The Quebec Court of Appeal recently rendered a decision clarifying the restriction set out at section 128(1)(a) of the Act respecting the Barreau du Quebec ("Act"), which reads:

128. (1) The following acts, performed for others, shall be the exclusive prerogative of the practising advocate or solicitor:

(a) to give legal advice and consultations on legal matters; […]

According to this section and in order to ensure the protection of the public, certain acts are reserved for lawyers called and registered with the Bar. The illegal exercise of the legal profession reserved to lawyers constitutes a penal offence. Unless a lawyer, providing legal information is permissible, while providing legal advice is not.

In Charlebois c. Barreau du Québec, 2012 QCCA 788 (CanLII), the appellant (not a lawyer), president of the Association des syndicats de copropriété du Québec, an organization providing services to syndicates of co-owners, was alleged to have provided legal advice to an old friend, who was the vice-president of his own condominium association regarding the agenda and running of the condominium's general meeting via a series of emails. At first instance, the judge found that there was a reasonable doubt as to the appellant having committed the offence and as such, could not conclude that the appellant had breached the Act. The Superior Court of Quebec, on appeal, found the appellant guilty of the offence, concluding that he had provided more than just an enumeration of the law and thus had gone beyond the limits of legal information.

The Quebec Court of Appeal was therefore required to ask itself if the emails exchanged between the appellant and his friend constituted “legal advice and consultations on legal matters”, an expression not defined in the Act.

The Quebec provincial government has filed today a reference motion with the Quebec Court of Appeal regarding the legality of Bill C-7 (see article here).

Bill C-7, or in its full title, an Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of senate term limits, seeks, as it name suggests, to modify the way the country selects senators and how long they can sit for. The federal government would select its senators from a list of nominees proposed by the provinces, following an election in each of those provinces. Senators named after October 14, 2008 could only sit for one term of nine years.

The Quebec government does not believe that the federal government can unilaterally change the Constitution without consultation with each of the provinces. Moreover, it is clear that there are concerns, and not just in Quebec, about the way the dynamics of our government system will change. Is an elected Senate the way forward?

A Globe and Mail article by Adriana Barton, reporting on a study featured in the Economist, discusses how physical looks might actually be a liability for female job-seekers. And this, despite the numerous studies that have shown that attractiveness aids in job advancement.

The researchers sent out fake resumes with a photo attached to 2,500 vacancies; those with pictures of beautiful women were less likely to get an interview. Those with pictures of handsome men were, in contrast, more likely to get an interview. These researchers came to the conclusion that this turn of events was in large part due to the fact that human resources employees, mostly female, responsible for sifting through applications, were likely jealous of these candidates.

Whether or not this conclusion is founded, journalist Ms. Barton says it best when she writes: "But it's discrimination all the same".

Back in January, I wrote about a class action that had been filed in New York by former law students claiming they had, in a sense, been duped with regard to post-graduation job prospects (see here). These law students sought over $200 million in damages. Last week, the New York Supreme Court dismissed the action (see here).

Justice Schweitzer wrote that students considering going to law school are "a sophisticated subset of education consumers, capable of sifting through data and weighing alternatives before making a decision regarding their postcollege options.” Moreover, Justice Schweitzer recognized that times were tough; however, the realities of the the job market, which are impossible to ignore, cannot be trumped by any law school marketing material.

It remains to be seen how this decision will influence other similar suits filed against various universities. As Justice Schweitzer writes, not all of society's difficulties can be fixed by a lawsuit.

The Canadian government is set to pass back to work legislation for certain categories of Air Canada employees to prevent any major disruption of air travel by a potential labour dispute following difficult and unsuccessful collective bargaining (see here). The Honourable Lisa Raitt, Minister of Labour, introduced a bill to this effect yesterday and it is expected that it will be adopted by tomorrow. The legislation would require that the disputes over working terms and conditions be referred to binding arbitration.

Back to work legislation for Air Canada was also considered back in 2011 (see a Slaw blog posting by Shaunna Mireau here). Similar legislation was adopted last summer for postal workers, putting an end to rotating strikes (Gabriel Granatstein posted on this subject on this blog). 

