Protective Orders 101 was a comprehensive day of presentations by local family violence and legal professionals on the who, what, where, when and how of protective orders including restraining orders, emergency protection orders, and peace bonds.

There was also be a Q&A Panel Presentation of local experts.

Episode 1 contains a discussion of EPO/QB Protection Orders by Dawn Nelson of the Family Law Office and a discussion of Restraining Orders by Family Lawyer Ning Ramos.

In Epsidode 2, Sarah Langley from Alberta Justice speaks about Peace Bonds and Senior Probation Officer Jennifer Anderson speaks about probation.

In Episode 3, Cam Forstey of the Edmonton Police Service discusses Orders from a Policing Perspective, Sarah Langley speaks about Orders from a Crown Perspective, and Pat Garret from Wings of Providence gives a presentation about Orders and Shelters

Episode 4 is a panel discussion and an audience question and answer session.

Protective Orders 101 – Episode 1

Protective Orders 101 – Episode 2

Protective Orders 101 – Episode 3

Protective Orders 101 – Episode 4

According to the news release from the International Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse:

Throughout the world, abuse and neglect of older persons is largely under-recognized or treated as anunspoken problem. Unfortunately, no community or country in the world is immune from this costly,public health and human rights crisis. Research indicates that public education campaigns like World Elder Abuse Awareness Day (WEAAD) are vital for informing people in a growing number of countries about elder abuse and active involvement of the media is central to its success.

Check out our Special Topic on LawNet where we’ve compiled some background information, links to resources, and information about organizations in Alberta and Canada dedicated to raise awareness, share information, and work for the prevention of elder abuse.

The LRC was also recently involved in an Elder Abuse Awareness Project completed by the Association of French Speaking Lawyers of Alberta (AJEFA – l’Association des juristes d’expression française de l’Alberta). Part of that project included a new french-language DVD for use by both seniors and intermediaries. Parts of that DVD are available on Youtube at:

• La loi et les abus: prévenir et intervenir (with Rémi St. Pierre, lawyer);
• Abus, un petit mot pour trop de maux (with Edwina Ward, therapist); and
• La fraude: comment l’éviter (with Julien Chalifour of the RCMP).

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently released a decision that dealt with the offence, and the partial defence, of infanticide. Infanticide has been part of the criminal law of Canada for over 60 years but no appellate court in Canada had ever before reviewed the infanticide provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada.

In the case of R. v. L.B., the Crown Prosecutor argued on appeal that a strict interpretation of the wording of the Criminal Code section creating the offence of infanticide did not allow for the use of infanticide as a partial defence to a charge of murder. The question before the Court was:  is infanticide both an offence and a partial defence to a murder charge, or is it exclusively an offence that may, in some cases, be an included (and lesser*)offence in a charge of murder to be considered if, and only if, the Crown fails to prove murder?

As we recently discussed with regard to the defence of provocation, the partial defence of infanticide to murder has its roots in English law.  Like the defence of provocation, the offence of infanticide was created because English juries had a strong aversion to convicting mothers who killed their newborn babies of murder, for which, under the law at the time, they would face the death penalty. The English Infanticide Act, 1922 set out a connection between mothers who kill their newborns and  mental disturbance attributed to giving birth. It provided that mothers convicted under this Act should receive a sentence that would be the same as if the conviction was for manslaughter, thus circumventing the death penalty.

Canada enacted its first infanticide law in 1948. As the Ontario Court of Appeal noted:  “Like their English counterparts, Canadian juries were reluctant to brand mothers as murderers, many of whom were very young, emotionally distraught, and in dire social and economic circumstances at the time of the homicide. As in the United Kingdom, the death penalty was mandatory for all murders in Canada in 1948.”

Like the English law, the Canadian law tied the offence of infanticide to an imbalance of the mother’s mind because of giving birth. However, unlike the English law, the Canadian statute did not require that the sentence be the same as for manslaughter. Instead, it set out a maximum penalty of three years.  The Ontario Court of Appeal decided that the wording of the 1948 Act made infanticide not only a stand-alone offence, but also a partial defence to a murder charge. In other words, if an act of culpable homicide (murder) fell within the definition of infanticide, it was deemed not to be murder or manslaughter, but was deemed to be the offence of infanticide.

