Friday, October 11, 2013

Tenants Benefit from Quickest Ever Class Action Resolution

A class action lawsuit launched against Toronto Community Housing and Greenwin Property has been settled.

“Class actions are lawsuits in which the claims and rights of many people, defined as having common but no identical interests, are decided in a single court proceeding brought by representative plaintiffs, or representatives of the class.”  (See http://www.classaction.ca/about-siskinds.aspx for more about class action lawsuits)
The action came about following a fire that took place on September 24th 2010 at 200 Wellesley East in Toronto.

Six hundred tenants will share 4.85 million dollars to compensate for property damages and injuries.
The fire was caused after a discarded cigarette landed on the balcony of a 24th floor unit.  That unit had an excessive amount of combustible material on it.  The unit’s occupant, who was identified by investigators as a hoarder, had previously complained to property management that someone was tossing cigarette butts on his balcony.

 It is reported that the case is the fastest to be resolved in Ontario history. 
The Ontario Class Proceedings Act came into effect twenty years ago.  According to Brian Shell, lawyer for the tenants: 

“It was designed to bring access to justice to people who otherwise would not be able to get any,” Shell said.  It was not designed for lawyers to make huge amounts of money and for many thousands of people to recover $40,” Shell told the Star.

Read the Toronto Star story at http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2013/09/30/200_wellesley_st_fire_600_tenants_to_share_in_485m_compensation.html

 

(This story was originally published on September 30 at www.hamiltonjustice.ca)

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Court Won't Hear Right to Housing Challenge

Earlier this year I wrote about how social and economic rights are becoming increasingly important.  http://whenthemayorsmiles.blogspot.ca/2013/02/social-and-economic-rights.html

In that piece, I made reference to the “right to housing.”
Recently we had a case in Ontario where the idea of federal and provincial governments were challenged from that perspective.   Here is what happened.

(This story originally appeared on www.hamiltonjustice.ca)
--------------------------------------------------------
Ontario Superior Court Judge Thomas R. Lederer ruled on Friday that the courtroom is not the proper place to resolve the issue of homelessness and inadequate housing in Canada.
The Judge’s comments came in a decision in, what has been called, the Right to Housing Challenge. Individuals and housing advocates were trying to make the case for a court order. That court order would require that the Federal and Provincial governments implement a national housing strategy.
Lawyers from the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation (CERA) and filed a case three years ago. Their argument is that Canada and Ontario have violated individuals’ rights under section 7 and section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by creating and maintaining conditions that lead to and sustain homelessness.

Put simply, Canadians have the right to adequate, affordable housing.

Lawyers for the governments of Ontario and Canada argued that the case shouldn’t even be
heard.

Judge Lederer agreed with the government lawyers.

Peter Rosenthal, one of the lawyers for the applicants, offered this comment:

“The decision reflects a narrow view of the Charter that seems to be applied when the poor seek judicial relief.”

The judgment will be appealed.

You can read more about the Right to Housing Challenge on the website of the Advocacy Centre for Tenants of Ontario (ACTO) at http://righttohousing.wordpress.com/

Wednesday, September 04, 2013

Physician Believes Poverty Reduction is Essential for Good Health


(This story originally appeared at www.hamiltonjustice.ca on August 19th.) 

Earlier this year I attended the annual Ontario Project for Inter Clinic Community Organizing (OPICCO) conference.

This gathering is put together for Community Legal Clinic staff who are involved in and want to learn more about community development work.

One of the really interesting speakers at this year’s conference was Dr. Gary Bloch.

Gary is a family physician who works out of St. Michaels Hospital in Toronto.

His presentation focused on the social determinants of health. The twenty-minute talk zeroed in on one particular social determinant of health – i.e., poverty. Gary told us “poverty accounts for 24% of person years of life lost in Canada.” That figure is second only to 30% of person years of life lost for cancers.

One significant resource Bloch made us aware of was a four pager called a Clinical Tool for Primary Care in Ontario. This is a resource for family docs that will help them in patient diagnosis. It will help physicians to keep in mind that poverty is a health condition that needs to be treated like other medical conditions. (http://www.ocfp.on.ca/docs/default-source/cme/poverty-a-clinical-tool-2013-(with-references).pdf?sfvrsn=0 )

Bloch has a unique approach to practicing medicine. In a Globe and Mail story, he wrote earlier this year emphasized the importance of tax filing. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/as-a-doctor-heres-why-im-prescribing-tax-returns-seriously/article9981613/

A patient named Rena told Bloch he could make her better by getting her more money. But Gary determined that Rena had not always filled out her tax return.
“Suggesting Rena fill out her tax return is prescribing income. And prescribing income can be just as powerful as prescribing medications for her blood pressure or her mood,” wrote Bloch.

