CPLEAadmin, Author at CPLEA.CA

Teachers Talk LawNow – Corporate Social Responsibility

July 19, 2012 By CPLEAadmin

LawNow magazine is an incredible resource for teachers. Each issue offers engaging articles about law in language suitable for students. Teachers Talk LawNow is a series of lesson plans for teachers based on these articles.

LawNow Articles:

What is Wrong with Corruption? – Peter Bowal and Christopher Bowal
The Ethics of Corporate Social Responsibility- Janet Keeping
Lessons Learned from the British Petroleum Disaster – Jeff Bone
International Corporate Political Corruption: the Case of Niko Resources Ltd. – Peter Bowal and Joshua Beckie
Chevron Corp. v. Naranjo: Goliath’s Global Anti-Enforcement Injunction against David – The Court, an initiative of the Osgoode Hall Law School.

These articles provide the opportunity to explore a wide range of topics including transnational corporations, environmental law, government regulation, and free market economies. The articles can be approached from a variety of perspectives. For example, they can be studied within the context of globalization or with a greater emphasis on economics. The articles could also be used to create a unit in language arts that concludes with a persuasive essay.

Jigsaw Activity
1. Divide students into five groups and provide them with one of the articles listed above. Each group will create a summary of their article based on a guiding question drawn from your lesson objectives. For example:

What are some of the undesired consequences of free markets and how can governments, corporations, and companies limit them?
What relationship, if any, does economic and political globalization have with corruption?

2. When the groups have finished their summaries assign the members of each group a number between one and five. Create new groups using these numbers. Students will then teach their new group about the article they helped to summarize.
3. When the group activity is complete, students will then work independently on a writing assignment. The guiding question from the beginning of the lesson can be used as the topic for a formal essay.

Extension Activities
The project could also be supplemented with a film study. Some suitable documentaries with similar themes include:

Bananas!;
Capitalism a Love Story;
The Corporation; and
Food Inc.

Off-Road but still In-Bounds

June 27, 2012 By CPLEAadmin

Canada Day long weekend can be the perfect time to let loose, and off-roading on an ATV can be the perfect way to do it. But ATVs can be dangerous and there are rules regulating their use. So what are these rules, and what do you need to know before off-roading in your area? dirt road
Hunting down information on ATV regulations can be tricky, in part, because the laws governing ATVs vary across the country. For this blog post, we’re going to focus on two levels of government that regulate ATV use in Alberta: the provincial government with the Alberta Traffic Safety Act, and municipal governments with local bylaws. Sometimes the local bylaws will mirror the provincial legislation but sometimes they will not. So what you can do in a city may be different from what you can do in a provincially controlled area.
Definitions are important when it comes to legislation and bylaws. ATVs are known by several different names like quads, off-road vehicles, and off-highway vehicles. However, the definition often used in legislation is “Off-Highway Vehicles” or OHVs.
First off, it is important to know whether you will be riding on private land or public land because the regulations often differ between the two. For example, the Alberta Traffic Safety Act states that a driver can operate an OHV on private land without a license, registration, or insurance. However, if the driver wishes to scoot around on any designated public land then they must have all three.
OHV use is often restricted on public land. The Alberta Traffic Safety Act restricts OHV use on all highways. Their definition of a highway includes any street, road, lane or alley and adjacent sidewalks and ditches. This includes private highways that are ordinarily used by public vehicles.
Some municipalities have chosen to blaze their own trail and have passed bylaws allowing for OHV use on municipal highways. The County of Wetaskawin passed a bylaw in 2010 allowing for OHVs on highways if used for farming, and in 2012 they passed a bylaw for OHVs on highways if used for recreation.
There are also areas of public land that are specifically designated for OHV use such as the “Timeu Creek OHV Recreation Area” which is 40km north of Barrhead.
Knowing where you can ride is only half the battle. The other half is knowing the rules of riding. The rules of riding will often differ between provincial legislation and municipal bylaws. For example, there are no provincial regulations regarding passengers on OHVs but municipalities, like Breton, often have bylaws that limit passengers to the amount the OHV is designated to carry.
Alberta is one of only two provinces without mandatory helmet laws, but some Alberta municipalities have passed their own helmet laws. This includes Parkland County, where the driver and all passengers are required to wear a helmet while on a highway or in a park within the County.
This is only a brief overview of some of the OHV regulations found in Alberta, and it important to take a look at the links provided for further criteria if you will be riding in any of the areas I’ve mentioned. But no matter where you’re going, you should take a look at the Alberta Traffic Safety Act and check with the municipality where you will be riding for any bylaws. You can do this by checking the municipality’s website for bylaw information, or by calling their local Police or RCMP detachment for information. Make sure that you are clear on where you can ride and what rules you have to follow while riding. That way you won’t have to worry about drifting outside the law’s boundaries while enjoying summer sun.

