Pub Date : 2023-06-27DOI: 10.5206/uwojls.v14i2.15667
D. Côté
In Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia, the Supreme Court of Canada replaced the test for the justification of Aboriginal rights infringements with a framework that is nearly indistinguishable from the Oakes test. The goal of this paper is to show that this development in the law, and thus the current justification framework, is undesirable and erroneous. This paper submits four reasons to arrive at this conclusion. First, the justification test proposed in Tsilhqot'in mirrors the test rrequired to prove an infringement of Aboriginal rights, whose burden of proof falls on the Indigenous party, and hence shifts the entire onus of proving justification from the Crown to the Indigenous party. Second, the conflation of the Oakes test with the justification framework makes justification effectively impossible, which may cause reluctance amongst courts to recognize Aboriginal rights. Third, Aboriginal rights are fundamentally different from Charter rights and should not be subjected to a test designed for the Charter. Fourth, the incorporation of the Oakes test into the justification framework runs contrary to established principles of constitutional interpretation. These four reasons merit abandoning the framework proposed in Tsilhqot'in. Otherwise, this area of the law will be riddled with doctrinal flaws and Indigenous interests will suffer.
{"title":"The Conflation of the Justification Framework for Infringement of Aboriginal Rights with the Oakes Test in Tsilhqot’in Nation v British Columbia","authors":"D. Côté","doi":"10.5206/uwojls.v14i2.15667","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5206/uwojls.v14i2.15667","url":null,"abstract":"In Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia, the Supreme Court of Canada replaced the test for the justification of Aboriginal rights infringements with a framework that is nearly indistinguishable from the Oakes test. The goal of this paper is to show that this development in the law, and thus the current justification framework, is undesirable and erroneous. This paper submits four reasons to arrive at this conclusion. First, the justification test proposed in Tsilhqot'in mirrors the test rrequired to prove an infringement of Aboriginal rights, whose burden of proof falls on the Indigenous party, and hence shifts the entire onus of proving justification from the Crown to the Indigenous party. Second, the conflation of the Oakes test with the justification framework makes justification effectively impossible, which may cause reluctance amongst courts to recognize Aboriginal rights. Third, Aboriginal rights are fundamentally different from Charter rights and should not be subjected to a test designed for the Charter. Fourth, the incorporation of the Oakes test into the justification framework runs contrary to established principles of constitutional interpretation. These four reasons merit abandoning the framework proposed in Tsilhqot'in. Otherwise, this area of the law will be riddled with doctrinal flaws and Indigenous interests will suffer.","PeriodicalId":40917,"journal":{"name":"Western Journal of Legal Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49577519","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-27DOI: 10.5206/uwojls.v14i2.14880
Tatiana Hulan
Surrogacy arrangements in Canada are estimated to have increased by 400% in the last decade, in part due to the rising rates of infertility. Costs for these arrangements can be upwards of $100,000. Individuals and couples using a surrogate to expand their family have sought relief under the medical expense tax credit pursuant to section 118.2(2) or the adoption tax credit pursuant to section 118.01(2) of the Income Tax Act. The deductibility of these payments is a relatively new issue in Canadian tax law; however Canadian courts have consistently denied the deduction of surrogacy payments. The Tax Court of Canada has heard five cases on the matter and has denied the deduction in all four that have precedential value. Surrogates do not meet the definition of “patient” to qualify for the medical expense tax credit and are outside the scope of the adoption tax credit. This article canvases legal and policy arguments in favour of and against allowing surrogacy payments to be tax deductible. It proposes the creation of a new surrogacy expense tax credit, similar in design to the existing adoption tax credit.