However, in 1954 a number of amendments were made to the offence of infanticide in a comprehensive overhaul of the Criminal Code . The changes included:

• increasing the penalty from three to five years;
• the removal of the words: “shall be deemed not to have committed murder or manslaughter”;
• defining “newly born child” as a child under one year of age;
• adding breast-feeding as a second source of mental disturbance that could support the offence of infanticide.

The most important of these amendments, and the one that led to this court challenge by the Crown, was that the new definition of infanticide removed the phrase “shall be deemed not to have committed murder or manslaughter”. Its removal prompted the Appeal Court to ask whether the amendments of 1954 meant that Parliament at that time intended to remove infanticide as a partial defence to murder (even though it did not specifically say that).

Justice Doherty, writing the decision for the Appeal panel, noted that the panel had reviewed the parliamentary debates when the amendments were introduced, as well as secondary sources such as the Introduction to that year’s Criminal Code.  He further noted that the creation of infanticide happened in 1948, only six years before the amendments. He concluded: “The 1953-54 Criminal Code did not alter the tripartite division of culpable homicide into murder, manslaughter and infanticide created by the infanticide amendments in 1948. …Treating infanticide as a partial defence to murder is consistent with the distinction drawn between infanticide and murder by Parliament. It allows juries to draw that distinction in cases where mothers are charged with murdering their children and evidence brings the homicide within the very narrow factual confines of infanticide.  Eliminating infanticide as a partial defence effectively allows the Crown to remove the distinction between infanticide and murder through the exercise of its charging discretion.”

The Court ruled:  “Infanticide was initially, and still is, both a stand alone indictable offence and a partial defence to a charge of murder”.

Cases of infanticide are rare in Canada. However, shortly after the Ontario decision in R. v. L.B., the Alberta Court of Appeal dealt with an appeal of a conviction of a young mother for second-degree murder.  In the case of R. v. Effert, 2011 ABCA 143,  the Alberta Court referred to the Ontario decision, and quoted it with approval.  It stated: “Infanticide is a partial defence to murder, and where the facts support both a conviction for murder and infanticide, the jury should be instructed to enter a verdict of guilty of infanticide: R.v. L.B, 2011 ONCA 153 at paras.97-9. The burden is on the Crown to prove that the partial defence of infanticide does not apply; to obtain a conviction for murder, the Crown must prove that there is no reasonable doubt that the accused did not kill the child ‘by reason of her mind being disturbed.’”

In the Alberta case, a jury had found the mother guilty of second-degree murder. The Alberta Court of Appeal took the unusual step of overturning a jury verdict. It noted that the jury chose to disregard the evidence of two psychiatrists about the state of mind of the mother. The Appeal Court ruled that even if the jury had doubts about the experts’ testimony, it should have been left with at least a reasonable doubt about the state of the mother’s mind. The Court wrote: “Viewing the matter ‘through the lens of judicial experience’ it is impossible to say that there was not at least a reasonable doubt present on this record. That conclusion would mean the jury found the opinions of both experts were so seriously flawed that they should be given virtually no weight at all.”

The Alberta Court of Appeal overturned the verdict of second-degree murder and replaced it with a  conviction of infanticide.

* A lesser offence is one that is a part of a major offence that is charged against a person, but which lacks an essential element of the major offence. For example, manslaughter and infanticide are lesser offences in relation to murder.

Single Member Plurality

Here in Canada, we use a system based on the Westminster parliamentary system found in the United Kingdom.  The Single Member Plurality system (also known as the “winner take all” system) has the advantage of being very easy to understand.  Basically, Canada is divided up into 308 geographical areas (known as “ridings”), and voters in those areas cast a ballot for the candidate that they feel would best represent them.  The candidate in each riding who garners the most votes is declared the winner and becomes a Member of Parliament.  There are a number of advantages to this system, not the least of which is that it is very simple.  People cast one vote, and that vote is directly accounted to a single candidate.  Moreover, it allows people to vote for a person who is explicitly responsible for the area that they live in, giving a sense of direct representation.

There are, however, some downsides to this system.  Because a candidate only has to get more votes than every other candidate to win, the winner doesn’t necessarily have to get the support of the majority of the voters in their riding.  Here is an example from the 2011 election:

Notice that Conservative candidate John Baird received the support of less than half of the voters in the riding, but because he received a plurality of votes (more votes than anyone else) he was declared the winner and will represent all of the voters in the House of Commons.