New Adult Interdependent Relationships Brochure

May 10, 2012 By CPLEAadmin

The term living “common-law” is often used in everyday language to describe a couple that lives together, with or without children, but is not legally married. The Canadian government recognizes “common law” relationships for income tax purposes, but the Alberta government does not. In Alberta, the phrase Adult Interdependent Relationships (“AIRs”) is used instead of common law.
AIRs are interesting because they can include non-sexual relationships of interdependence. For example two friends or relatives that live together may be considered to be in an AIR if they meet certain criteria.
CPLEA has made a new brochure about AIRs. This brochure answers some of the most common questions people have and provides examples of what AIRs look like. Check it out here

Rules for Smart Renters

March 23, 2012 By CPLEAadmin

When I first started working at CPLEA I was given the task of finding out what youth need to know about the law. After consulting with youth in our city and the groups that work with them, we came across a serious problem. Young people, especially those in vulnerable situations, are being taken advantage of. Youth often do not know their legal rights and responsibilities when renting.
Finding a safe place to live is one of the biggest challenges facing youth who have moved out of their homes because of abuse, neglect, or being kicked out.
At CPLEA we have created a video with some basic tips to help renters. It is a great resource for young people and anyone else that rents. The video focuses on ways to prevent things from going wrong and how to have a positive relationship with your landlord.

Top 5 Tips for Bringing Law into the Classroom

February 15, 2012 By CPLEAadmin

CPLEA has its own youtube channel! You can view it here. Our first videos posted are tips for teachers to bring law into the classroom. Watch all 5 tips below.

Stay tuned for more Vlogging (Video Blogging).

Exotic Pets and the Law

January 3, 2012 By CPLEAadmin

I really enjoy reading my colleagues blog posts! One particular post about animal imports got me thinking about a biology lesson I taught in school…
Why do we have rules for importing animals?
Many of the restrictions are created to prevent importing invasive species into Canada. Invasive species are plants or animals that originate from another part of the world but are brought into Canada on purpose or by accident. Once they establish in Canada they out compete our local species and devastate the balance of our ecosystems. For example in Ontario invasive zebra mussels set off a chain of events that led to the death of hundreds of waterfowl (Read more here)
Another reason for the restrictions is to stop the spread of disease. For example importing birds from Asia is not allowed because of the potential to spread bird flu. So I think most people would agree it’s good we have rules to protect the environment and stop the spread of disease. Are we doing enough though?
I came across an article published by the Vancouver Humane Society in 2004 titled A Disaster Ignored. The threat to human and animal health from imported exotic wildlife: a review of scientific evidence and opinion.
It was written after the Monkey Pox outbreak in the United States and advocated stricter regulations for the exotic pet industry. In 2003 several people in the US contracted monkey pox from pet prairie dogs. It was discovered that the disease originated in Gambian Pocket Rats from Africa that had been in contact with prairie dogs in the same pet store. This led Canada and the US to ban imports of African rodents.
The article criticized Canada for being reactive and not proactive and asked why African rodents were not banned earlier. Although there have been changes to some of the legislation discussed in the article, many of the concerns raised are still relevant.
You can learn more about Federal exotic pet import rules here
There are also provincial regulations that list some species as “controlled” and therefore under strict rules. The list is available here
Municipal governments may also pass bylaws regulating exotic pets. To read more about these laws, visit your municipal government’s webpage

