Law Times

Page 6 July 23, 2018 • law Times www.lawtimesnews.com Ford schools critics on legislative process BY IAN HARVEY T here was a moment in the Ontario general election when they mocked Doug Ford because he refused to detail how a bill becomes law. Ironically, the premier is now schooling critics on the processes, all while f lexing his majority muscles. With 76 seats to the NDP's 40, the Liberals' seven and the Green Party's one, Ford has free rein to push any piece of legislation through, despite the op- position's efforts to stall and delay. The process itself is loaded with op- portunities to sidetrack or delay a bill, but it wasn't always a head-to-head ide- ological battle. As the Canadian Study of Parlia- ment Group — a non-profit, non-par- tisan organization of parliamentary experts, academics and public servants — noted in a 2013 report, partisan poli- tics changed everything starting in the 1980s. "The emergence of party discipline meant that the chamber became geared mainly toward law-passing rather than law-making," the report notes. Whereas there once was a "collegial, even clubby tenor," partisan politics has led to polariza- tion and acrimony, accord- ing to the report. What Ford and Co. are doing now is the legisla- tive and political equivalent of toppling dictators' stat- ues in public squares post- revolution. One of the means is through legislation and Ford wasted no time in introduc- ing the modestly omnibus Bill 2, The Urgent Priorities Act, 2018, which encompasses the Hydro One Ac- countability Act, 2018, amendments to the Ontario Energy Board Act, 2018, The White Pines Wind Project Termi- nation Act, 2018 and the strike-ending Back to Class Act (York University), 2018. While Ford has a strong mandate to effect the changes he promised, not all the disruption will come in the form of bills, which can get log-jammed through the various stages of first, sec- ond and third readings and committee hearings before they move on to royal assent. In some cases, a simple revo- cation suffices, such as the Ontario Cap and Trade reg- ulations, which were ended July 3. The scrapping, then rein- statement of some facets of the controversial sex educa- tion curriculum was also just a matter of a policy change. Similarly, Orders in Council suspended the rules around vaping, the new rules governing ticket scalp- ing and the requirement for doctors to document those receiving vaccines and report them to the gov- ernment. All were done to allow for more study, the government claims. Those Orders in Council were made pursuant to the Legislation Act, 2006, which allows for the revocation of acts proclaimed but not yet in effect, namely 2006, c. 21, Sched. F, s. 75 (1). Clearly, the new regime had done its homework subsequent to winning the election and acted without delay the same day they were sworn in using the tools available and catching their critics by surprise. It's a highly unusual and unique strategy, says Stephany Mandin, part- ner at Goldman Hine LLP. "Honestly, it's so rare and unusual, but it is there in the legislation," she says. "It's just not a frequently used sec- tion." Since bills can be proclaimed retro- actively, on the day of royal assent or on a future date to give stakeholders time to prepare, there's a window of op- portunity for the new government, she says. "It's rarely used and my understand- ing would be that there's so much work which has gone into the bill becoming law and then being published as public notice that simply revoking it by Order in Council suggests a lack of transpar- ency. "We're really in new territory here with not a lot of experience with this piece of legislation." LT uIan Harvey has been a journalist for more than 41 years, writing about a diverse range of issues including legal and political affairs. His email address is ianharvey@rogers.com. COMMENT u EDITORIAL OBITER By Gabrielle Giroday ©2018 Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted or stored in a retrieval system without written per- mission. The opinions expressed in articles are not necessarily those of the publisher. Information presented is compiled from sources believed to be accurate, however, the publisher assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions. Law Times disclaims any warranty as to the accuracy, completeness or currency of the contents of this publication and disclaims all liability in respect of the results of any action taken or not taken in reli- ance upon information in this publication. Publications Mail Agreement Number 40762529 • ISSN 0847-5083 Law Times is published 40 times a year by Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. LT.editor@thomsonreuters.com CIRCULATIONS & SUBSCRIPTIONS $205.00 + HST per year in Canada for print and online (HST Reg. #R121351134), $199 + HST per year for online only. Single copies are $5.00. Circulation inquiries, postal returns and address changes should include a copy of the mailing label(s) and should be sent to Law Times One Corporate Plaza, 2075 Kennedy Rd. Toronto ON, M1T 3V4. Return postage guaranteed. Contact Keith Fulford at .............. 416-649-9585 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . or fax: 416-649-7870 keith.fulford@thomsonreuters.com SALES AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT Advertising inquiries and materials should be directed to Sales, Law Times, 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON, M1T 3V4 or call: Sales Manager Paul Burton ............................................ 416-649-9928 paul.burton@tr.com Consultant, Strategy and Business Development: Ivan Ivanovitch ...................................... 416-887-4300 ivan.ivanovitch@tr.com Business Development Consultant: Kimberlee Pascoe .................................. 416-996-1739 kimberlee.pascoe@tr.com Account Executive: Steffanie Munroe ................................... 416-315-5879 steffanie.munroe@tr.com Law Times Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd., One Corporate Plaza, 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON • M1T 3V4 • Tel: 416-298-5141 • Fax: 416-649-7870 www.lawtimesnews.com LT.editor@thomsonreuters.com • @lawtimes Director/Group Publisher . . . . . . . . . Karen Lorimer Managing Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jennifer Brown Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gabrielle Giroday Staff Writer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anita Balakrishnan Copy Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Patricia Cancilla CaseLaw Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leah Craven Art Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phyllis Barone Production Co-ordinator . . . . . Jacqueline D'Souza Electronic Production Specialist . . . Derek Welford Imperfection rules I f much of modern technology focuses on extracting the messiness and toil out of life (like automated cars and artificial intelligence, for example), then one could assume that the law exists to clarify matters when things, indeed, go wrong. And go wrong they will. As a colleague of mine recently said to me — humans are, by their very nature, imperfect. Our courts system is imperfect. Lawyers themselves are imperfect. This issue of Law Times delves into some complex issues, but it also points to how laws (or rules) can help create order in a world where confusion and disinformation can be widespread. A column by lawyer Renata Laubman looks at networking in the #MeToo era. It's a phenomenal read that shows how the Rules of Professional Conduct have relevance for lawyers in situations outside the office. Another story focuses on how three Waterloo police officers are heading to the Ontario Court of Appeal after a Superior Court judge denied them class action certification. They allege that the Waterloo Regional Police Services Associa- tion failed to provide a workplace free of gender-based discrimina- tion and harassment. "I have considerable sympathy for the plaintiffs' desire to have this litigated in court. Even on the limited and contradictory evidence be- fore me, it is apparent that this case raises serious, triable issues relat- ing to the workplace culture," said the ruling. Then there's the story on how the Law Society of Ontario tribunal has allowed a lawyer to surrender his licence in a decision that included a lengthy analysis of the law- yer's mental health issues. In the decision, the tribunal said it recognizes the duty under the Ontario Human Rights Code to accommodate disability to the point of undue hardship. Laws and rules can restore order to a world where messiness — no matter how hard we try — pervades. LT Queen's Park Ian Harvey

• Cover