Bloch wrote about another patient in a story in the Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/gary-bloch/income-inequality-and-health_b_2003259.html

Tom is a 46 years old skilled carpenter who hurt his back in a car accident 8 years ago. He has been forced to live on social assistance.
For him, social assistance has not been so much a safety net as it's been a fish net -- a trap of indignity from which he has been unable to wriggle free,” said Bloc.

Similar to the views of the Clinics, Bloch believes that there should be a level of social assistance support that allows for a dignified standard of living.

Forcing people to live in squalor and survive on less than a pittance only worsens the health impacts of their low income. While this may appear to save money up front, it likely ends up being spent elsewhere, through higher use of physical and mental health services down the road.”

While Gary Bloch views may stand out as unique for a physician, the ground is shifting in the Canadian medical world. The Canadian Medical Association has just completed a consultation. Their conclusion is that poverty is the main issue that must be addressed to improve the health of Canadians.

Friday, August 30, 2013

Why we need the Ontario Municipal Board


Lately there has been talk about reforming or even getting rid of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB).
The contention is that municipalities know best how to plan for their communities.  So, who needs the OMB?

That’s a crock.
When it gets down to decision making in municipalities local politicians have the final say.  They aren’t planners.  In fact, in a lot of cases the extent of their planning experience is the scheduling of a day to declare when they are running for re—election.

Take as Exhibit A the recent OMB hearing brought about when the City of Hamilton blocked an attempt by a non-profit agency to consolidate its programs under one roof.
I’ve written about this before.  Last September’s piece talked a bit about the ideas of distance separation by-laws. (http://whenthemayorsmiles.blogspot.ca/2012/09/local-governments-and-distance.html)   That is the tool that Hamilton used at first to block Lynwood Charlton’s Centre’s (LCC) move.

Then the City changed their “planning” argument   claiming that the LCC program represented an “institutional” use.  I wrote about it again http://whenthemayorsmiles.blogspot.ca/2012/10/more-nimby.html
At the end of the day OMB member Makuch basically ruled the City had no good planning case.   The Board was satisfied that the proposed development was “consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2005 and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe as well as the City’s Official plan.”  (You can find the August 23rd decision at http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/english/eDecisions/eDecisions.html)

 Lynwood Charlton Centre suggested Council’s refusal of the application “was based on the negative reaction from the community.”   The Board, however, heard “no evidence to support any of the concerns expressed to City Council.”
With the traditional planning issues being resolved, there was no need to carry on to human rights matters.  The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) had standing at the hearing.  If given the chance, they would have said that Hamilton’s refusal of the application is considered discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

That position had been forwarded to Hamilton Council some time ago.  Most Councillors apparently believe that the fact that they were popularly elected gives them license to override human rights concerns.
Sure, the OMB needs to be reformed.  But cases like this one demonstrate why we need a body like Ontario Municipal Board as a safeguard to local idiocy.  

Friday, August 16, 2013

Gender Gap not Closing

(An earlier version of this piece appeared at www.hamiltonjustice.ca)
 
 
In the nineties, I was one of the Mayor’s representatives on a municipal committee that looked at the issue of violence against women.  The Committee looked at some of the broader social conditions affecting women in our community.  A report with recommendations was produced.
 

That was when I was a Councillor (actually, and perhaps ironically, I was an Alderman) in the City of Burlington.  When following the work of the Committee we tried to change our job title to Councillor it failed fifteen 15 votes to two, as I recall.


It goes without saying that this was a long time ago.  So when some publications on the Gender Gap from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives came out last month I was interested. Has the Gender Gap closed?


Apparently not, based on the research of two writers.     

The Gap in the Gender Gap: Violence Against Women in Canada was released July 11th. (See http://www.policyalternatives.ca/newsroom/news-releases/canada-lacks-coherent-response-end-violence-against-women-study)


The authors argue that “progress on ending violence against women in Canada is stalled by the absence of a coherent national policy and consistent information about the levels of that violence.”

Kate McInturff‘s In Closing Canada’s Gender Gap Year 2240 Here We Come! came out in April. The author looks at data from the World Economic Forum. That data measures the progress of the world’s nations in closing the gap between the participation of men and women in four areas: education, health, the economy, and politics. We do well in education and health; not so economic participation and opportunity.


