This week, Elections BC put out a bulletin that attempts to clarify the Supreme Court of Canada's clarification. In a nutshell, EBC's position is that if you, as an individual acting alone, make fewer than 26 signs or pamphlets by yourself, using your own supplies and equipment, and you hand-deliver these to fewer than 26 people, then you will not be caught be the definition of a "sponsor" in the BC Election Act. However, organizations, including groups of individuals, that conduct any sort of election advertising will be considered sponsors and subject to all the rules regarding advance registration, authorization lines, and disclosure reporting.

The organization that brought the legal action that resulted in the Supreme Court of Canada's recent decision disagrees with EBC's bulletin. The BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, along with the BC Civil Liberties Association, sent a joint letter to BC's Chief Electoral Officer this morning outlining their concerns. They take issue with a number of Election BC's interpretations, including the exclusion of organizations, from the scope of the SCC's clarification. 

We'll keep you posted as this unfolds. In the meantime, don't forget to register for our upcoming workshop, Election Advertising Sponsorship 101, which will be held on February 28th.

The BC Election Act requires individuals and organizations to register before they “sponsor” election advertising. This places a burden on people and groups to ensure they understand the law regarding election advertising and sponsorship in advance of engaging in any of these activities.

The BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association took issue with having to register in order to engage in small-scale election advertising. Unlike the Canada Elections Act, the BC Election Act does not specify a minimum spending threshold (i.e. $500) before sponsors are required to register. The Association pursued its fight all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”).

The SCC’s recent decision refocuses the requirement to register on the basis of whether or not a person or group meets the definition of a sponsor, rather than whether or not their communications meet the definition of election advertising. Election law enthusiasts: see below for more on these definitions. According to the SCC, “sponsor” captures individuals and organizations who receive advertising services from others in undertaking election advertising campaigns, but exempts election advertising that is not sponsored from the requirement to register.

Last February, I blogged about whether or not the B.C. government was off-side when it exempted major junior hockey players from the protections and minimum standards contained in the Employment Standards Act.

Today, the Vancouver Sun revealed the results of FOI requests related to behind-the-scenes lobbying by Western Hockey League officials in Kelowna, Kamloops, Cranbrook, Prince George, Vancouver and Victoria, which included letters addressed to Premier Christy Clark and cabinet. According the Sun, the teams claimed they might have to close without government intervention.

The CHL boasts more than nine million fans attended its games last season. The CHL is also the world’s largest development hockey league, with 52 Canadian and eight American teams participating in the Ontario Hockey League, Quebec Major Junior Hockey League and Western Hockey League (which includes the five B.C. region teams mentioned above).

Last season, tickets to Vancouver Giants home games at the Pacific Coliseum sold for between $15.50 and $24.50 and they were expected to play 36 homes games this season. Attendance at Vancouver Giants’ games last season has been estimated at 5169 people on average. Even at the lowest ticket price, this suggests gross ticket sales for home games of over $2.8 million – and that’s not counting revenue generated from away games. Apparently, the Giants also leased the Pacific Coliseum on a break-even basis.

The other teams in the Western Hockey League’s B.C. Region also sell thousands of tickets per game.

Elections Canada’s Retrospective Report on the last federal election has just been released. The Report incorporates data from various post-election surveys (some of which we’ve blogged about previously) and audits, and will form the basis of Elections Canada’s recommendations regarding amendments to the Canada Elections Act. Overall, the Report emphasizes that significant changes to election procedures are necessary to keep pace with modern voting habits and to address issues that arose during the campaign.

The Report warns that action is needed now to avoid future crises:

“Given this shift and the number of years between elections, it is essential to recognize that the success of the 42nd general election is no guarantee of favourable outcomes in the future. This is not the time for complacency. In Elections Canada's estimation, federal electoral administration has reached a tipping point and action is required now. The transformation in elector behaviours and service preferences is significant, and a new baseline must be set in terms of meeting, and hopefully exceeding, electors' service needs.”

A unionized employee who has been denied benefits or coverage under an employer-sponsored plan may face a deceptively difficult decision: whether to grieve the denial against the employer, or to sue the insurance company.

In many cases the employee’s only option will be to sue the insurance company. The insurance company is not a party to the collective agreement, so grievance arbitration is not available. Usually, this means that the employee is on their own, without direct representation from the union.

Sometimes, though, an employee does have the option to grieve. If an employer is self-insured – that is, the employer itself pays the insured members’ claims – then denial of coverage is arbitrable, because the employer itself denied the coverage.

On July 29th, a couple who had been convicted of terrorism charges for planting three explosive devices on the BC legislature grounds received a stay of proceedings at the BC Supreme Court. Justice Bruce described the couple, John Nuttall, 41 and Amanda Korody, 33, as “marginalized, socially isolated, former heroin addicts dependent on methadone and welfare to subsist”.

In 2013, the Canadian Security Intelligence Agency informed the RCMP that Mr. Nuttall had tried to buy potassium nitrate which can be used to manufacture explosives. From this point on, a group of RCMP officers undertook an elaborate sting operation called “Project Souvenir” to induce the couple into committing the offence. 

We are among many British Columbians celebrating the amendment (finally!) of the BC Human Rights Code to explicitly recognize gender identity and gender expression as protected grounds. 

While trans activists and their allies demanded this change, the BC Liberal government insisted for years that the change was unnecessary. The law is already clear, they said: even though the Human Rights Code doesn't explicitly say the words "gender identity and gender expression", the Tribunal and courts have decided that these grounds are nonetheless protected.

Why did trans activists keep fighting, then? Why did MLA Spencer Chandra Herbert introduce the proposed legislation 4 times in 5 years? And why does it feel like such a victory to see this change finally in place? 

If you are a union that administers benefits for your members, you will likely be interested in today’s decision from the BC Court of Appeal in a case about union-administered LTD benefits.

A group of disabled members filed a class-action lawsuit against the union after their LTD benefits were reduced. The LTD plan had been facing insolvency due to rising claims costs and insufficient premiums to cover them. 

Pokémon Go is a hot topic at our workplace lately. Three of us have been swept up in the craze, while the other two (hint, it’s a generational thing) find the whole thing bizarre and somewhat distasteful. Sula, our office dog, has not yet declared her position on the issue.

Perhaps Pokémon Go is a hot topic at your workplace these days too. Here are some FAQs* about Pokémon Go in the workplace.

A well-crafted cross examination is like a classical sculpture, every extra bit of marble chipped away until all that is left is the essential form of David.  A skilled cross-examiner asks only those questions required to make the argument and nothing more. Cross-examining effectively is just as much about what not to ask as it is about what to ask. Here are five kinds of questions that have no place in well-executed cross-examination at grievance arbitration: