Law Union of Ontario Annual Conference

FRIDAY MARCH 24th, 7:30pm “Finding a Balance? Human rights, national security and the role of law and lawyers” Paul Cavalluzzo, human rights lawyer (speaking personally, not as counsel to the Arar inquiry) OISE, 252 Bloor St. West (at St. George subway station) Wheelchair accessible, Childcare available on request AFTER: socialize at Fox and Fiddle pub, 280 Bloor St. West SATURDAY MARCH 25th, 9am to 5pm OISE 252 Bloor St. West (at St. George subway station) Wheelchair accessible, Childcare available on request $30 for all panels or pay what you can low income and unwaged $10 per session or pay what you can low income and unwaged Law Union memberships will be available at the door PANELS Session 1 9:15am to 10:45am PANEL I: Undermining Workers’ Safety: A Roundtable on How Law Impedes Occupational Health and Safety Interests This panel comprises distinguished and diverse panelists who have gathered to raise awareness on how Canada’s constitutional, criminal and labour laws, even if well-intentioned, can undermine legitimate workplace health and safety interests. *Rick Blair (Ryder Wright Blair Holmes) *Michael Grossman (Toronto Workers’ Health and Safety Legal Clinic) *Patricia O’Reilly (Injured Workers Consultants Community Legal Clinic) *Sabrina Pacini (Women of Inspiration) *Moderator: Ken Stuebing (CaleyWray Labour Lawyers) Panel II: Capitalizing the Earth: Environmental Crediting and First Nations Economic instruments such as crediting schemes could be ways to motivate good environmental behaviour through market incentives. This panel will look at the potential for such mechanisms in the context of local communities and indigenous peoples both within Canada and globally. *Dr. Laura Westra, an adjunct professor at York University and professor emeritus at the University of Windsor. *Dean Jacobs, the Chief of Walpole Island First Nation *Graham Erion, a climate change activist and an LLB student at Osgoode Hall Law School. Panel III: Paralegals and Politics: Regulating Paralegals A panel on the new plans to regulate paralegals by the Law Society of Upper Canada, whether it will benefit clients and social movements. *Vilma Filici (Filici legal services) *A.J. Withers (Ontario Coalition Against Poverty) *Moderator: Natasha Ceasar (Law clerk and paralegal with Carranza Barristers and Solicitors) 11:00 am to 12:30 pm Session 2 Panel I: Racialized Justice and Colonial Violence Against Native Women – The concept of impunity in the consolidation of a settler state *Audrey Huntley, woman of mixed native and settler ancestry community researcher and filmmaker *Robyn Bourgeouis (Lubicon), activist, Ph.D. Candidate, OISE *Amber O’Hara, First Nations researcher, activist and a family member of one of the murdered women. She has documented these cases over the past ten years Panel II: Reform of the Human Rights Code- the Direct Access Debate For over forty years the Ontario Human Rights Commission has acted as the “gatekeeper” of the human rights enforcement system, investigating complaints, referring some for hearing and dismissing others. The Attorney General recently announced the first major overhaul of the Code since it’s introduction in the 1960s, to produce a more “direct access” model. This panel will explore the pros and cons of the current system versus the direct access model. * Margaret Parsons, Executive Director of the African Canadian Legal Clinic and spokesperson on issues of race and equity * David Lepofsky, lawyer, author, advocate for the disabled and former chair of the Ontarians with Disabilities Committee * Kathy Laird, Exectutive Director of the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario and member of the Association of Human Rights Lawyers of Ontario Panel III: Race, Crime and Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Political parties of all stripes are trumpeting mandatory minimum sentencing as a means of halting gun violence and dealing with other social problems. But experiences in other jurisdictions show the outcomes of such policies disproportionately impact communities of colour without any real effect on crime rates. Join lawyers on the cutting edge of fighting racial discrimination for a critical discussion of the issue. *Kikélola Roach, civil lawyer with Roach, Schwartz and Associates *Selwyn Pieters, lawyer, sole practitioner *Moderator: Mike Leitold, student-at-law and LUO Steering Committee member 12:30 – 1:30 pm Lunch break and an opportunity for informal mentoring for law, law clerk and paralegal students (pizza will be provided) Session 3 1:30 pm – 3:00 pm Panel I: Fighting Canada Corporations and Environmental Crimes Canadian mining operations now span more than 100 countries – an expansion that has left some of the world’s worst environment disasters in its wake. The record of this industry within Canada has also been marked by bulldozing local interests, environmental destruction and violation of indigenous rights. This panel will compare legal options for holding Canadian mining corporations accountable for their actions within Canada and abroad. *Justin Duncan, a Staff Lawyer with Sierra Legal Defence Fund in Toronto. *Grahame Russell, the co-director of Rights Action, a non-governmental organization that supports community-controlled development and human rights projects. *Sara Seck, a PhD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School specializing in the regulation of Canadian mining corporations abroad. *Dr. Catherine Coumans, Research Coordinator at MiningWatch Canada and responsible for the Asia-Pacific Program Panel II: Immigration Law: More of the Same Old Problems This panel will examine the issues facing people attempting to immigrate to Canada or seek refugee here. The following subjects will be discussed: the degradation of procedural fairness in the refugee determination process (such as the use of reverse order questioning where the claimant is questioned by the immigration officer not their own counsel first) and the use of security to undermine immigrants’ legal rights and the campaigns in the community to fight back. * Leigh Salsberg and Andrew Brouwer, speaking on the requirement that refugees who come to Canada through the United States make their claims there (Safe Third Country) *Catherine Bruce, speaking on reverse order questioning Barbara Jackman Barrister and Solicitor, speaking on security certificates *Sima Zerehi, No One Is Illegal and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, will speak on community campaigns for change *Moderator: Geri Sadoway, Immigration Counsel at Parkdale Community Legal Services Panel III: This is What a Democracy Looks Like: Democratic Reform in Canada What are the fundamental requirements for healthy representative democracy and an accountable government? What principles and procedures can best ensure a participatory decision-making system for Canadians of all backgrounds? Why are these requirements, principles and procedures not observed under Canada’s current electoral laws and democratic institutions? Finally, how can we, as community-minded citizens, organize to build an open, accessible and just democracy in Canada? *Wayne Smith, President of Fair Vote Canada *Joe Murray, Chair of Fair Vote Ontario *Dennis Pilon, a CRC post-doctoral fellow in Canadian Studies at Trent University. 3:15 PLENARY: TOTURE, HOW CAN WE FIGHT IT? A free flowing discussion on Canada’s involvement in and tacit consent for torture, strategies and movements being developed to fight back against this involvement and consent. Discussants are experts in the effects of torture and in the legal ramifications of our involvement in torture. *Ezat Mossallanejad, Settlement Counsellor/Policy Analyst and Researcher, Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture *Paul Copeland, Law Union counsel on security issues and lawyer for Abdullah Almalki *Barbara Jackman, lawyer for Ahmed El Maati For more information: 416-926-8034 x 153 or lawunion@sympatico.ca