Critics consider back to work legislation as undue interference in labour relations and a weakening of unionized workers' rights. In this particular case, the government relies on the importance of air travel for the economy and the inconvenience that would be caused to travelers. The matter on whether or not air travel is an essential service has been referred to the Canadian Industrial Relations Board. Is there a right, wrong or better way to handle these difficult labour relations situations?

Quebec media is reporting today that the city of Huntingdon, south of Montreal, will be contesting what is commonly known as Bill 101, or officially, the Charter of the French Language (see here or here).

In January of this year, the Office de la langue française ("Office") received a complaint alleging that the city was sending out bilingual documents in its communications to its citizens. The Office invited the city to respect section 15 of the Charter of the French Language that states:

15. The civil administration shall draw up and publish its texts and documents in the official language.

This section does not apply to relations with persons outside Québec, to publicity and communiqués carried by news media that publish in a language other than French or to correspondence between the civil administration and natural persons when the latter address it in a language other than French.

The City has since passed a resolution not to comply with the Office's request and will ask the provincial government to modify the law, thus allowing a city and its citizens to choose the language in which they wish to be served. According to the Charter of the French Language, when over half of a municipality's population is Anglophone, that municipality can ask that the Office recognize that it can send out communications in both French and another language. The articles linked above write that only 44% of Huntingdon's population is Anglophone.

The Charter of the French language, adopted in 1977, will be celebrating its 35th anniversary this year. The preamble clearly identifies its purpose: to ensure the quality and influence of the French language, which has shaped the identity of Quebecers. And yet, it continues to fuel quite a bit of debate…

The Globe and Mail (see here) is reporting today on a recent article from Forbes.com (see here) about so-called "love contracts" in the workplace. The name alone does not necessarily lead to the correct conclusion as to the actual purpose of these contracts: love contracts are meant to be signed between two romantically-involved coworkers stating that their relationship is consensual and that they understand the employer's policy on harassment.

Indeed, office romances, while not uncommon, can make life difficult for employees and employers alike when they head south. Some time ago, my colleague, Gabriel Granatstein, wrote a column for the Montreal Gazette (see here) regarding the the sensitive nature and possible legal consequences of workplace romances:

[...] the consequences of a relationship ending badly have also resulted in legitimate claims of harassment where one of the parties to that relationship has, in some way, taken out their pain or frustration on their ex-significant other. Employers are required by the Labour Standards Act to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment of any kind. Moreover, cases of harassment often involve managers and their subordinates. This kind of power imbalance will be viewed harshly by our tribunals if the subordinate alleges harassment by her or his superior.

From a legal standpoint, employees may become more sensitive to issues surrounding romance in the workplace; however, they might vigourously object to or contest an employer's involvement at any level in their personal lives. Once the relationship ends and a claim for harassment is filed, the contract may show that the employer was taking reasonable means to prevent harassment, but it certainly does not prevent the employee from making the complaint in the first place. I look forward to seeing how this attempt to contractualize a very emotional and subjective element of an employee's life plays out.

The state of Indiana may soon become the 23rd state in the US to adopt right-to-work legislation. With the Senate Committee having already passed the Bill, it will go to the full Senate. If there are no amendments, the governor of Indiana could be signing the Bill as early as tomorrow (see a news article here).

Back-to-work legislation prohibits contracts between employers and unions which require all employees to pay union dues as a condition of employment. As such, this type of legislation gives the non-member employee the option of paying union dues (or not). Supporters of this type of legislation believe that it makes the market more competitive and brings greater investment into the state. Those against right-to-work legislation see it as the government's attempt to "bust" unions and will lead to lower wages.

In Canada, we have the Rand formula which forces all employees, whether members of the union in place or not, to pay union dues, as it is considered that all employees benefit from the negotiated terms and conditions of employment. The Supreme Court of Canada has already decided that the forced payment of dues does not constitute a violation of the freedom of expression and that if there were a violation of the freedom of association, it was saved by section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. In a day and age where the role of the trade union is questioned, would or should right-to-work legislation have a place in Canadian labour law?