{"title":"Deductibility of Surrogacy Payments in Canadian Tax Law","authors":"Tatiana Hulan","doi":"10.5206/uwojls.v14i2.14880","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5206/uwojls.v14i2.14880","url":null,"abstract":"Surrogacy arrangements in Canada are estimated to have increased by 400% in the last decade, in part due to the rising rates of infertility. Costs for these arrangements can be upwards of $100,000. Individuals and couples using a surrogate to expand their family have sought relief under the medical expense tax credit pursuant to section 118.2(2) or the adoption tax credit pursuant to section 118.01(2) of the Income Tax Act. The deductibility of these payments is a relatively new issue in Canadian tax law; however Canadian courts have consistently denied the deduction of surrogacy payments. The Tax Court of Canada has heard five cases on the matter and has denied the deduction in all four that have precedential value. Surrogates do not meet the definition of “patient” to qualify for the medical expense tax credit and are outside the scope of the adoption tax credit. This article canvases legal and policy arguments in favour of and against allowing surrogacy payments to be tax deductible. It proposes the creation of a new surrogacy expense tax credit, similar in design to the existing adoption tax credit.","PeriodicalId":40917,"journal":{"name":"Western Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43512483","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-27DOI: 10.5206/uwojls.v14i2.16001
Sophie Poinar
Within the current legislative landscape in Ontario, survivors of sexual harassment are treated differently than survivors of sexual assault and sexual misconduct with respect to when they can advance a legal claim against their perpetrators. Under sections 16(1)(h) and 16(1)(h.1) of the Ontario Limitations Act, survivors of sexual assault and misconduct are able to file a civil claim whenever they choose to do so. Under s 34(1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, survivors of sexual harassment must file a human rights complaint within one year of the experienced harassment. This paper argues that s 34(1) should not apply to complaints based on sexual harassment. The author provides four reasons to substantiate this argument: (1) this provision fails to align with contemporary understandings of sexual harassment; (2) it is arbitrary to apply drastically different timelines to survivors depending on the type of sexual violence they have experienced; (3) two important objectives of limitation periods will not be seriously threatened by the suggested amendment to the Human Rights Code; and (4) section 34(1) favours the interests of the harassers over those of the survivor, the public, Bill 132 and the Human Rights Code.
{"title":"Are Delayed Complaints of Sexual Harassment Not Worthy of Human Rights Protection?","authors":"Sophie Poinar","doi":"10.5206/uwojls.v14i2.16001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5206/uwojls.v14i2.16001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Within the current legislative landscape in Ontario, survivors of sexual harassment are treated differently than survivors of sexual assault and sexual misconduct with respect to when they can advance a legal claim against their perpetrators. Under sections 16(1)(h) and 16(1)(h.1) of the Ontario Limitations Act, survivors of sexual assault and misconduct are able to file a civil claim whenever they choose to do so. Under s 34(1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, survivors of sexual harassment must file a human rights complaint within one year of the experienced harassment. This paper argues that s 34(1) should not apply to complaints based on sexual harassment. The author provides four reasons to substantiate this argument: (1) this provision fails to align with contemporary understandings of sexual harassment; (2) it is arbitrary to apply drastically different timelines to survivors depending on the type of sexual violence they have experienced; (3) two important objectives of limitation periods will not be seriously threatened by the suggested amendment to the Human Rights Code; and (4) section 34(1) favours the interests of the harassers over those of the survivor, the public, Bill 132 and the Human Rights Code.\u0000","PeriodicalId":40917,"journal":{"name":"Western Journal of Legal Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46720773","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-31DOI: 10.5206/uwojls.v14i1.14627
Omri Rozen
Canada’s innocence compensation framework is inadequate and unjust. To secure compensation for the myriad harms caused to them by miscarriages of justice, the wrongfully convicted in Canada can either rely on civil suits adjudicated on standards deferential to state actors and with remote prospects of recovery, or must subject themselves to entirely discretionary assessments of ex gratia payments by the executive. In this paper, I provide an overview of why this status quo is undesirable. I then examine other jurisdictions’ innovative approaches to innocence compensation, grounded in a distinction between ‘statutory schedule’ and ‘adjudicated rights’ frameworks. I conclude by setting out the advantages and disadvantages of each approach with a view to informing Canadian lawmakers should they be interested in reform.