While this might seem somewhat unequal on a local level, the difference is even more pronounced if you look at the results across the entire country.  In our political system, the party that wins the largest number of seats is generally the party that forms the government, especially if that party wins a majority of the seats, as the Conservative Party did in 2011.  But, just as a candidate can win a riding without the support of the majority of voters, so too can a party win a majority of the seats in the House of Commons without the support of the majority of Canadians.  In the 2011 federal election, the popular vote each party received is as follows:

Green Party: 3.9%
Conservative Party: 39.6%
Liberal Party: 18.9%
NDP: 30.6%
Bloc Quebecois: 6.0%

But the actual percentage of seats that each party won was very different:

Green Party: 0.3%
Conservative Party: 54.2%
Liberal Party: 11.0%
NDP: 33.1%
Bloc Quebecois: 1.3%

In fact, if the seats in the House of Commons were distributed proportionally to the votes that each party received, the House would look very different:

Image by Bryan Beca. Click for full size

Alternative Voting Systems

So, what are some alternatives to the “Single Member Plurality” system, and what are their advantages and disadvantages?  Well, there are a number of popular alternative systems in use around the world.  Some of them are directly proportional, and some of them are just “more proportional” than the system we currently use.  I’ll talk about two systems in particular, as these systems have a history of being considered in Canada and the United Kingdom, and are in use around the world.

Single Transferable Vote

The single transferable vote system is currently in use in Ireland, and a similar system, known as BC-STV was proposed and voted on in two referendums in British Columbia.  Ultimately, the people of BC decided not to adopt this method of voting, but it is still a very popular choice.

An STV system has a number of differences from a Single Member Plurality system.  The biggest difference is probably that rather than many small riding represented by a single Member of Parliament, an STV system has fewer, larger ridings that are represented by more than one Member of Parliament.  As I will explain later, this arrangement allows for more proportionality in the results.

In an STV system, voters cast a single vote, but that vote can be transferred to other candidates if their preferred candidate doesn’t win.  Voters transfer their vote by ranking the candidates according to their preference.  Voters can choose to rank as few or as many of the candidates as they like, but they cannot give any candidates the same rank.  As well, parties can run as many candidates in a riding as there are seats in the House of Commons for that riding.  For example, let’s say Riding A is represented by 5 seats in the House of Commons.  The Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the NDP (for example) could each run up to 5 candidates in Riding A.  The voters of Riding A would then see a ballot that would list all 15 candidates, and they could then mark a number next to some or all of those names in order to indicate their preference.  So a voter might mark a 1 next to Candidate A, a 3 next to Candidate B, a 2 next to Candidate C, and so on.

Now, this is where things get a little more complicated, but hopefully I haven’t lost you yet!  Once the votes are cast and voters have recorded their preferences, the first choice votes are tallied up.  Let’s say, for example, that there are 4 candidates in Riding A and 40% of people put Candidate A as their first choice, 30% put Candidate B as their first choice, 20% put Candidate C as their first choice, and 10% put Candidate D as their first choice.  Let’s also say that Riding A has two seats in the House of Commons, so two of the candidates can win.  In an STV system, a formula is used to calculate a “quota”, or minimum number of votes required to win a seat, and no one wins until they have reached that number.  So if candidate A reached the quota after the first round, he or she would be elected, but candidates B, C, and D would still need to try to get more votes in order to win the other seat.  So where to those new votes come from?  Well, they come from the surplus votes of Candidate A!  You see, if the quota to be elected in Riding A was 1,000 votes, but Candidate A received 1,500 votes, then he or she would have 500 surplus votes.  Those 500 votes are then redistributed to the remaining candidates based on who Candidate A’s supporters indicated was their second choice.  This process continues until all of the seats in Riding A are filled.  Confused?  Don’t feel bad, it’s a much more confusing system, and that is one if its main drawbacks.  Here is a video that makes things a little more clear:

There are arguably a number of advantages to the STV system over the current Single Member Plurality system.  The first is that it does a much better job of not “wasting votes”.  Because more votes are used to help elect candidates, voters don’t necessarily become disillusioned by the fact that their vote may not have had an influence on who their representatives are.  As well, because there are multiple people elected in each riding, the system is more proportional than a Single Member Plurality system, although it is not perfectly proportional.  The downside is the obvious complexity involved in such a system.  It can be very difficult for voters to understand, and because people are not necessarily sure how their vote will be counted, they may opt out from participating.  There is also some regional basis for representation, but the larger ridings with multiple Members of Parliament means that the person representing voters may not necessarily be from the same geographic area as the voters.