Genetics and the Law

November 28, 2011 By CPLEAadmin

I was looking for connections between science and the law when I stumbled upon the very interesting (and probably a little controversial) topic of genetically modified organisms. Here’s what I found…
The Harvard Mouse
The Harvard mouse is considered a landmark case because it’s an example of the limits of our patent laws. In Canada genes, individual cells, and microorganisms have been granted patents since the 1980s, However, something as complex as a mammal had not.
Harvard College created a process to insert a cancer causing gene in mice for research. They sought a patent for the process and the product (the mouse). The Americans allowed the patent but Canada was different. In 2002 the Canadian Supreme Court’s interpretation of the word invention made a higher life form , like a mouse, unpatentable. Canada became the first major jurisdiction to refuse to recognize the patentability of higher life forms. [Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents), 2002 SCC 76, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 45]

Monsanto Canada Inc.v. Schmeiser (SCC, 2004).
Just two years after the Harvard Mouse case came another important lawsuit. Since the 1980s, Canada has allowed the patenting of genes and individual cells (but not higher life forms). Crops like genetically modified canola have been patented. This means that if farmers want to grow them, they must pay the company that owns the patent.
One concern with genetically modified organisms is that the genetic material might spread outside its intended area. Seeds could travel by wind or the crop could cross-pollinate with the neighbouring field.
This is what Percy Schmeiser claimed when Monsanto took him to court for growing Canola that contained their patented herbicide resistant gene. He claimed that seeds from a neighbouring field landed on his land. Eventually the Supreme Court found that Schmesier had infringed on the patent by growing the crop. Schmeiser argued that the plant was a higher life form and could not be patented. The court agreed that a plant was a higher life form and could not be patented, but the herbicide resistant gene could be. Schmeiser was ordered to remove the canola from his land but was not forced to pay any money to Monsanto. [Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, 2004 SCC 34, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 902]
Read more here and here
Transgenic Fish
Transgenic organisms are living things with genetic information that has been added from another species. A Canadian company has created transgenic salmon that grow to full size at twice the rate of a normal fish. (Read how here.) The laws and regulations around it are a bit murky. As it gets closer to the grocery store shelf it can give us a better idea how transgenic organisms fit under our current laws (and any new ones).
While we wait… did you know that transgenic fish have been available for purchase in Canada already? Not in our grocery stores, but in our pet stores.
GloFish™ were briefly available in Canadian pet stores until Environment Canada found out about them. (Read more at: “CBC – Marketplace: Growing Nemo”.) The fish are obviously a bit different from the Salmon because they are not meant to be eaten. They made it into the Canadian marketplace before getting government approval and have since been banned from being imported. GloFish™ are a genetically modified aquarium staple, the zebra danio, that has been genetically altered to glow. The glowing effect has been added by introducing a gene from sea coral. The example illustrates the challenges faced by our government and regulatory agencies as innovation outpaces our laws and ability to enforce them.
As science continues to advance and push legal and ethical boundaries expect to see many of these issues brought to court.

Alternative Voting Systems

May 10, 2011 By CPLEAadmin

Recently, we had a federal election here in Canada, and many people noticed that when all was said and done, the distribution of seats in the House of Commons didn’t very closely match the distribution of votes that each party received. There is a good reason for this, and it has to do with the voting system we use here in Canada, a system known as “First Past the Post” or “Single Member Plurality”. Given the recent election here in Canada, as well as the fact that people in the UK recently engaged in a referendum about whether they should change their voting system (they opted not to), we thought our readers might be interested in a brief overview of how our system works, what some of the alternatives are, and the history of alternative voting systems in Canada.
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:

Party	Candidate	Votes	Percentage
Conservative	John Baird	25,226	44.7
Green Party	Mark MacKenzie	2,279	4.0
NDP-New Democratic Party	Marlene Rivier	11,128	19.7
Liberal	Anita Vandenbeld	17,790	31.5

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

[Read more…]