The new year starts with a lot of news about wages.

As reported in various newspapers, including the Globe and Mail and La Presse, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has published a report entitled "Canada's CEO elite: the 0.01%" (available here) regarding the annual compensation of Canada's highest paid 100 executives in 2010. The titles of the newspaper articles alone reveal that these salaries are not insignificant.

Of interest is also the fact that Gildan Activewear Inc.'s Board of Directors will offer shareholders an advisory vote during the 2012 annual shareholders' meeting on the corporation's approach to executive compensation, as disclosed in its 2011 Management Proxy Circular.

For other Canadian workers, the news seems a bit more grim, according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Payroll taxes – most notable employment insurance and Canadian Pension Plan rates - increased on January 1, 2012. Various provinces will see other taxes increase.

Language debates fascinate me. My local hockey team gets me going, whether winning or losing. Now both interests are combined.

You may not have heard, but the appointment of new Habs coach Randy Cunneyworth is creating quite the stir in Quebec. So much so that it has become a question of politics. In his editorial, Henry Aubin, journalist for the Montreal Gazette, writes strong words to this effect:

The club’s federalist ownership is inadvertently blowing fresh oxygen on the cooling embers of sovereignist fervour. Defence of the language is what powered sovereignty in the 1970s, and Molson’s Canadiens could be on their way to replacing Eaton’s – whose salespeople spoke only English, legend has it – as the iconic symbol of anglo insensitivity.

Apart from all the cultural, political and social issues raised by Mr. Cunneyworth's hiring, what about the legal aspects of all this? If someone has the talent/necessary skills/qualifications to lead a team to the Stanley Cup (one of the most important tasks in a head coach job description), does/should language mean as much? Or can it be said to be a job requirement? Is there an element of discrimination in all of this? My colleague, Gabriel Granatstein, wrote an interesting piece on the issue of the French language and hockey players in a different blog posting last year. 

I certainly look forward to seeing the outcome of this debate.

According to yesterday's news (see here for an article from the National Post), the government of New Brunswick will be asking the Supreme Court of Canada to look into the status of its language laws as it appeals the decision of its appellate court upholding the decision of a provincial judge who excluded breath-sample evidence of a suspected impaired driver pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms because his language rights had been violated (see R. v. Losier, 2011 NBCA 102 (CanLII)). Indeed, in that case, a police officer only offered the suspected impaired driver the right to be served in French thirty minutes into his detention, which was found to be contrary to the province's language laws. A similar defence has been raised in a number of New Brunswick cases already. The province seeks a decision on whether or not a Charter remedy can be used for the breach of a provincial law, in this case, New Brunswick's Official Languages Act.

Living and working in a province in which language rights are an extremely sensitive topic, this news is particularly interesting considering the impact any Supreme Court decision could have on language rights in Canada. Should the Supreme Court accept to hear this appeal, it looks like it will ultimately be asked to weigh in on the appropriate balance between the protection of language rights and the protection of the public.

Last week, Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrinch made a comment during an appearance at the Harvard’s Kennedy School of Business that was picked up by the media: “child laws […] are truly stupid”. Speaking about poverty and inequality in American society, Mr. Gingrich explained that he favoured easing labour laws that prevented teens from working.

Requiring children to go to school until a certain age, limiting the number of hours they can work each day and the age at which they can start working are generally believed to be valuable from a social and moral standpoint. It may be easy to dismiss Mr. Gingrich’s comments, but no one country is perfect: it is certainly interesting to note that Canada has not escaped criticism regarding its own child labour laws. For example, author Joel Bakan wrote a commentary in the Globe and Mail this past fall entitled “B.C.’s child labour laws are the most neglectful in the world”. In some provinces, children as young as 12 years old are permitted to work with parental authorization. 

While Mr. Gingrich focuses on the value he sees in allowing teens to work, let’s not forget that countless other issues arise when children are permitted to work at a young age: higher risks of workplace injuries, young employees who do not know their legal rights, the challenge of balancing school and work. Maybe child labour laws aren’t all that stupid.

As a professional working in both official languages day in and day out, I found a recent study conducted by the Institut de recherche en économie contemporaine and the Institut de recherche sur le français en Amérique particularly interesting: nearly 14% of employees in Quebec’s education, health and public sectors predominantly use English as a language of work and this, with Anglophones only representing 9% of Quebec’s population (the study was based on the 2006 census). Moreover, less than half of these jobs are held by individuals who described themselves as Anglophones.

When compared to the reverse situation in Canada (i.e. French as a language of work in predominantly Anglophone communities), the public sector’s use of the French language did not exceed the population deemed to be Francophone. For example, in New Brunswick, while Francophones represent approximately 33% of that province’s population, 32% of public sector employees used French as a language of work. In Ontario, the numbers were extremely close: 4.9% of public sector employees predominantly use French with 4.4% of the population considering themselves to be Francophone.

When the sectors considered are directly financed by the federal, provincial and municipal governments, this study concludes that it is not enough to blame globalization and international commerce as the only reason why French is endangered. It is no secret that Quebec has and continues to invest in the protection of the French language, whether it be by passing legislation (think of the Charter of the French Language (Bill 101)) or by investing in campaigns that promote the use of French. This study in some ways seems to question whether the provincial government’s francization efforts are sufficient and leads a reader to wonder what this could mean in the long-term for the French language in Quebec.

Already the subject of Slaw posts in the past with regard to different jurisdictions (see here and here), it is now Quebec's turn to recognize service via Facebook after the Court of Quebec authorized this past summer a plaintiff to serve its motion to institute proceedings via this social network ing site.

In Boivin & Associés c. Scott, 2011 QCCQ 10324 (CanLII), the plaintiff submitted evidence that it had made every effort possible to serve the defendant by traditional means, but to no avail. Indeed, the defendant had no known address in Quebec and her last known address was in Florida; however, the defendant had since moved away and could no longer be located at any physical address. The plaintiff demonstrated that the person it wished to serve had a Facebook page and argued that it could serve the defendant personally and efficiently by electronic means.

The honorable Daniel Dortelus surveyed the framework regarding service in Quebec: the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure allows a party to serve another through a variety of means: by bailiff, by mail and by public notice. The judge took note of the fact that these means of service are not exclusive of all other ones and Quebec’s Act to establish a legal framework for information technology, RSQ c. C-1.1, which seeks to ensure the functional equivalence and legal value of documents, could in fact be applied to service of procedures.

Satisfied that the plaintiff had made the necessary attempts to serve the defendant through other means, the judge concludes as follows on service via Facebook:

It is a direct and practical way of notifying the defendant that a motion has been instituted against her so that she may prepare her defense and be heard, which meets the main objective of service. (my translation)

This past weekend, the State of California passed legislation banning minors from using tanning beds. This law will take effect on January 1, 2012. This is the most restrictive law on the use of indoor tanning beds in the United States (other states have some restrictions on the use, but no outright ban). Law-makers cite health concerns associated with this activity to justify the legislation.

Prior to this law, minors between the ages of 14 and 17 had to get parental consent before being able to use tanning beds, with the activity prohibited for those under the age of 14.

While health associations praise this legislation, those representing the interests of tanning salons explain that this law will hurt businesses, leading to job cuts.

While this news may seem insignificant to some, I certainly find it interesting from a state intervention perspective. Should the state be passing such laws? At what age is a person old enough to decide if this is an activity he or she wants to participate in? Is this law enough to actually end the practice among minors? See here for a Slaw posting from last year raising similar concerns. State and provincial laws ban the sale of alcohol and tobacco to minors, yet it is no secret that many under the age of 18 partake in such activities. In some ways, the tanning debate has larger social implications, when this activity may lead to serious health problems (this is concern is especially true in Canada where medicare (and ultimately taxpayers) would be responsible for paying for these treatments). I guess there is always the sun to turn to…

This news story caught my eye yesterday: an elderly woman in British Columbia is suing her children for parental support. Ms. Anderson is asking that her two children each pay her $750 a month to make ends meet.