Mixed Member Proportional Representation

The second type of voting system I’m going to talk about is called “Mixed Member Proportional”, or MMP.  An MMP system tries to take the best aspects of a Single Member Plurality system, while adding proportionality through what is called a “Party List”.  Ontario held a referendum on electoral reform in 2007, and the people voted on whether or not to adopt an MMP system in that province.  Ultimately they opted to stick with the current system.

In an MMP system, every voter casts two votes, one for a local candidate and one for a party.  Candidates are elected in their ridings by receiving more votes than any other candidate (a plurality), just as in the Single Member Plurality, or First Past the Post system.  As we saw earlier however, this often results in an electoral outcome that isn’t particularly representative of the actual proportion of the votes that each party receives.  So how does the MMP system solve this problem?  Well there is a second way that candidates can be elected to the house, and that is by having their name on the “Party List”.  Each party creates a list of candidates that they would like to see elected.  At the end of the election, the party votes are tallied up, and those results are used to determine how many seats each party should have.  So, for example, let’s say that in an MMP system the Liberals received 40% of the party votes, the Conservatives received 35% of the party votes, and the NDP received 25% of the party votes.  That means that each of those parties should receive that proportion of seats in the house.  So if the House of Commons has 100 seats, the Liberals would receive 40, the conservatives 35, and so on.  Let’s say however, that the Liberals only won seats in 30 of the ridings.  In that case, the party list is used to “top up” their seats.  So if the Liberal Party had 20 candidates listed on their Party List, then the first 10 candidates would be elected to the House of Commons in order to bring their total up to 40 seats.

The system is a little bit more complicated than that, but that is the basic idea.  The total number of seats often has to be increased a little bit each election in order to make sure that a mostly proportional result can occur, and most systems also have minimum “quotas”, or percentage of the vote that a party has to achieve in order to be eligible to receive party list seats.  The quota is important because it keeps many smaller fringe parties from winning one or two seats just because they were able to gain small amount of support from a broad geographical area.  The MMP system is currently being used in a number of countries, including Germany, New Zealand, and the UK in the Scottish Parliament.

Here is a video that gives a clear explanation of the version of MMP that Ontarians voted on:

There are, of course, many different types of voting systems, but the systems outlined here are some of the most popular.  They all have their advantages and disadvantages, and it is up to the voters in every country to decide which system works best for them.

I was recently asked to donate to an organization that I’ve never heard of before. How can I find out more about this charity and whether I can get an income tax receipt for my donation?

In Canada, organizations can apply to the Charities Directorate of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) for charitable status. As a “registered charity” they must meet specific criteria and follow a standard set of rules, and then they are allowed to issue official donation receipts for income tax purposes. Check our Charity Central website for some FAQs about registered charities or this Fact Sheet about the differences between non-profits and registered charities.

The Charities Directorate provides some helpful information for donors. You can search their Charities Listings to find out if an organization is a registered charity, and to see a charity’s information return (T3010) to learn about their finances and activities. Their website also provides an array of information for donors including videocasts, questions and answers, and a tax credit calculator. And of course, these days many charities also have their own websites which may give you a window into their operations.

An early planning agreement is a contract which authorizes the developer to design a condominium according to the buyer’s specifications and gives the buyer the option to sign a purchase agreement later at an agreed upon price. Although this sounds like a great idea (a condo made just for me!!), it has led to some problems, and those problems have started to wind their way through the courts.

The issue? Early planning agreements are not covered by the Condominium Property Act, which otherwise gives buyers the right to cancel a contract within 10 days of signing a purchase agreement with a developer, as well as the right to a full refund within 10 days of the developer receiving notice to cancel.  In early planning agreements, on the other hand, there may be no right to refund of the deposit at all. What you are entitled to depends on what you signed, and each contract is different.  That being the case, court results have varied, depending on the specifics of each situation.

So, as always, be sure to read you contract very carefully before you sign it. Ensure that any cancellation and deposit refund rights are clearly spelled out and that you understand them. Consider getting independent legal advice.

For more information on early planning agreements, see Service Alberta’s news release. 

For more information on condo-buying in general, see Service Alberta’s  tipsheet about buying and owning a condo.

In a parliamentary system (which Canada has), members (“Members”) of the House of Commons, the Senate and provincial/territorial legislative assemblies (the “House”) have something called “parliamentary privilege” . This concept was handed down to us from the British system (sometimes called the Westminster system) that we inherited under the Constitution Act 1867 (formerly known as the British North America Act). In fact, it is right there in the Constitution Act 1867 (“CA 1867”) – section 18, to be precise.

In a nutshell, parliamentary privilege (also sometimes called “absolute privilege”) is a kind of immunity which grants Members protection against civil or criminal liability for actions done or statements made related to one’s duties as a legislator. The Supreme Court of Canada once described it like this:

“Privilege” [...is] the legal exemption from some duty, burden, attendance or liability to which others are subject. It has long been accepted that in order to perform their functions, legislative bodies require certain privileges relating to the conduct of their business. It has also long been accepted that these privileges must be held absolutely and constitutionally if they are to be effective; the legislative branch of our government must enjoy a certain autonomy which even the Crown and the courts cannot touch.

In other words:  in order to do their jobs, they need a little leeway.

Then, there are two basic kinds of privilege:  individual privilege and collective parliamentary privilege. Individual parliamentary privileges include: freedom of speech; freedom from arrest in civil action; exemption from jury duty; the exemption from appearing as a witness;  the freedom from obstruction, interference, intimidation and molestation. Collective parliamentary privileges include: the power to discipline; the regulation of the House’s internal affairs; management of employees; authority to maintain the attendance and service of Members; the right to institute inquiries and to call witnesses and demand papers; the right to administer oaths to witnesses; and the right to publish papers containing defamatory material.

Ever wondered why politicians can say such nasty things inside the House: things they would never say outside the House? Now you know.

So what exactly does this have to do with contempt I hear you ask? Well, one of the most important rules about when parliamentary privilege applies is that no privilege can exceed the powers, privileges and immunities of the imperial Parliament as it stood in 1867, when the first Constitution was written (that what it says in section 18 of CA 1867). So…. there are limits (and we have known what those limits are for quite some time).  A member cannot push it too far. Result: if s/he does push it too far, there are consequences.  For example, if a Member violates a privilege, s/he can be in “breach of privilege” and s/he can be disciplined by the House. In addition…here it comes… if a Member goes beyond the limits of privilege, s/he can be determined to be in “contempt”, and disciplined by the House.  Also, if the government as a whole goes beyond the limits of privilege, it can be determined to be in “contempt”, and disciplined by the House.

In other words: a little leeway, yes;  too much leeway, no. The reasoning: too much privilege would actually get in the way of the House doing its job. So:  you guessed it, it is the oh-so-Canadian question of “balance”, yet again.

In some Commonwealth countries, this “contempt” is included in criminal law. In Canada, the issues stay within the House. Specifically, the rules about it can be found in the House of Commons Procedures and Practice Manual (the “Manual”) and similar documents relating to the Senate and provincial/territorial legislatures. Here is an excerpt from the House of Commons Manual:

Any disregard of or attack on the rights, powers and immunities of the House and its Members, either by an outside person or body, or by a Member of the House, is referred to as a “breach of privilege” and is punishable by the House.  There are, however, other affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges. Thus, the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; obstructs or impedes any Member or Officer of the House in the discharge of their duties; or is an offence against the authority or dignity of the House, such as disobedience of its legitimate commands or libels upon itself, its Members, or its Officers.  [...] The rationale of the power to punish contempts, whether contempt of court or contempt of the Houses, is that the courts and the two Houses should be able to protect themselves from acts which directly or indirectly impede them in the performance of their functions.

The result: there is no specific list of things that amount to contempt. We just know that if a Member/government goes beyond privilege, they might be found in contempt. This is how a lot of the law works, really:  you have to have a little direction, but you don’t want to tie your hands too much, as you want to be able to examine each case on its facts, and you want to leave yourself some flexibility to deal with new types of things you could not have anticipated in advance (in 1867 – who knew about Twitter?).