{"title":"Wrongly Imprisoned, Released as a Pauper: Canada’s Ineffective Approach to Innocence Compensation and Avenues for Reform","authors":"Omri Rozen","doi":"10.5206/uwojls.v14i1.14627","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5206/uwojls.v14i1.14627","url":null,"abstract":"Canada’s innocence compensation framework is inadequate and unjust. To secure compensation for the myriad harms caused to them by miscarriages of justice, the wrongfully convicted in Canada can either rely on civil suits adjudicated on standards deferential to state actors and with remote prospects of recovery, or must subject themselves to entirely discretionary assessments of ex gratia payments by the executive. In this paper, I provide an overview of why this status quo is undesirable. I then examine other jurisdictions’ innovative approaches to innocence compensation, grounded in a distinction between ‘statutory schedule’ and ‘adjudicated rights’ frameworks. I conclude by setting out the advantages and disadvantages of each approach with a view to informing Canadian lawmakers should they be interested in reform. ","PeriodicalId":40917,"journal":{"name":"Western Journal of Legal Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46178494","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-31DOI: 10.5206/uwojls.v14i1.15144
Étienne F. Lacombe
A growing gap exists between the availability of harm reduction initiatives in mainstream society and those offered in correctional institutions. The quality of current risk-reducing measures in penitentiaries and the absence of more ambitious programs have led prisoners’ rights advocates to seek relief through litigation, often unsuccessfully. The author deconstructs these cases and traces litigants’ lack of success to two factors, which he contends condition harm reduction litigation in the prison context. While the law is clear that inmates retain their civil rights behind bars, the author concludes that the generic legal channels through which inmates must litigate their rights and a widespread conception of health that centres on treatment rather than prevention impede efforts to import harm reduction initiatives into penitentiaries. Although past prison litigation reveals great strides to providing inmates with the same rights and protections as members of the general population, challenges to the availability of harm reduction initiatives fit uneasily within the established pattern of prisoners’ rights litigation. In order to accommodate harm reduction claims, the prisoners’ rights discourse would need to be reconceptualized at the stakeholder and judicial levels.
{"title":"Harm Reduction in Prisons: Restraints within the Prisoners’ Rights Discourse","authors":"Étienne F. Lacombe","doi":"10.5206/uwojls.v14i1.15144","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5206/uwojls.v14i1.15144","url":null,"abstract":"A growing gap exists between the availability of harm reduction initiatives in mainstream society and those offered in correctional institutions. The quality of current risk-reducing measures in penitentiaries and the absence of more ambitious programs have led prisoners’ rights advocates to seek relief through litigation, often unsuccessfully. The author deconstructs these cases and traces litigants’ lack of success to two factors, which he contends condition harm reduction litigation in the prison context. While the law is clear that inmates retain their civil rights behind bars, the author concludes that the generic legal channels through which inmates must litigate their rights and a widespread conception of health that centres on treatment rather than prevention impede efforts to import harm reduction initiatives into penitentiaries. Although past prison litigation reveals great strides to providing inmates with the same rights and protections as members of the general population, challenges to the availability of harm reduction initiatives fit uneasily within the established pattern of prisoners’ rights litigation. In order to accommodate harm reduction claims, the prisoners’ rights discourse would need to be reconceptualized at the stakeholder and judicial levels.","PeriodicalId":40917,"journal":{"name":"Western Journal of Legal Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44830903","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-31DOI: 10.5206/uwojls.v14i1.15360
L. Goldfarb
This paper describes and evaluates the contested fourth requirement for contract formation: the intention of both parties that their agreement be legally enforceable (“legal intention”). I begin with an overview of the jurisprudence on legal intention, ending with the Supreme Court of Canada’s most recent pronouncement in Ethiopian Orthodox Church of Canada St. Mary Cathedral v Aga. While the Court in this case affirmed that legal intention is to be treated as a fourth requirement, its analysis reveals precisely the reason why it should not be: when courts purport to analyze legal intention, an inherently difficult value to assess, they often lapse into a veiled assessment of consideration instead. I draw on Peter Benson's conception of "robust consideration" to argue that we should dispense with the legal intention requirement. In its place, a clear test for robust consideration would allow courts to conduct self-aware analyses free from contorted intention assessments. I conclude by offering an interpretation of Balfour v Balfour, the seminar case supporting a legal intention requirement, that is consistent with my proposed approach to contract formation.
