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.
A Question about Burning Money
Question of the month from the Garvie Reading Room:

Is it against the law to burn or otherwise damage Canadian currency?
Canadian currency consists of both coins and bank notes (the proper name for paper money), and the law treats coins differently from bank notes.
The law for coins is quite specifically spelled out in the Currency Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-52) Section 11 (1):
“No person shall, except in accordance with a licence granted by the Minister, melt down, break up or use otherwise than as currency any coin that is current and legal tender in Canada.”
This Act also spells out the penalties for doing so. As if that was not enough, the Criminal Code of Canada (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46) also has a relevant section:
“456. Every one who
(a) defaces a current coin, or
(b) utters a current coin that has been defaced,
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(By the way, isn’t this an interesting use of “utters”? In this particular section, “utters” means to use for payment or to sell.)
The law regarding bank notes is very different. Neither the Bank Act nor the Criminal Code says anything about mutilation or defacement of bank notes. Before you start scribbling on those twenties in your wallet (or burning them up for that matter), there are some important reasons why you should not damage bank notes. Writing on bank notes may interfere with the security features. As well, damage reduces the lifespan of the notes, which increases costs because then they have to be replaced more frequently. Markings on notes may also prevent them from being accepted in transactions. Furthermore, it is generally thought that marking or damaging bank notes is inappropriate because Canadian paper money is a symbol of our country and source of national pride.
The production of bank notes is one of the main roles of the Bank of Canada. If you do encounter damaged or mutilated bank notes, a free redemption service is offered.
In the end, how many of us actually have “money to burn”?
Photos by Caitlin Thompson at http://www.flickr.com/photos/kittycanuck/
You must try to work it out!
The Province of Alberta began a new decade with new Rules of Court. In the works for 10 years, the new Rules made their debut in 2010.
One of the most significant changes in the new Rules is the requirement for persons engaged in a civil (as opposed to criminal) legal action in the Court of King’s Bench to make an effort to settle their disagreement. This is mandatory: litigants must try to resolve their cases using certain court-approved dispute resolution processes before they will be allowed to obtain a trial date. And, it is up to the parties to begin this process. Only in certain rare circumstances, and by order of a judge, will this requirement be waived.
There are several options that litigants may choose. They may:
- Hire a private mediator;
- Request a mediation by a Court of King’s Bench judge; or
- Use a mediator from the Roster Mediation Service, maintained by the Department of Justice.
In addition, there are programs that are available specifically for some family law disputes. Family Mediation Services can assist in resolving issues such as child and/or spousal support, communication issues, and minor issues about the division of property. If a participant’s gross annual income is below $40,000, and he or she has children under the age of 18, this service may be free of charge. In Calgary, the Dispute Resolution Officer Project (DRO) is mandatory for parties asking for interim child support or to change an existing child support order. In Edmonton, the Child Support Resolution Project (CSR) is mandatory for persons who are representing themselves in court and are asking for interim child support under the Divorce Act, or to change an existing child support order.
The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta is working on other options for court-assisted dispute resolution, so other programs may be available in the near future. But for now, parties in a civil law case that are represented by a lawyer should discuss the pros and cons of these different options with their counsel and decide about the best way to proceed.
Persons who are representing themselves might like to obtain a copy of a brochure produced by the Legal Resource Centre entitled: Dispute Resolution: You Must Try to Work It Out!
One for the people: The 1929 Persons Case

October 18th is the anniversary of the Persons Case, when five Alberta women won their fight to have women declared “persons” under the law. The battle stemmed from an 1867 common law ruling that “Women are persons in matters of pains and penalties, but are not persons in matters of rights and privileges.”
With her sights set on a Senate seat, Emily Murphy joined forces with four other like-minded women, Irene Parlby, Nellie McClung, Louise McKinney and Henrietta Muir Edwards, to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada for clarification of the definition of the word ‘person’ as it appeared in the British North America Act.
Sections 23 and 24 of the British North America Act (now referred to as the Constitution Act, 1867) defined the qualifications for the Senate. The British North America Act used the words ‘he’ and ‘him’ when referring to individuals and ‘persons’ when referring to more than one individual. The Supreme Court of Canada took the position that in 1867, the year the British North America Act came into force, the use of the words ‘he’, ‘him’ and ‘persons’ would have been interpreted as referring only to men thus ruling women ineligible as persons qualified for appointment to the Senate and other matters of politics and affairs of state (See Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General) [1928] S.C.R. 276.).