That said, actions which can amount to a contempt of Parliament vary, but typically include such things as: deliberately misleading (i.e.: lying to) the House or a parliamentary committee; refusing to testify  before, or to produce documents to, a House or committee; and attempting to influence a member, for example, by bribery or threats. The penalties for contempt of Parliament can include jail time, and, in the case of a minority Parliament, usually result in a vote of non-confidence.

OK…so given how much politicians are known to “spin” things, this contempt sanction should come up all the time, right? Wrong.

The use of the contempt is actually quite rare (if you are interested, the footnotes in the Manual contain the short list).  Think about it: nothing would get done if this were used all the time. There is, in essence, an acceptance by all sides that this is not be used as a knee-jerk reaction or a partisan tactic: it is to be used only in the most serious of circumstances.  This has to do with the very core of democracy, and it is not to be used lightly. As noted in the Manual:

The reluctance to invoke the House’s authority to reprimand, admonish or imprison anyone found to have trampled its dignity or authority and that of its Members appears to have become a near constant feature of the Canadian approach to privilege.

Even the procedures around how this finding gets made ensure that a concern about possible contempt is treated with the utmost care. Specifically, it has been the practice of the House in such instances to refer the matter to committee for investigation to determine if a contempt has been committed and therefore not prejudge the findings of the committee.

That is what occurred in this case. It started with a request from the House finance committee asking to see detailed cost breakdowns for jets, and the impact of corporate tax cuts and crime bills on the federal treasury.

Initially, the government said it could not release these details because they were protected by cabinet confidence, a principle that allows information to be kept secret and exempts it from access-to-information laws. The Opposition argued that once a government announces its intentions publicly, the information is no longer protected by cabinet confidence. On March, 9, 2011, the Speaker issued a report declaring two possible charges of contempt of Parliament. The first was against the Minister responsible for the Canadian International Aid Agency. It alleged that the Minister added the word “not” to a funding memo for an aid agency, resulting in the request being denied and lied about in testimony before a committee. The Speaker also ruled that Cabinet itself could also be in contempt of Parliament for not disclosing the cost of its crime policies and new fighter jets. He sent this report to a committee, which, on March 21, 2011, ruled that the government was in contempt of Parliament.  More specifically, it found that the government’s failure to produce all documents that had been requested from it or to provide a satisfactory explanation for withholding them impedes the ability of Members of Parliament (MPs) to carry out their duties, thereby resulting in contempt. On March 25, 2011 the finding of contempt then led to a vote on a motion of non-confidence, which resulted in the conclusion of the 45^th session of Parliament, and caused the government the first to fall on a charge of contempt.

So why does this matter?  Either way you cut it, this was an historic vote. Only five other non-confidence votes have happened in Canada’s history, according to information on the Library of Parliament website. This is the first time it has occurred because a majority of MPs voted that they believed the government was in contempt of Parliament. It is a rather large moment in Canadian history and it is our obligation as citizens and voters to understand it.

Respecting Parliament is key to making Parliament work.  As voters, the question for each of us is: in that eternal Canadian question of balance, where is the line? At what point does “spin” become disrespect? The answer may be different for each of us. The point is, we need to think about it and decide. That is the beauty of our democracy!

For more information:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-2.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/03/25/pol-defeat.html

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Sec=Ch03&Seq=4&Lang=E

The question of who forms the Canadian “government” at any given time is a question of how our members of parliament organize themselves: it can be a majority government, a minority government, or a coalition. When Canadians vote in a general election, they do not vote for a Prime Minister, nor do they vote for a government. Instead, Canadians vote for a member of parliament (“MP”) to represent their riding. This is integral to the system. In fact, the Constitution Act 1867 does not mention the prime minister or political parties – the focus in on MPs. Each MP gets a “seat” in the House of Commons. Currently, in all, 308 MPs are chosen. How MPs organize themselves is entirely up to them. This is why MPs are able to sit as independents. In fact, it is possible for there to be 308 independents. It just so happens, however, that most MPs have organized themselves into groupings known as parties. This simplifies the process of forming government, but it does not change the constitutional emphasis on individual MPs.