Most provinces in Canada have some legislative obligation for children to support their parents. For example, the Civil Code of Quebec stipulates that:

585. Married or civil union spouses, and relatives in the direct line in the first degree, owe each other support.

A few decisions in Quebec have been rendered under this section; however, it is clear that this provision does not absolve parents from trying to find work, if they are able to. Certain decisions also clarify that children who do not have the financial means to provide such support to their parents will not be ordered to do so. Just as in determinations of child support, many factors will clearly go into evaluating whether or not adult children should be paying support to their parents.

When reading this article and the ensuing comments made by readers, it is clear that this is a sensitive topic. Questions of government intervention, cultural norms and social values certainly are but a few of the elements that dictate one's point of view on the matter. With an aging population, do you think these types of litigation will become more frequent?

An interesting article in the Wall Street Journal: more and more employers are using some form of pre-hiring assessment, such as personality tests. This is done in the hopes of better pinpointing candidates who will fit into the company’s culture. This article also clarifies that many companies do not rely solely on these tests; the test results can simply add another layer when evaluating a candidate with whom the employer has already met.

As this article states, honesty is the best policy when doing these assessments. Both the prospective employee and the employer will eventually lose out if the candidate only writes down or says what he or she thinks the employer wants to hear.

When I was in law school and going through the recruitment process, the best advice I got was to look out for fit. While this seemed a bit vague in the beginning, going through the interview process (even without any written pre-hiring assessment) made it clear that each law firm has its own culture and that everyone involved would benefit from hiring candidates who shared similar values or outlooks. 

Do you think these hiring screens are useful in finding that so-called fit?

The results of a recent survey conducted by Leger Marketing for SAS, a business analytics software and services provider, on the use of social media by companies have been published today: only 1 in 5 Canadian companies post on social media networks and monitor social media conversations on a regular basis. These two actions are considered the fundamental pillars of effectively using social media.

A lack of resources and a view that it is a waste of time and energy are cited as explanations as to why companies choose not to use social media or not to monitor mentions of their organizations in social media conversations. 

This survey was conducted among 1,000 executives at mid-size and large companies.

These results may be somewhat surprising to some given the extensive role social media plays in our daily lives. However, most individuals who do use social media regularly, whether for personal or professional reasons, know that it is quite a commitment that perhaps not everyone is willing to take on. Given the impact social media can have, do you think these statistics will increase exponentially in the next few years?

At this year’s annual Canadian Bar Association meeting, two public figures in the Canadian legal world spoke out on a topic that is very oftendiscussed, but extremely difficult to assess whether any positive change is taking place: access to justice. Both the Governor-General of Canada and former dean of law at the University of Western Ontario, David Johnston and Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin spoke at this year’s annual CBA conference.

This past weekend, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin discussed Canada’s access to justice (see a Globe and mail article here): according to the World Justice Institute, Canada places 9^th out of 12 European and North American countries when it comes to access to the courts. Not surprisingly, questions of affordability, complexity and time delays make access to justice a continued challenge.

On a slightly different note, the Governor-General brought up in his speech a variety of issues other than simply that of access to justice, issues which are not often so honestly addressed (see here for an article in the Vancouver Sun). The Governor-General in fact called for change at all levels of the practice of law. He went from the early stages of the legal training by discussing the problems with law schools, to the lack of work-life balance, especially for mothers, once lawyers are in the midst of their practice and to currently practicing lawyers who are not earning the public’s trust. Indeed, the Governor-General addressed many of the issues that give lawyers a bad name.

There is absolutely no doubt that the challenges raised by these two keynote speakers are crucial to all legal practitioners. However, to what extent is the legal world ready to make the necessary changes to usher in the elements required to solve these issues?

Last month, the Barreau du Québec came out with a report entitled “Les avocats de pratique privée en 2021” or The private practice lawyer in 2021 (the document is available in French here). Practicing lawyers from large, medium and small law firms were consulted in the preparation of this study.

We learn that in Quebec alone, approximately 113 000 people are associated with the legal profession, either as lawyers, paralegals, notaries, stenographers, bailiffs, etc., making this report relevant for a number of people.

