent, this adds to the pressure of meeting ends by being responsible for rent for unoccupied/ unused land. By: Karen Randhawa Social distancing has shown to be an effective tactic at flattening the curve across jurisdictions. However, persuading entire populations to abandon their daily lives and routines to isolate in their homes is not an easy feat. Rather than solely relying on public service announcements to convince citizens to respect stay-at-home orders, the government has relied on fines and charges as enforcement mechanisms. Fines & charges The fines are administered through city by-laws, meaning that there isn’t standardization across the country for violating stay-at-home orders. Cities have no constitutional status - they are “creatures of the state” or the creating province. The powers that cities have are flowed through to them by their respective provinces. The provinces are enforcing their stay-at-home orders through public health acts. If a law in pith and substance pertains to their constitutional power over healthcare and its criminal law implications are incidental (as criminal law falls solely within the federal jurisdiction), then the law can still be deemed constitutional. The stay-at-home orders likely fall under civil rights. While Prime Minister Trudeau has publicly stated the possibility of implementing the Emergencies Act to enforce the stay-at-home orders, the government has yet to do so - likely due to the high controversiality of the Act. The fragmented regulatory environment, owing to the provinces and cities spearheading enforcement, combined with the need for timely action, raise concerns about inconsistencies. First, the amount and administration of fines vary depending on the city. In Toronto, fines can range from $750 to $10,000 for individuals and up to $10 million for businesses. These are issued by police officers. Originally in Montreal, infractions were reported by police officers and it was within the discretion of Crown Prosecutors to charge the individuals between $1,000 to $6,000. By early April, Montreal modified its approach, authorizing police officers to lay charges. The range in fine amounts gives law enforcement considerable discretion in charging. Second, there are differences in what is considered a violation of the stay-at-home orders. In Calgary, only those who were blatantly in violation of the stay-at-home orders, for example street preachers, have been charged. In contrast, Melissa Leblanc of Montreal was fined $1,546 for having friends visit her for her birthday even though they were in their cars, maintaining the advised 2 metre distance. These jurisdictional differences in what is considered a violation seem arbitrary given that stay-at-home orders fall within the scope of criminal law, as they satisfy the Margarine Reference triple P test for criminal law. According to the Margarine Re, a law is deemed to be a criminal law when it has a Prohibition, Penalty (fine, imprisonment) and a Public Purpose. The stay at home order constitutes a prohibition on certain activities, accompanied with penal sanctions, for a public purpose. As such, there seems to be some rationale in establishing a national standard for the criminal sanctions associated with violations of stay-at-home orders. Furthermore, the laws around violations are quickly changing within jurisdictions as cities and provinces are trying to respond to the progression of COVID which creates confusion around what is lawful. As Abby Deshman from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association explains “ultimately when the law is unclear it’s left up to frontline law enforcement to decide who and when and how they will enforce those vague provisions and that opens the door to discriminatory enforcement and arbitrary decision-making.” Impact on minorities Mapping the Pandemic, a project by Alex Luscombe and Alexander McClelland from the University of Toronto, plotted reported infractions between April 4-13 which they collected from media articles, police releases and social media posts. Their study shows that the ticketing disproportionately affects individuals who do not have the ability to comfortably self-isolate due to their living conditions or have not been effectively informed about the spread of COVID-19. Given the systemic barriers faced by people of colour in housing, employment and various aspects of life, it takes no stretch of imagination to visualize who these individuals are. Privacy On April 6th, the Ontario government announced that they will be sharing information on COVID-19 positive individuals with first responders, including police, firefighters and paramedics. This information includes the names, date of birth and addresses of the patients. The CCLA states that this increased access to healthcare information, which has traditionally been heavily protected, raises concerns for privacy. As a greater number of individuals are now accessing this information, there is a heightened risk of privacy breaches and hacking. As CCLA recognizes, the benefits of this increased access are not clear given that testing information is often outdated. What is the public policy rationale behind the expansion of access if the benefits do not warrant it? So what? From reviewing the changing to policing and enforcement in light of COVID, it has become evident that it is imbued with vagueness and uncertainty. There needs to be change in the regulatory environment to make the rights and obligations of citizens clear. By: Veena Ganesarasa The Canadian government’s decision to close its borders, in an effort to prevent the spread of COVID-19, has wielded a substantial impact on the Canadian immigration system. Amongst several measures in response to COVID, the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) has paused all in-person hearings and the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) has come to a temporary agreement with the United States (US), which allows Canada to turn away irregular asylum claimants that have entered through the US-Canadian border. The suspension of IRB hearings has left asylum-seekers uncertain about their status and their fate in the country. It is particularly difficult for the hundreds of asylum seekers detained by the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA), awaiting their IRB hearings. In its call to action, Amnesty International has urged the Canadian government to consider the health of detainees and to develop an effective plan aimed at preventing both physical and psychological harms. The CBSA has made some progress, with the number of immigration detainees in provincial detention centres dropping from 353 detainees in March to 147 detainees by April 19th. While these numbers are promising, some concerns arise about the lives of these newly released individuals. (Read more about it here:https://globalnews.ca/news/6861756/canada-releasing-immigration-detainees-coronavirus-covid-19/) Asylum-seekers often do not have family or a viable source of income within Canadian borders. Given the current state of the country, there is no doubt that resettlement has become a difficult task for refugee claimants. Comprehensive resources must be allocated for these individuals, who likely need assistance in housing, employment and legal affairs. The current agreement with the US, however, questions Canada’s commitment to the 1951 United Nations Convention on the State of Refugees. When Canada ratified the Convention in 1969, it agreed to protect the lives of those who have a well-founded fear of persecution. In returning individuals back to the US before hearing their refugee claims, Canada has deeply contradicted the core principle of the Convention. This sort of agreement is not new to the IRCC. In 2004, the US and Canadian governments signed the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) which prohibits people from entering Canada through the official US-Canadian border, if they have already sought protection in the US (and vice versa). The purpose was to alleviate the domestic pressures on the countries’ immigration systems. Many human rights advocates have criticized the STCA on the basis that it violates Charter rights to life and security. Although these are uncertain times for governments across the world, Canada hs an obligation to uphold its commitments in the Convention. Rather than turning away potentially legitimate claimants and reneging on international commitments, alternative methods must be adopted to process asylum claims amidst these difficult times. By Lucinda Chitapain |
Legally BrownThis page is dedicated to providing insights on current events and reflecting on recent legal developments. Archives
January 2021
Categories
All
|