Fighting Canadian Corporations and Environmental Crime

Panel at the Law Union Annual Conference March 25, 2006, 1:30-3:00
Moderator: Sarah Dover, Articling Student, Birchall Northey LLP

Canadian mining operations now span more than 100 countries – an expansion that has left some of the world’s worst environment disasters in its wake. The record of this industry within Canada has also been marked by bulldozing local interests, environmental destruction and violation of indigenous rights. This panel will compare legal options for holding Canadian mining corporations accountable for their actions within Canada and abroad in anticipation of the federal government considering new regulation to address environmental harms and human rights abuses by Canadian mining companies committed outside of Canada. Panellists Justin Duncan – is a Staff Lawyer with Sierra Legal Defence Fund in Toronto. His recent legal battles include victories in protecting a provincial park from the re-opening of a road and defending municipal pesticide bylaws. He is actively involved in public legal education to give Canadian activists tools to battle corporations and governments that would harm the environment. Grahame Russell – is the co-director of Rights Action, a non-governmental organization that supports community-controlled development and human rights projects in Mexico, Central America and Haiti, and that carries out education and activism work in Canada and the US related to global human rights and development issues. Grahame works on community impacts in the South of Canadian mining operations. Sara Seck – is a phD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School specializing in the regulation of Canadian mining corporations abroad. She delivered the keynote address, titled “Exploding the Myths: Why Home States are Reluctant to Regulate”, at the November 2005 multi-stakeholder round table on “Regulating Canadian Mining Companies Operating Internationally” hosted by MiningWatch. Catherine Coumans – is the Research Coordinator and responsible for the Asia-Pacific Program at MiningWatch Canada which co-ordinates the public interest response to the threats to public health, water and air quality, fish and wildlife habitat and community interests posed by irresponsible mineral policies and practices in Canada and around the world. Catherine is intimately familiar with the current effort to push the federal government towards regulating Canadian mining companies outside Canada and sits on the an Advisory Group to the government’s roundtable process on Corporate Social Responsibility and Mining.