The author argues that “the biggest drag on Canada’s score in this arena is its poor performance in increasing the percentage of women who make up our country’s legislators, sen­ior officials,
and managers."

(http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National%20Office/2013/04/Closing_Canadas_Gender_Gap.pdf)
 
I've take some facts from these two from these and put them in a chart which follows.
 
100,000         On average each year the number of Canadians who reported experiencing sexual violence to
                     the police. (a)
 
70 %              of incidents of spousal violence never reported. (b)

83 %              of victims of spousal violence who are female. ©

334               Combined cost in dollars per person per year of adult sexual assault and intimate   
                    partner violence is in Canada. (d)
  
262               Estimated cost in dollars of the use of illegal drugs per person per year. (d)

541               Estimated cost of smoking per person per year. (d)

2.77             Dollars per person in federal public spending to address violence against women in 2011-12 (d)


228              At the current rate of progress years that will be required to close Canada’s
                   gender gap i.e., inequality between men and women. (e)

25 %            of federal Parliament constituencies represented by women. (f)

17 %            of government caucus who are women. (f)

14.5 %         of seats on corporate boards occupied by women in Canada. (g)


SOURCES

(a) Sinha, Maire (2013). Measuring Violence Against Women: Statistical Trends. Statistics Canada.

(b) Sinha, Maire (2012). Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile, 2010. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

(c) Sinha, Maire ed. (2013). Measuring Violence Against Women: Statistical Trends. Statistics Canada.

(d) The Gap in the Gender Gap: Violence Against
Women in Canada


(e) Kate McInturff ‘s In Closing Canada’s Gender Gap Year 2240 Here We Come

(f) In McInturf from Members of Parliament (Current).” Parliament of Canada. http://www.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E

(g) In McInturff 2011 Catalyst Census: Financial Post 500 Women Board Directors. Toronto: Catalyst, 2012.

(h) In McInturff from Mackenzie, Hugh (2012). Canada’s CEO Elite 100. Toronto: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Saturday, August 03, 2013

August 4th in History


I wasn’t really aware of how important a date August 4 is in the history of Toronto and the planet.

Yes, I remember where I was when JFK was shot (Grade 9 English Class, Nelson High School). When Apollo 11 landed on moon I was working at the #2 Rod Mill at Stelco in Hamilton.  And I have a clear memory of September 9, 1956 when a six-year-old surreptitiously crawled down the back hallway, apparently undetected by unsuspecting parents, to watch Elvis gyrating on the Ed Sullivan show.

Now the Toronto Star has reminded me that August 4, 1983 was indeed an historic date that I should add to my list.  (http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2013/08/02/the_dave_winfield_seagull_incident_vs_toronto_blue_jays_at_exhibition_stadium_30_years_later_an_oral_history.html)

And, yes, I remember where I was that day.  I was there at Toronto’s Exhibition Stadium when Dave Winfield “slew a gull.”  My memory is foggy though.  I guess I should have taken notes.

Along with about 36,000 others I was taking in the game from the cheap, but covered,  seats in left-centre field at what later became known as the Mistake-by-the Lake.   Burlington Post reporter Dennis Smith and I spent four dollars each for our seats (Could they really have been $4.00 dollars then?)  Between innings I had my 7x50 Dienstglas binoculars trained on this bird.  It had pretty much sitting in the same place in right-centre field for several innings.  As I looked at the gull through the binos it was smacked by a baseball. 
Someone sitting near us called out:  Winfield killed that poor pigeon.”

The “pigeon” was indeed dead.  A hapless ball boy was dispatched to cover and remove the dead bird.  While some booing began I, clearly identifying with that ball boy, flashed back to a similar incident in my past.   As a student steelworker I had been ordered by the foreman to “bury that poor effing cat” that had been found dead in Stelco’s #2 Rod Mill.  Poor ball boy, I empathized with him.

As I’ve suggested some of the details of this important day are lost to me.

The Star says the charge against Winfield, later dismissed, was “cruelty to animals.” I can’t say I remembered that specific but for some reason I do recall Winfield’s manager’s response to the charge:   
Said Billy Martin: “Cruelty to animals?  That’s the first time he’s hit the cut-off man all year.”

I remember too that the birding community was irked.  Peter Whalen of the Globe and Mail wrote about it. His column lamented the fact that the deceased bird was continuously referred to by the media and public as a “seagull.”    There is no such species, as any birder worth his feathers would tell you.  It was a ring billed gull or larus delawarensis, if you prefer.