{"title":"Contract Law’s Red Herring: Exposing “Intention” as a Guise for Consideration","authors":"L. Goldfarb","doi":"10.5206/uwojls.v14i1.15360","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5206/uwojls.v14i1.15360","url":null,"abstract":"This paper describes and evaluates the contested fourth requirement for contract formation: the intention of both parties that their agreement be legally enforceable (“legal intention”). I begin with an overview of the jurisprudence on legal intention, ending with the Supreme Court of Canada’s most recent pronouncement in Ethiopian Orthodox Church of Canada St. Mary Cathedral v Aga. While the Court in this case affirmed that legal intention is to be treated as a fourth requirement, its analysis reveals precisely the reason why it should not be: when courts purport to analyze legal intention, an inherently difficult value to assess, they often lapse into a veiled assessment of consideration instead. I draw on Peter Benson's conception of \"robust consideration\" to argue that we should dispense with the legal intention requirement. In its place, a clear test for robust consideration would allow courts to conduct self-aware analyses free from contorted intention assessments. I conclude by offering an interpretation of Balfour v Balfour, the seminar case supporting a legal intention requirement, that is consistent with my proposed approach to contract formation. ","PeriodicalId":40917,"journal":{"name":"Western Journal of Legal Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49451922","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-31DOI: 10.5206/uwojls.v14i1.14341
Zev Macklin
Indeterminate sentences are uniquely reserved for two classes of offenders, dangerous offenders and individuals designated not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. These sentences effectively keep individuals in constant jeopardy before a Parole or Review Board. This paper reviews the constitutionality of these regulatory schemes under Section 12 of the Charter; its prohibition against “cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.” In this paper, I examine the legislative and jurisprudential development of the regimes, and their impact on individuals given these designations. The paper argues that the regimes result in a gross and systemic violation of the rights of individuals who have been given indeterminate sentences. It finally argues that there is also a moral imperative to reject any indefinite detention that is not subject to judicial review. This paper discusses and seeks to bring attention to the unfair and unconstitutional treatment of two vulnerable groups in our judicial system. Through greater visibility, the author hopes to put pressure on our legal system and the government to review these types of sentences and their true impact on individual rights and freedoms.
{"title":"Indeterminate Sentences and Section 12 of the Charter","authors":"Zev Macklin","doi":"10.5206/uwojls.v14i1.14341","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5206/uwojls.v14i1.14341","url":null,"abstract":"Indeterminate sentences are uniquely reserved for two classes of offenders, dangerous offenders and individuals designated not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. These sentences effectively keep individuals in constant jeopardy before a Parole or Review Board. This paper reviews the constitutionality of these regulatory schemes under Section 12 of the Charter; its prohibition against “cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.” In this paper, I examine the legislative and jurisprudential development of the regimes, and their impact on individuals given these designations. The paper argues that the regimes result in a gross and systemic violation of the rights of individuals who have been given indeterminate sentences. It finally argues that there is also a moral imperative to reject any indefinite detention that is not subject to judicial review. This paper discusses and seeks to bring attention to the unfair and unconstitutional treatment of two vulnerable groups in our judicial system. Through greater visibility, the author hopes to put pressure on our legal system and the government to review these types of sentences and their true impact on individual rights and freedoms.","PeriodicalId":40917,"journal":{"name":"Western Journal of Legal Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44642521","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-11DOI: 10.5206/uwojls.v13i1.14603
Brandon Orct
Ontario’s civil jury system has been the topic of many discussions about reform. However, none of these explorations contemplated the drastic effects of ever-evolving public health emergency. The COVID-19 pandemic has heightened Ontario’s access to civil justice crisis through extensive pandemic delays, while simultaneously challenging the role of civil jury in administering justice. Ontario consequently provides a ripe case study to explore how the pandemic has affected civil jury trials and to explore ways of enhancing their viability in a post-pandemic Ontario. This this article is concerned with advancing measures that can not only enhance the viability of civil jury trials going forward, but advance access to civil justice more generally. The purpose of this article is twofold. First, to examine how the pandemic has fundamentally challenged the viability of civil jury trials while exacerbating existing impediments to accessing civil justice. And second, to outline a multifaceted approach to reforming the jury trial to ensure it remains a viable vehicle for civil justice consistent with enhancing access to justice through the pandemic. The hope is that this article will inspire much needed exploration into Ontario’s civil justice system to address the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and future emergencies.