This one hundred plus page document provides an interesting overview of the legal private practice as we know it today, covering many issues which are ongoing concerns for many in the legal profession: the impact of information technology, questions of access to justice, the ever-growing global village and billable hours.

But what is even more interesting is the report’s predictions of the evolution of the practice in 10 years’ time. The prospective scenarios proposed by this report are based on a number of hypothetical social, economical and cultural situations, among others an ageing population, a changing socio-cultural reality due to immigration, a deepening divide between the rich and the poor, the omnipresence of IT in all sectors of society, the inability of the “welfare state” to maintain its offer of public services and goods, the feminization of the legal practice, a growing focus on quality of life, new business models, a transnational practice of law and a shift in influence from the West to the East.

The study concludes that in 2021, the Quebec lawyer will more often be a woman; indeed, 56% of the members of the Barreau du Quebec will be women, with more ethnic minorities participating in the practice. The 2021 Quebec lawyer will be bilingual. Information technology will lead to higher productivity which will allow the 2021 lawyer to have more of a work-life balance. Only part of the issues surrounding access to justice will have been solved, but the State will not have any additional budget to allocated to legal aid. International mega-law firms, while still few, will be unlike anything we have today. There will still be room for lawyers who have chosen to concentrate on the local and national realm, but they will have to have good knowledge of the newest technology available on the market and have contact with actors in all jurisdictions. Lastly, according to this prospective scenario, in 2021, the legal profession will be valued and recognized both by the whole of Quebec society and the professional world.

The province of Ontario will now require divorcing couples to attend an information session on mediation, which will be necessary before their proceedings can go forward. This information session is meant to provide alternatives to the court system in the hopes that it will alleviate the heavy caseloads many courthouses are facing.

As reported by Ms. Kathryn Blaze Carlson in the National Post:

By mandating the information session, and by subsidizing mediation for couples who choose to forgo litigation, Ontario has joined an international push toward mediation and away from costly, time-consuming and oftentimes nasty litigation. Britain and New York’s Nassau County recently joined states such as Utah and Florida in requiring that divorcing couples attend at least one mandatory mediation session.

And while Ontario has not gone to that extreme, these latest measures are similarly aimed at reducing court backlogs and the impact of legal disputes on people’s bank accounts and children.

Quebec imposes a similar obligation on divorcing couples who have children. Indeed, the Quebec Civil Code of Procedure states that:

814.3. Except applications under article 814.9, no application that involves the interests of the parties and the interests of their children may be heard by the court if there is a dispute between the parties regarding child custody, support due to a party or to the children, the family patrimony or other patrimonial rights arising from the marriage or civil union, unless the parties have attended an information session on the mediation process and a copy of the mediator's report has been filed.

Mediation requires the voluntary participation of two parties who are open to arriving at a compromise, which is not always the case with couples in the midst of a divorce. From another perspective, perhaps these sessions will strike a cord with those who have no intention of getting involved in a long and often expensive legal battle. It will certainly be interesting to see the effect of these two-hour information sessions on court backlogs.

It is being reported in the news that yesterday, the Quebec Court of Appeal overturned a decision rendered by the Superior Court of Quebec refusing to authorize a class action filed by three residents of a suburb of Quebec City against the Quebec Minister of Transport due to the alleged noise pollution caused by the nearby A-73 highway (see a French article in La Presse).

In 2009, three residents filed a motion requesting authorization to institute a class action in the name of approximately 1000 residents living in proximity to the highway. According to studies, the noise level caused by the highway reached above a certain acceptable decibel. As such, the residents asked that the Minister be found liable, even without having committed any fault. We will recall that the Supreme Court of Canada in St-Lawrence Cement v. Barrette, 2008 SCC 64 analyzed and in some ways further developed this scheme of no-fault civil liability in respect of neighbourhood disturbances under Quebec civil law. As an alternative argument, the residents raised the fact that the Minister had omitted to correct a situation that was clearly causing them an injury. The residents were looking to have the Minister ordered to take the appropriate measures to lessen the noise, as well as pay damages reaching into the millions of dollars. 

