Law Times

Page 6 April 18, 2016 • lAw Times www.lawtimesnews.com COMMENT ©2016 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, com - pleteness or currency of the contents of this pub- lication and disclaims all liability in respect of the results of any action taken or not taken in reliance 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 $199.00 + 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 ADVERTISING Advertising inquiries and materials should be directed to Sales, Law Times, 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON, M1T 3V4 or call: Kimberlee Pascoe ...............................416-649-8875 kimberlee.pascoe@thomsonreuters.com Grace So .............................................416-609-5838 grace.so@thomsonreuters.com Joseph Galea .......................................416-649-9919 joseph.galea@thomsonreuters.com Steffanie Munroe ................................416-298-5077 steffanie.munroe@thomsonreuters.com Director/Group Publisher . . . . . . . . . Karen Lorimer Editor in Chief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gail J. Cohen Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gabrielle Giroday Staff Writer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yamri Taddese Copy Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Patricia Cancilla CaseLaw Editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adela Rodriguez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . & Jennifer Wright Art Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steve Maver Production Co-ordinator . . . . . . .Sharlane Burgess Electronic Production Specialist . . . Derek Welford 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 u EDITORIAL OBITER By Gabrielle Giroday Money greases those political wheels P olitics is about many things: serving the community, leadership, decision-making, law-making, and much more. Party politics, however, is about mon- ey. While Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne has talked a good game since being caught with the party's hand in the cookie jar, it's still politics as usual at Queen's Park. Wynne will introduce changes to the Ontario Election Finances Act to be in place Jan. 1, 2017. They will bar union and corporate donations, but there aren't a lot of details. The Liberals are embar- rassed by recent headlines exposing a policy requiring cabinet ministers to raise $500,000 a year for the party. They did this by lending their name and presence to events where the audi- ence paid hundreds or thousands of dol- lars per ticket just to be there. Those guests included many promi- nent citizens, among them business people, chief executive officers, entrepre- neurs, and more than a few lawyers. They weren't there for canapés and rubber chicken. It's a mere coincidence then that last December Scotiabank promoted a $7,500-per-person fund- raiser for the Ontario Liberals that raised $165,000 towards Finance Minister Charles Sousa and Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli's quota, according to one me- dia outlet. It probably had nothing to do with Scotiabank being a lead underwriter for the Hydro One initial public offering. The $30 million in fees all the banks stood to make from the sale wasn't a factor at all. Surely, that's reasonable? Ev- eryone does it, don't they? Well, yes and no. The fact is Ontario's regulations around fundraising schemes and third-party advertising are the loosest in the land. PC leader Patrick Brown has ramped up a campaign calling for a public inquiry into campaign fundrais- ing. Wynne will sidestep this neatly by tabling these changes. Changes to the Ontario Election Fi- nances Act RSO 1990 are long overdue and, as NDP leader Andrea Horwath notes, the chief electoral officer should be asked for his input as part of the pro- cess. Wynne, however, invited both leaders to a meeting to discuss the issue and then delivered a fait accompli outline. As it stands, the Act prescribes dona- tions only by individuals, non-charitable corporations, and trade unions, barring cash transactions above $25. This dif- fers from federal regulations, which bar contributions from unions and corpora- tions. The caps are generous: $9,975 per calendar year, plus $9,975 per campaign period to each party; $1,330 per calendar year to constitu- ency associations of any one party; $6,650 per calendar year to each registered can- didate, or to registered candi- dates of all parties. Following the federal gov- ernment's lead and banning unions and corporations and setting lower limits for individuals to control dis- bursements through "fronts" would be an easy first step, though one imagines the Liberal par- ty's fundraising chair might beg for an extended phase-in so they could adapt their machinery accordingly. Wynne has foreseen this obvious is- sue, penning a Liberal-approved series of amendments. There will be a series of hearings this summer, but Wynne has already noted she's not afraid to f lex her majority muscle to get her agenda through. Also on the table is the disposition of the role U.S.-style Superpacs play in On- tario elections, tilting the playing field with partisan advertising, which is nei- ther limited by the Elections Finance Act nor restrained by spending caps. Again, we know little of her plan here, but it's due some consideration. As the chief electoral officer noted last year, in the 2014 general election, third parties, predominantly dominated by unions, spent $8.4 million in advertising, up from $6 million in the 2011 campaign, most of it slamming Progressive Con- servative leader Tim Hudak. By contrast, the party spending cap was $7.4 million. The law requires only third parties to register, but it does not cap or control spending. "In recent elections, certain third parties have increased significantly what they spend on advertising," a report re- leased after the 2014 election by the chief electoral officer noted. "The chief electoral officer believes that this reality could very well produce a situation in which parties and candidates campaign on an uneven playing field." Since then, private members bills to reign in third parties have unceremoni- ously died on introduction. And that's the problem. What we're talking about is creating a level playing field for the democratic process and it seems just a tad too important to be left to the "politics-as-usual" crowd. Major- ity or not, these amendments should be transparently spelled out and benefit no party, no candidate, and no leader. LT uIan Harvey has been a journalist for more than 35 years writing about a diverse range of issues including legal and political affairs. His e-mail address is ianharvey@rogers.com. Queen's Park Ian Harvey An unusual ruling An unusual ruling against Ontario's Family Responsibility Office is worthy of note. ere is a stereotype that permeates popular culture about family law disputes, oen related to deadbeat parents (usually fathers) who won't pony up child support for their kids. But the ruling in DeBiasio v. DeBiasio is different. e case focuses on a father who had to get a refraining order against the FRO to stop it from suspending his driver's licence. is happened aer months of attempted communication with the man's FRO caseworker, as well as the agency's legal services department, about an upcoming court date for a motion to terminate child support pay - ments from his former wife. In the case, Ontario Superior Court Justice Clifford Nelson ordered the FRO's director to pay $7,500 aer finding the agency exercised its discre- tion to enforce the original child support order unreasonably, and "failed to provide timely and meaningful responses to the inquiries of the payor's counsel." In his ruling, Nelson said, "FRO submitted that at all meaningful times its caseworker was in regular and timely contact with the payor's counsel. is is not correct." He also stated, "FRO's counsel are lawyers. ey are governed by the same Rules of Professional Conduct as lawyers in private practice. ey owe the same duty of responsibility to other counsel as does any lawyer in Ontario. Timely and meaningful communication is the expected standard of behaviour." e man's lawyer, Annamaria Perruccio, says this is something that happens "all too oen." Perruccio is calling for an amendment to provincial legislation to lessen the FRO's power to strictly enforce support orders when a material change of circumstanc - es has occurred, particularly if there's a court date on the horizon. Joshua Henry, a spokesman for the Ministry of Community and Social Services, said the ministry "is currently considering possible implications for policies or practices." is may be wise given the nature of Nelson's rul- ing, which certainly indicates there are problems afoot, at least in this case. LT

• Cover