The women, by then known as the “Famous Five”, appealed to what was then the highest Court in Canada, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. On October 18, 1929 Lord Sankey delivered the Council’s decision in favour of the women. In his announcement, the Lord Chancellor stated that the British North America Act planted in Canada was “a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits” (See Edwards v. A.G. of Canada [1930] A.C. 124.). He also noted: “that the exclusion of women from all public offices is a relic of days more barbarous than ours. And to those who would ask why the word “person” should include females, the obvious answer is, why should it not?” As a result, the Council concluded that, “the word ‘persons’ in Sec. 24 includes members both of the male and female sex… and that women are eligible to be summoned to and become members of the Senate of Canada.”
The Persons Case represented a significant step forward for women’s rights in Canada. On February 14, 1930, Mrs. Cairine MacKay Wilson became Canada’s first woman Senator. Today, there are 37 women in the Senate, representing approximately one-third of the current 105 seats.
Since 1979, outstanding individuals who have helped to advance equality for women in Canada have been recognized by means of the Governor General’s Awards in Commemoration of the Persons Case. This year six individuals have been named as recipients of this Award. The Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General of Canada will present the Awards during a ceremony at Rideau Hall on Persons Day, October 18, 2011.
For more information on the Persons Case and its historical significance:
Herstory: An Exhibition. (1998). Law: The “Persons” Case: http://library.usask.ca/herstory/person.html
Hughes, V. (2001/2). How the Famous Five in Canada Won Personhood for Women . London Journal of Canadian Studies, 17: http://www.canadian-studies.net/lccs/LJCS/Vol_17/index.html
Library and Archives Canada. (2008). Famous Five: http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/206/301/lac-bac/famous_five-ef/www.lac-bac.gc.ca/famous5/index-e.html
Section15.ca. (2004). Persons Case: http://section15.ca/features/ideas/2004/12/22/persons_case/
(Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/35477558@N04/5069199377/)
Gift Certificates and Gift Cards: Receipt or no Receipt?
Gift certificates and gift cards are becoming a very common item in our culture. They are also becoming increasingly common in charitable activities. If your charity has ever received a gift certificate or gift card as a donation, listen up!
Charity Central (always on top of what’s happening in charity law) has several FAQs designed to help you understand when a registered charity can and cannot issue a donation receipt for gift certificates or gift cards:
Our charity received a donation of a $100 gift certificate from an aesthetician for a facial. How much should the receipt be for?
Zero. Your charity cannot issue an official donation receipt because there is no transfer of property. The gift certificate is for services and services are not property.
Our charity received a donation of a $100 gift certificate from someone who purchased the gift certificate from an aesthetician. Can we issue an official donation receipt and for how much?
Short answer
Yes, an official donation tax receipt can be issued for $100, the fair market value of the gift certificate.
Long answer
A gift certificate that was bought from the person who created the gift certificate is considered property. When the purchaser donated the certificate to your charity, there is a transfer of property. An official donation receipt can be issued.
If you have more questions about receipting, Charity Central has a wealth of information for you. Check out the information map, learning modules, more FAQs, and resources.
The Canada Revenue Agency has recently posted its updated policy on the donation of gift certificates or gift cards. Click here to read the policy from CRA.
East Africa Drought Relief Fund
The Government of Canada has established the East Africa Drought Relief Fund. The Government will match every dollar donated by individual Canadians to registered Canadian charities who are raising money for this Fund.
If you would like to have your donation matched through the Fund, donations must be made through registered Canadian charities. To verify your chosen organization is a registered charity, view the Charities Listings or call the Canada Revenue Agency at 1-800-267-2384.
For more information about how to donate wisely, check out Giving to charity: Information for donors from the Canada Revenue Agency.
If you are a registered charity thinking of raising money for the East Africa Drought Relief Fund, there are specific donating and fundraising criteria that must be met. Make sure to check out what an eligible donation includes. Registered charities must complete and send in the East Africa Drought Relief Fund Declaration Form to CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency) on or before September 30.
Animals & Domestic Violence
Deliberate cruelty, or threatened cruelty, to animals is a form of violence. Besides being harmful to a living creature that is capable of feeling pain, animal cruelty can be one of the earliest predictors that an individual is developing a pattern of seeking power and control by inflicting suffering on others. It can also be an indicator of other kinds of violence being perpetrated on family members or others.