The Superior Court of Quebec found, among other reasons, that the class action was not based on any fault or abuse by the government, but rather the government’s decision not to provide the necessary budget to put into place measures to reduce the noise level. According to the Court, this was a political decision and it was not up to the courts to intervene. Indeed, the Court found that the immunity of the State, when acting within its political sphere, prevented the residents from successfully instituting this class action (you can read the decision of the Superior Court of Quebec in French on CanLII).

The Quebec Court of Appeal disagreed yesterday with this position and allowed the class action to go forward, citing the vital importance of environmental protection. As with all class actions, this will no doubt be a costly debate, with a slew of expert witnesses to be heard. Will this class action open the door to suits by other groups living near highways or other noisy areas?

A new law came into effect yesterday: the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, S.C. 2010, c. 21 (the “Act”).

While the definition of a consumer product is quite broad (according to s. 2 of the Act, it is “a product, including its components, parts or accessories, that may reasonably be expected to be obtained by an individual to be used for non-commercial purposes, including for domestic, recreational and sports purposes, and includes its packaging”), a number of goods are already excluded from this legislation under Schedule 1, products which are already covered by another piece of legislation. Such consumer products include food, cosmetics and firearms.

Schedule 2 also lists 15 consumer products that are cannot be manufactured, imported or sold, including such things as “kite strings made of a material that conducts electricity” and “lawn darts with elongated tips”. It is clear from a quick reading of this list to understand why it is these items have been prohibited. The government can add to this list.

This Act imposes a number of obligations on those who sell, manufacture or import consumer products, such as keeping documents with the name and address of the person from whom they obtained the product and reporting incidents occurring within and without Canada within two days of becoming aware of the event. Manufacturers and importers have ten days to provide information on the product involved in the incident and other similar products that could be involved in a similar incident. Incidents include incorrect labeling, recalls, defects and occurrences that can reasonably be expected to have an adverse effect on an individual’s health.

Inspectors administering and enforcing the Act have wide powers to ensure compliance: they can enter a place where they have reasonable grounds to believe consumer products are being manufactured, sold or imported and can take samples (free of charge), test objects, open packages, examine documents, etc. If the place they need to enter is a personal residence, they will have to obtain consent or a warrant.

One of the most interesting aspects of this legislation is Health Canada’s ability to order recalls and to remove unsafe products from the shelves. Prior to this Act, recalls could be requested but not enforced.

With important fines and imprisonment terms set out under this Act for those contravening the act, it will be interesting to see how often and to what extent this Act is enforced.

More information is available on Health Canada's website.

It isn’t uncommon to read in local, national and international newspapers stories of domestic workers being ill-treated, underpaid and overworked. While Canadian employment standards offer some protection to domestic workers, this certainly isn’t the case across the globe.

With the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) International Labour Conference currently taking place in Geneva from June 1 to June 17, with the agenda including an item entitled “Decent work for domestic workers”, there are hopes that a Convention supplemented by a Recommendation will be adopted to afford what is seen as urgently-needed protection to domestic workers (see the ILO website for more information).

At last year's Conference, a resolution was passed to place this item for discussion on this year's agenda. Since then, member states, along with employers’ and workers’ organizations, have been invited to submit replies to various proposed provisions to this Convention and Recommendation. This Convention, if adopted, will address such issues as rest periods, remuneration, health and safety and other basic conditions of work for domestic workers.

If adopted by the Conference, member states will have the option of ratifying this Convention after submitting it to their national competent authority. Once ratified, a country must ensure that its laws are in conformity with the Convention and will be subject to the ILO’s supervisory system. However, a member state may choose not to ratify it. 

While this Convention and Recommendation is certainly a step in the right direction, such issues often have deep roots in the cultural and social norms of a country and change isn't always necessarily quick in coming. What do you think, will an ILO Convention make a difference?

I attended a training last week on the Charter of the French Language (“Charter”), also known as Bill 101, a provincial law that has provoked a lot of reactions in the past from both ends of the spectrum.

This legislation was first adopted in 1977 under the Parti québécois’ first mandate. However, it is incorrect to think that the issue of language only became important at this point in Quebec’s modern history. Bill 63 or An Act to promote the French language in Quebec, passed in 1969 and Bill 22 or the Official Language Act, passed in 1974, both recognized the importance of the French language in the province of Quebec.