Tougher sentences, costly and ineffective

from the Winnipeg Free Press Sun Feb 19 2006 By KIM PATE, Executive Director of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies

In the wake of the tragic Boxing Day shooting in Toronto, media fear-mongering and political posturing conspired to convince Canadians that rising crime rates deserve the get-tough response of mandatory minimum sentencing. … Mandatory minimum sentences are seductive to citizens unfamiliar with the complexities of crime, and to politicians who want to be seen by those citizens as taking action to protect them. But crime rates are actually declining, and if putting more people in prison for longer and certain periods of time really could make us safer, then our neighbours south of the border would be living in the safest country in the world. In the United States and Australia, mandatory minimum sentences have been utilized for much of the past few decades. Many states are now revisiting them, recognizing that mandatory minimum sentences do not protect society, they do not rehabilitate individuals, and they do not generally contribute to the well-being of others. They do, however, vastly increase the cost of the criminal-justice system. … Supporters of mandatory minimum sentences argue that such sentences deter or prevent sentenced individuals from committing future offences, and discourage others from committing similar crimes by making an example of those who are convicted. There is no evidence to support this. … More mandatory minimum sentences are not the answer. The problem of increased gun violence requires long-term and sustained solutions that are focused on social and community development and increased opportunities for full participation in Canadian society.

Harkat – Application for Leave to Appeal – Oct. 17th 05

Court File: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (On appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal)

B E T W E E N :

MOHAMED HARKAT Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CANADA Respondents

___________________________________________

NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

___________________________________________

TAKE NOTICE that the Applicant Mohamed Harkat hereby applies for leave to appeal to the Court, pursuant to Rule 25, from the Judgement of the Federal Court of Appeal File No. A-144-05 made the 6th day of September, 2005 and for an order for his costs of this application, or such further or other order that the Court may deem appropriate. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that this application for leave is made on the following grounds: 1. Argument on the constitutional issue in this case was completed before Justice Dawson on December 9th, 2004. 2. On December 10th, 2004 the Federal Court of Appeal released its decision in the Charkaoui case. 3. Justice Dawson released her decision on the reasonableness of the security certificate and on the constitutional issue on March 22nd, 2005. 4. The appeal in the Federal Court of Appeal was scheduled to be argued on September 6th, 2005. On August 25th, 2005 the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal from the Judgement of the Federal Court of Appeal in the Charkaoui case. 5. On September 6th, 2005 the applicant’s appeal was argued in the Federal Court of Appeal before the same three Judges who decided the Charkaoui case. The position of the applicant was that the Charkaoui decision was wrong in law. 6. In the Harkat appeal the Federal Court of Appeal followed its ruling in the Charkaoui case. The Court did not call on the Crown and gave its decision orally. 7. After the conclusion of the Harkat appeal counsel for the Respondents was asked whether the Respondent would consent to an application for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada. To date the Respondents have not indicated whether they would consent to the granting of leave to appeal. 8. The Federal Court erred in concluding that the provisions of Section 76-81 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act comply with the fundamental justice provisions of Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 9. It is appropriate in this case that leave to appeal be granted in order that the Applicant will have the opportunity of arguing this appeal at the same time as the Charkaoui appeal is argued in the Supreme Court of Canada. DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this day of October, 2005.

Signed by ______________________________

Paul D. Copeland
Copeland, Duncan Barristers & Solicitors
31 Prince Arthur Avenue
Toronto, Ontario M5R 1B2
Tel. (416) 964-8126 Ext. 142
Fax: (416) 960-5456

Matthew Webber
Webber, Schroeder
Barristers & Solicitors
220 Elgin Street 2nd Floor
Ottawa, Ontario K2P 1L7
Tel.
Fax. 1 (613) 860-1549

Solicitors for the Applicant

ORIGINAL TO: The Registrar Supreme Court of Canada.
COPIES TO: Counsel for the Respondent Donald MacIntosh
The Attorney General of Canada
Department of Justice
Toronto Regional Office
130 King Street West Exchange Tower Suite 3400, Box 36
Toronto, Ontario M5X 1K6
Tel: (416) 973-0066
Fax: (416) 954-8982