I do have some memory of, then Metro Chairman, Paul Godfrey grovelling to the Americans over the incident. But didn’t that have to do with getting a NFL franchise for Toronto?

All these memories coming back to me……

Oh, and where were you on August 4, 1983?

Where they are now
Dennis Smith, who attended the game with this Blogger, is semi-retired and does some freelance work for the Burlington Post.  When reached today he declined comment on the incident as he was busy doing a story on a book written about another team that played in Toronto in the ‘Year of the Dead Bird.’  That team, the Toronto Argonauts, won the Grey Cup in 1983.

While the Toronto Blue Jays lost to the Yankees that August day they did go on to record their first winning season in 1983 winning 89 times against 73 losses.  This year they are on pace for a record of 74 wins and 88 loses.

The #2 Rod Mill was opened by the Steel Company of Canada (Stelco) in 1966.  Once North America’s largest manufacturer of hot rolled wire rods, it closed for good in 2004.  Stelco was purchased by US Steel in 2007.

In 2008, an alleged NFL team, the Buffalo Bills, began playing four down football in Toronto once a year.  Ticket prices per seat averaged $183 that first year.  

Bob Wood lives in Port Rowan Ontario and last attended a Blue Jays game when his son’s school choir was singing the national anthem at the Sky Dome.  That would be about twenty years ago.  He preferred the Mistake-by–the-Lake as a sporting venue even if they were cruel to animals there.

Sunday, July 14, 2013

Doug Holyday, Perversion of Democracy and Hubris

Toronto Star Queen’s Park columnist Martin Regg Cohn is into it with Conservative by-election candidate Doug Holyday.

Long time municipal politician Holyday was unsuccessful nine years ago in getting Toronto Council to adopt sanctions against municipal politicians who chose not to complete their terms.

If Holyday wins the provincial by-election on August 1st, he will be such a politician. 

Holyday seems to remember only some details of his motion.
Read Regg Cohn’s column and the motion (which I’ve copied below) and you’ll see why the columnist has accused Holyday of hubris.

Oh, I’ve highlighted (by underlining) a few of my favourite sections of the motion.

------------------------------------------------------------- 
J(10) Request to Amend The Municipal Elections Act to Allow a Municipality to Place Restrictions on the Terms under which their Members may Stand for a Higher Office

 
Moved by: Councillor Holyday
Seconded by: Councillor Ootes

WHEREAS in an open and accountable free society, an oath of office calls for a total commitment to fulfill the duties and responsibilities that voters expect and deserve during a term of office; and
 
WHEREAS our democratic institutions are not a business, nor are the votes a
commodity to be purchased and then ignored at will; and
 
WHEREAS it is incumbent upon individuals when standing for office to recognize that the public fully expects that winning candidates will honour their selection with conscientious dedication for the full period of the mandate;

and

WHEREAS any disruption in a term of office can cause a new election to be held with considerable cost to the taxpayers; and

WHEREAS should the Council decide upon an appointment in place of an election, the democratic rights of citizens to elect their representatives is denied and perversion of the system ensues; and

WHEREAS the financial difficulties endured by Council to balance the budget and maintain services make it imperative that no unnecessary expenses be incurred; and

WHEREAS citizens standing for office should be aware of both the remuneration and demands of office and understand that the public expects that they, once elected, honour that trust and complete their term; and

WHEREAS any time a Councillor is absent (with or without pay) from Council
deliberations, the ward involved remains unrepresented on many key issues; and

WHEREAS it has never been more important to have a strong Council unaligned with political party interests to best effect negotiations with other levels of government; and

WHEREAS it is manifestly unfair that some councillors use their candidacy for higher office to buttress the evaluation of their local incumbency by voters; and

WHEREAS a councillor’s role in governing Toronto affairs should not be used like a Las Vegas poker table where you ‘fold a hand’ and play another later without risk, penalty or moral censure; and

WHEREAS the public, according to published surveys, perceives the democratic process to be so fundamentally flawed and controlled by opportunists, that voter turnout is at an all-time low;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT this Council recognize the electoral abuse that takes place when a Ward remains unrepresented for weeks at a time and enact appropriate safeguards to prevent voluntary absenteeism in the pursuit of another office;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT candidates for Council should swear
upon filing their nomination papers that, if elected, they will serve at least half the term of their mandate before seeking another office, or as a result of such a decision, trigger automatic dismissal;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Toronto Council request the Government of Ontario to amend The Municipal Elections Act to allow a municipality to place restrictions on the terms under which their members may stand for a higher office.”