As a labour and employment lawyer, I have had the opportunity to counsel employers as to their obligations under the Charter. However, during last week’s training, I asked myself whether litigation surrounding questions of language was a thing of the past. I quickly saw that this was not the case.

Indeed, a few weeks ago, the Commission des relations du travail, Quebec’s labour tribunal, awarded a worker $3,000 in moral and punitive damages following an earlier 2010 decision concluding that the Charter had been violated (see Pouliot c. Quality Inn & Suites Lévis, 2010 QCCRT 592 (CanLII) and Pouliot c Quality Inn & Suites Lévis, 2011 QCCRT 214 (CanLII) – the decisions are in French).

I, like many people no doubt, have one of those guilty pleasures that make little sense yet is so enthralling: reading up on the lives of the rich and famous. It is actually surprising how great a role law plays in the lives of celebrities, seeing how often the press reports on how they break, bend and use the law to their advantage , but one expression, new to me, has recently caught my eye: the super injunction.

Over the past few months, the British media have been reporting on these so-called super injunctions, which go beyond the prohibition of publishing a person’s name and the details of their private lives in a public forum; these injunctions are so “super” that their mere existence cannot even be mentioned. Accordingly, when a super injunction is granted, the public does not even know that there is a story to be told. 

As you can imagine, such injunctions raise a slew of questions regarding freedom of the press and the public’s right to know versus the right to a private life. It is said that these super injunctions cost tens of thousands of pounds to obtain and as such, are only accessible to the wealthy. For all of these reasons, they have been heavily criticized in the press. 

Parliament and the British legal system are said to want to address these situations (for example, see here) . A British parliamentary committee was mandated last year to look into super injunctions.

As with many things nowadays, the explosion of social media has broken the traditional barriers of the law and created unprecedented issues to deal with: over the weekend, the alleged existence of several super injunctions, with the names of the celebrities supposedly having requested them, were anonymously published on Twitter (see here for an article by the BBC). Of course, given the fact that the existence of a super injunction is kept under wraps and that the press would be in violation of such an order if it discussed it, there is no way of actually verifying or confirming this information. But regardless, this created the exact situation the super injunction was being used to counter in the first place: indeed, rumours and stories concerning a person's private life have been rampantly circulating…

Thank you to Simon Fodden for inviting me to contribute to Slaw. I am delighted to be here!

One of yesterday’s headlines caught my eye: passing legislation to make voting mandatory in Canada. This debate is certainly not new, as each election and the somewhat disappointing turn out seems to bring similar questions to the forefront; however, any law addressing this matter has yet to be passed, as opposed to a number of countries that have already adopted such legislation.

As with any law, not voting would have consequences, i.e. penalties (a fine of some sort). Such a law could likely increase voter turn out and this, for a number of reasons – people want to respect the law, they want to avoid paying fines, etc.; but would it really make people care more about politics and democracy?

There is little doubt that in the long term, civic education is crucial to getting people to understand the importance of the role they play in Canadian democracy; however, what about in the short term? As with many things nowadays, it seems that social media has played a key role in this, among the age group that is most often criticized for its lack of enthusiasm when it comes to voting: the youth aged 18 to 25.

Rick Mercer, host of the Rick Mercer Report, has recently enflamed youth across the country with his rant on voting (you can see the video here). In reaction to this video, vote mobs – youth rallies encouraging their peers to vote – have taken place and continue to be planned at numerous university campuses across the country. Videos of these vote mobs are posted on Youtube and discussed in local and national newspapers. Several Facebook groups supporting the organization of vote mobs have sprung up. Twitter is also all aflutter with messages encouraging friends and strangers alike to vote on May 2^nd. It will certainly be interesting to see whether this translates into an increased voting participation.

While the law is one method of creating obligations and incentives, there may also exist other methods to inspire people into doing something that should or needs to get done. Maybe there are other ways of getting people to vote than a law whereby fines would be meted out for failure to making your voice heard.