Once all of the MPs are elected, the Prime Minister (“PM”) is actually appointed by the Governor General (“GG”). The GG is the representative of the Queen, who, technically, is Canada’s head of state (in other words, the PM is not the head of state). The Prime Minister then chooses from among the MPs to appoint the members of the Cabinet. Once this is all organized, there is just one basic requirement: the government must at all times enjoy the confidence of the majority of MPs in the House of Commons. In other words, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet can only remain as the “government” of Canada for as long as they have the support of a majority of the MPs.

If the majority of MPs are from one political party, the government is said to be a “majority” government. In such a case, it is generally expected that government will at all times enjoy the confidence of the majority of MPs in the House of Commons. To help this process, the GG generally appoints as PM the leader of the political party that controls more than half of the seats in the House. However, when there is a “free vote” (a vote where MPs do not have to toe any party lines), it is still possible – even in a majority – for the government to lose the confidence of the majority. That would normally trigger an election.

If no party has the majority of seats there is, instead, more than one potential government. In such a case, the GG has to choose as the Prime Minister the Minister that is most likely to be able to maintain the confidence of the House of Commons. In such a case, it is usually the leader of the political party who has the largest number of seats in the House (even though that number is not a majority). This is called a minority government. This is what occurred, among many other times, in 1921 (King), 1962 (Diefenbaker), 1965 (Pearson), 1972 (Trudeau), 1979 (Clark), 2004 (Martin) and most recently, in 2006 and 2008 when Stephen Harper was chosen as the leader. However, creating a minority government is not the only option. It is also possible for more than one party to formally partner together to create a larger number of MPs. This is known as coalition. In other words, a coalition government is a government with cabinet ministers from more than one party. This has occurred in Canada on the federal level (1864-1867 and 1917-1920), at the provincial level (for example in Manitoba in1940, in Ontario in 1985, and in Saskatchewan in 1985). It happens in other countries, too (for example: Germany, Ireland and Switzerland).

In all of this, there is one thing that remains constant: both a minority government and a coalition government need the support (be it formal or informal) of at least more than one party to do any work, because in both cases no one party has a majority of seats in the House of Commons. The only difference, really, is that in a “coalition”, the support is in the form of a formal agreement. In a minority government, on the other hand, the support occurs on a vote by vote basis (sometimes one party votes with the minority, sometimes a different one, sometimes all of them). In other words, anytime and every time there is a minority government, there are coalitions of sorts, because, by definition, a minority government cannot win any vote unless it has the support of MPs from other parties. And, on any confidence vote, if there is not a majority, the government falls. That is just how the math works. And that is what Canada’s current minority government has been doing since 2006: every piece of legislation that was passed in the House of Commons since 2006 (over 135 of them!) also had the votes of non-conservative MPs.

What can we take from this?

• “Coalitions” (be they formal or informal) happen.
• They have happened on numerous occasions (and to some of the biggest names in Canadian political history).
• They have been successful on numerous occasions.
• They are neither good nor bad per se.
• They can serve a very real purpose of essentially forcing generally opposing parties to work together.
• The current government has engaged in them (seeking and getting the support of all of the other parties, depending on the issue).
• The current government has used the concept to do its work (example: over 135 bills were passed).

Result: coalitions are not to be feared. They are just part of our parliamentary system, like a lot of other things.

So, instead of worrying about coalitions in and of themselves, go look into the issues that matter to you. And be sure to vote. Voting is also part of our system – and nothing works without that! Citizens of other countries are literally fighting to the death for democracy. We already have one. Let’s make the most of it!

For more information, see the following articles.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/coalition-governments-canada

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/house-commons-introduction-canadas-premier-legislative-body

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/opposition-canadian-house-commons-role-structure-and-powers

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/edmonton/Graham+Thomson+Quit+complaining+Just+vote/4508349/story.html

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/AboutParliament/Misc/DemocracyInAction/Democracy-e.asp

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/compilations/parliament/DurationMinorityGovernment.aspx?Language=E

This, however, was not always the case. Today marks the 100th anniversary of the great fire at the Triangle Shirtwaist factory in New York City, in which 146 workers died. At that garment factory, due to concerns that employees might steal thread and buttons, everyone always had to leave through one door (and have their purses and pockets inspected). All other doors were locked. On the day of the fire, no one knew where to find the keys to the locked doors, and there simply was not enough time to get everyone out through the sole remaining door (and the elevator ride it took to get to that door).