As a result, animal cruelty, or threatened animal cruelty, is often present in cases of family violence. More specifically, many studies in Canada and the U.S. have shown that, amongst other things:
- family pets are often targets in domestic violence, and threats of violence toward a pet are often used as a means of control by an abusive family member; and
- many victims of domestic violence remain in an abusive situation out of concern for the safety of their pets or livestock.
In Alberta, there are legal options to deal with existing, or threatened, animal cruelty in situations of domestic violence.
- The first is the Alberta Protection Against Family Violence Act. Under that act, a judge (or justice of the peace) may make “any provision” that s/he “considers necessary to provide for the immediate protection” of the person asking for the order of protection (known as the “claimant”). In such a case, the animal/pet would be treated as “property” (as, in law, an animal is not a person and, therefore, not a ‘family member’) and a judge could make an order about that property (for example: a provision that the animal be in the exclusive possession of the claimant). Given that an abused person may stay in an abusive situation in order to protect an animal, thereby jeopardizing his/her own safety, it can be argued that in order to immediately protect that individual, an order regarding the animal may be required. In order for that to happen, however, abused persons need to know that this is a possibility (many do not). Also, lawyers — or police officers or social workers — acting in behalf of the claimant need to know that they can ask a judge for such a provision.
- In addition, if you have cause to believe there is animal abuse occurring in your community, you can report it to the appropriate SPCA or humane society for your area. The staff who take the calls will help to identify the nature of the situation and the appropriate response. Your call will be treated in confidence, though your name and contact information may be required in case further information is needed. If cases go to court, you may need to provide written or verbal testimony.
SPCA Research Study
- Have you experienced domestic violence that impacted your pets or livestock?
- Did concern for those animals affect your decisions about seeking safety?
- Are you willing to be interviewed for a study that will help others?
An Alberta research study looking at how the presence of livestock/pets affected domestic violence situations is seeking participants who willing to be interviewed about their experience. Anyone who had pets/livestock while living in an abusive home situation can volunteer for the interviews. If you provide permission, your children in grades 6 or higher can also be interviewed.
The study, which runs until Decemeber 2011, is sponsored by the Alberta SPCA and is being conducted by researchers from the University of Calgary and an education consulting group. The project received clearance from the University of Calgary Research Ethics Board. Your identity will be kept confidential. The information you provide will help other families and animals in the future
If you are willing to participate, please call Donna at 403-650-4608 or email spcaresearch@gmail.com.
Special thanks to the Alberta SPCA for its assistance in the creation of this blog post.
Condos & Early Planning Agreements – Part 2
A little while ago, we began a discussion about early planning agreements. In the kind of response we love to see here at the LRC, a reader, Yakov A., provided a great deal of further information on the topic (see his comments on arguments that might result in the return of the deposit).
In a nutshell, Yakov informed us that, for various reasons, these contracts (also sometimes called “Reservation Agreements”) may not be “enforceable” by the developer, but they may be enforceable by the purchaser. So what does that mean? Well, it means that, should a developer go to court to say “I demand what I think I am entitled to under this contract”, the developer might not get it. On the other hand, and for various other possible reasons, the person buying the house might have better luck. And, once again, the answer provided by the law will be: it depends. One of the things upon which it depends is the arguments made by the people presenting the case.
What should we take away from this? Well:
- if you are already in this situation, don’t let the arguably as-of-yet-not-totally-clear law on this topic deter you from trying to get your deposit back – it might work;
- if you do try to get your deposit back, consider hiring a lawyer. As you can see from Yakov’s insightful comments, lawyers who specialize in a particular field are truly a wealth of information and can really be helpful in reaching your goals; and
- if you are buying a condo and/or entering into one of these agreements, do your homework, protect yourself, and make sure you understand what you are doing.After all, even if you can go to court to get all or some of your money back, or reach a settlement before going to court, these process are long, emotionally draining and do cost money in and of themselves (not to mention arguably the last thing you need as you search for another property)!
Thanks again Yakov!
Alternative Voting Systems
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
Condos & Early Planning Agreements
Anyone who has ever bought, or looked into buying, a condominium, knows that owning a condo is really very different from owning a house. First, there is the condo corporation. Then, there are matters such as the condo board, the condo fees, common areas, the reserve fund, and the by-laws. Now, for potential buyers of incomplete condos, we can add “early planning agreements” to the list of things they really need to learn about.
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.