{"title":"Jury Strikes Back","authors":"Brandon Orct","doi":"10.5206/uwojls.v13i1.14603","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5206/uwojls.v13i1.14603","url":null,"abstract":"Ontario’s civil jury system has been the topic of many discussions about reform. However, none of these explorations contemplated the drastic effects of ever-evolving public health emergency. The COVID-19 pandemic has heightened Ontario’s access to civil justice crisis through extensive pandemic delays, while simultaneously challenging the role of civil jury in administering justice. Ontario consequently provides a ripe case study to explore how the pandemic has affected civil jury trials and to explore ways of enhancing their viability in a post-pandemic Ontario. \u0000 \u0000This this article is concerned with advancing measures that can not only enhance the viability of civil jury trials going forward, but advance access to civil justice more generally. The purpose of this article is twofold. First, to examine how the pandemic has fundamentally challenged the viability of civil jury trials while exacerbating existing impediments to accessing civil justice. And second, to outline a multifaceted approach to reforming the jury trial to ensure it remains a viable vehicle for civil justice consistent with enhancing access to justice through the pandemic. The hope is that this article will inspire much needed exploration into Ontario’s civil justice system to address the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and future emergencies.","PeriodicalId":40917,"journal":{"name":"Western Journal of Legal Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47823273","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-11DOI: 10.5206/uwojls.v13i1.14339
B. Bates
The purpose of this paper is to examine changes made to labour rights enforcement mechanisms under the United States-Mexico Canada Agreement, from its predecessor agreement, the North America Free Trade Agreement, and the impact it may have on labour conditions in Mexico. Some scholars argue that the labour rights enforcement mechanisms in the North America Free Trade were fundamentally flawed, and allowed the Mexican government to passively enforce its domestic labour laws to the detriment of its workforce. This paper will argue that while the United States-Mexico Canada Agreement has made positive advancements to remedy labour issues under the North American Free Trade Agreement, limitations still exist, which may promote inequities amongst Mexican workers.
{"title":"Examining Labour Rights Enforcement Mechanisms in NAFTA and the USMCA and its Impact on Labour Conditions in Mexico","authors":"B. Bates","doi":"10.5206/uwojls.v13i1.14339","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5206/uwojls.v13i1.14339","url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this paper is to examine changes made to labour rights enforcement mechanisms under the United States-Mexico Canada Agreement, from its predecessor agreement, the North America Free Trade Agreement, and the impact it may have on labour conditions in Mexico. Some scholars argue that the labour rights enforcement mechanisms in the North America Free Trade were fundamentally flawed, and allowed the Mexican government to passively enforce its domestic labour laws to the detriment of its workforce. This paper will argue that while the United States-Mexico Canada Agreement has made positive advancements to remedy labour issues under the North American Free Trade Agreement, limitations still exist, which may promote inequities amongst Mexican workers.","PeriodicalId":40917,"journal":{"name":"Western Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45558928","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-26DOI: 10.5206/uwojls.v12i1.13636
Taj James
COVID-19 has exposed and exacerbated many longstanding barriers and shortcomings in labour protections for migrant workers in Canada. This paper focuses on the situation of workers under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program (SAWP) in Ontario, demonstrating how the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed and greatly aggravated the already precarious conditions of migrant workers. It explores the employment, labour and immigration law frameworks that render SAWP workers particularly vulnerable to exploitation and harm, both during pandemic and non-pandemic times. While some government policy and legislative responses have sought to respond to the increased vulnerability of migrant agricultural workers to the virus, fundamental changes in both the immigration and labour spheres are necessary to fix the structural causes of migrant agricultural workers’ vulnerability. This paper suggest that the pandemic has created not only an unprecedented urgency for systemic change, but also an unprecedented opportunity. Given the current broad shifts in public ideas about employment, health, and vulnerability, as well as mainstream public attention to the plight of migrant farm workers, I suggest that there is now an unprecedented space in Canadian public policy discourse to advance the urgently needed structural changes to protect the rights of migrant farm workers.
{"title":"COVID-19 Pandemic and Structural Barriers for Migrant Agricultural Workers in Ontario","authors":"Taj James","doi":"10.5206/uwojls.v12i1.13636","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5206/uwojls.v12i1.13636","url":null,"abstract":"COVID-19 has exposed and exacerbated many longstanding barriers and shortcomings in labour protections for migrant workers in Canada. This paper focuses on the situation of workers under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program (SAWP) in Ontario, demonstrating how the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed and greatly aggravated the already precarious conditions of migrant workers. It explores the employment, labour and immigration law frameworks that render SAWP workers particularly vulnerable to exploitation and harm, both during pandemic and non-pandemic times. While some government policy and legislative responses have sought to respond to the increased vulnerability of migrant agricultural workers to the virus, fundamental changes in both the immigration and labour spheres are necessary to fix the structural causes of migrant agricultural workers’ vulnerability.\u0000This paper suggest that the pandemic has created not only an unprecedented urgency for systemic change, but also an unprecedented opportunity. Given the current broad shifts in public ideas about employment, health, and vulnerability, as well as mainstream public attention to the plight of migrant farm workers, I suggest that there is now an unprecedented space in Canadian public policy discourse to advance the urgently needed structural changes to protect the rights of migrant farm workers.","PeriodicalId":40917,"journal":{"name":"Western Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46385507","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：