The tragedy of that fire is one of the events that helped shape the kinds of minimum standards and labour laws that we enjoy today. Today, we take a moment to honour the memory of those 146 people.

For more information, see this PBS historical documentary and this website created by Cornell University.

Have a safe work day!

Our columnists have always been one  of the great strengths of LawNow magazine.  Each issue they write about the area of law that interests them the most, and the results are concise, informative, and sometimes provocative.  Our columns cover family law, human rights decisions, aboriginal law, employment law, law and literature, and more.  It is our pleasure to begin to share some of these columns with readers of our blog.

Our latest column covers family law and is written  by another long-time LawNow contributor, Rosemarie Boll,  Staff Counsel with the Family Law Office of Legal Aid Alberta, in Edmonton, Alberta.

While the divorce rate in Canada has fallen since the 1990s, about 40% of Canadian marriages end in divorce. Assuming the rate of relationship breakdown is about the same in common-law families, that’s a lot of people who will be looking for reliable legal advice. If you don’t have a lawyer, where do you go for legal information?

Most people don’t read judgements or law statutes, but they do listen to the news, watch TV, and surf the net. We live in an information age, and the volume of information increases with every new website and blogpost. Google the word ‘divorce’ and you’ll get over fifty million hits. Thousands of websites clamour for our attention and it’s hard to know where to start – or quit. Yet, despite this avalanche of information, family court judges tell us litigants still arrive at the courtroom doors without any firm idea about their rights and obligations, the procedural requirements, the rules of evidence, or even the types of orders a court can and cannot make.

The problem arises for a lot of reasons. Family law varies greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Every family is unique, and even though one case may seem to be the same as another, they are never identical. Procedures vary enormously, even between cities in the same province. And some information out there is just plain wrong. Take, for example, these quotations from bloggers addressing that vexing question – When are kids old enough to decide where they want to live?

“12 in manitoba why don’t know but kids by that age know which is the crazy parent”

“It’s 12 when they can decide which parent they want to live with”

Lawyers call this ‘the myth of twelve.’ In reality, a child never gets to decide where she will live, not even at age 16.

Information is only as good as its source. Many lawyers and academics have an on-line presence, but we rarely hear from the ones at the top – the judges. Family court judges see thousands of cases and they are undeniably the best qualified to comment on the realities of family law. Traditionally, judges have shied away from the media and public appearances. They do not speak about their decisions; they let their judgements speak for themselves.

But one Canadian judge has taken advantage of his unique position and has moved off the bench and into the media spotlight – meet Mr. Justice Harvey Brownstone. A sitting Family Court Judge since 1995, Justice Brownstone released a bestselling book: Tug of War: a Judge’s Verdict on Separation, Custody Battles, and the Bitter Realities of Family Court. Written for the general public, the book informs parents about the realities of family court, and it isn’t pretty:

“What we judges see in family court is beyond belief and certainly more dramatic and gut-wrenching than any television show or movie.”

Justice Brownstone tells you why you don’t want to appear in front of him (or any other judge) and recommends alternatives to litigation. He outlines how and why to pick a lawyer, explains concepts such as ‘the best interests of the child’ and ‘joint custody,’ and summarises the tricky rules of evidence. He gives pointers on conducting successful litigation, and the book ends with ‘Ten Tips for Success in Resolving Parenting Disputes.’

In 2010, Justice Brownstone launched an online TV show about family law issues – Family Matters. He interviews guests from the legal community on topics such as child support, collaborative law, mediation, and child protection. Justice Brownstone also answers questions from the public using social media such as Youtube, Skype, email, and AdviceScene.com’s Q&A. His talk show has branched out into a discussion on the way the justice system affects relationships: internet dating, addictions, prenuptial agreements, mental health, adoption, surrogate parenting, same-sex and multi-cultural relationships, parenting after separation and divorce, mediation, child neglect and abuse, and child and spousal support. You can follow him on Facebook and Twitter. He hopes to expand into mainstream TV with documentaries, reality shows, and even live dispute resolution.

Better than Judge Judy.

Rosemarie Boll is Staff Counsel with the Family Law Office of Legal Aid Alberta, in Edmonton, Alberta, and the author of a young adult novel about family law and domestic violence entitled “The Second Trial,” published in 2010.