When ad Hominem Attacks Are All You Have

The Cardus Daily recently published my response to Ian Millhiser’s op-ed on Christian hypocrisy:

If, instead of relying on the actual law to support my arguments, I were to rely on what I wanted the law to be, or on what the law was twenty years ago, I would not be a very effective advocate, and people like Millhiser would certainly be right to criticize me. Arguing according to the law as it stands is good and ethical advocacy, and it is what good lawyers do every day.

Read the rest here.

Challenging Trinity Western University: When the Law is Inconvenient

The Cardus Daily published my recent op-ed on the engagement of the Advocates’ Society at the Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia:

It’s disconcerting because you have the “authoritative voice of advocates within the justice system” whose mandate includes the development of young advocates asking the Court to ignore the law and the evidence and to just give them what they want.

Read the rest here.

Is suicide a right or a tragedy? We can’t seem to get it straight

LifeSiteNews published my op-ed on Bill-14 and what it communicates to Canadians:

What is odd is that while these discussions on the “right” to assisted suicide are happening, we’re also having a very different discussion about a tragic series of events in Attawapiskat. Last week 11 people (10 of them youths) attempted to commit suicide in Attawapiskat with over 100 having attempted suicide since September. The stories characterize it as a crisis—and I agree that it is a crisis—but can we really say that 11 people in a small community attempting to commit suicide is a crisis when, for the past year and a half, we’ve been saying that suicide is a Charter right and our own elected leaders have put out a report saying that it should not be denied to those who are minors or mentally ill?

Read the rest here.

Challenging the Government of Ontario

Yesterday, I was at Queen’s Park for a press conference announcing a Charter challenge to section 65(5.7) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“FIPPA”). The FIPPA exists to make government information public and to protect personal information from being made public. Section 65(5.7) of the FIPPA excludes any and all information related to the provision of abortion services. This section therefore excludes statistical information which contain no personal characteristics. Pro-life blogger Patricia Maloney and the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada retained me to challenge this section.

The case is about freedom of expression, government transparency and the right of citizens to be aware of and comment on important information of a public and political nature. Read the Notice of Application here.

Supplementary submission to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, the body which regulates the practice of medicine in Ontario is holding a consultation on a draft human rights policy. The consultation is part of its scheduled revision to the policy which has the potential of narrowing or limiting physicians’ conscience rights.

The Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada and the Canadian Federation of Catholic Physicians’ Societies retained me to prepare legal submissions on this topic to assist the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario in revising its policy. These submissions argue for physicians’ freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

Decriminalization of assisted suicide and the violation of our rights

Here’s my latest article, published over at LifeSiteNews:

In October, the Supreme Court of Canada heard the Carter case, where parties are challenging Criminal Code prohibitions on physician assisted suicide in the hopes of decriminalizing it. If they’re successful, it will impact more than just physicians. […]

Recently however, and as a result of a discussion with a fellow religious freedom lawyer, I realized that decriminalization will impact the religious freedom and conscience rights of many others. Of course, this includes all others in the health care field such as nurses, hospital staff and those working in the fields of psychology and counselling.

Read the rest here.

Christian Lawyers and Doctors Need Not Apply

Here’s an article I wrote last week that was published by The Cardus Daily,

It has become a scary time to be a Christian professional in Canada.

In 2014, lawyers and doctors were targeted by their own professional associations for direct attack because of their religious beliefs. […]

I did not attend TWU, but I share its biblical view of marriage. I have appeared before the Superior Court of Ontario, the Ontario Court of Appeal, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, the Tax Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada for a variety of clients. Do my religious beliefs, particularly about marriage, somehow disqualify me from ably practicing law? That is the inevitable conclusion and consequence if we endorse barring TWU law graduates from practicing law.

Read the rest here.

Physcians’ rights: 2 articles published in December

In December 2014, I had two articles published on physicians’ conscience and religious rights. The first was an article published in FOCUS magazine, the publication of the Christian Medical and Dental Society. See pages 25 and 26 for the article, “Protecting our Patients and Physician’s Rights.

The second article was a piece I co-authored with Larry Worthen, the executive director of the Christian Medical and Dental Society. It was published by LifeSiteNews and entitled “Ontario College of Physicians’ new policy violates basic tenets of law.”

Submission to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, the body which regulates the practice of medicine in Ontario recently held a consultation on its existing human rights policy. The consultation was part of its scheduled revision to the policy which has the potential of narrowing or limiting physicians’ conscience rights.

The Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada and the Canadian Federation of Catholic Physicians’ Societies retained me to prepare legal submissions on this topic to assist the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario in revising its policy. These submissions argue for physicians’ freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

 

Abortion Statistics Case Moves Forward

LifeSiteNews recently wrote an article about Pat Maloney‘s case and how it’s progressing. I’ve been working with Pat on this case and the article highlights some of the major issues this challenge raises, like access to information.

A pro-life blogger suing the Ontario government over its refusal to provide access to provincial abortion statistics has submitted the written arguments to Ontario’s Superior Court. The court is expected to hear the case at the end of October and issue its decision three to six months later.

“When governments are allowed to hide information, it prevents us from being allowed to keep them accountable to us for how they are spending that money,” Patricia Maloney, who blogs at Run With Life, told LifeSiteNews.

With the help of constitutional lawyer Albertos Polizogopoulos, Maloney is hoping to convince the court that the Information and Privacy Commissioner erred last year when it upheld a previous ruling from the Ministry of Health denying her request for the province’s abortion statistics.

In 2010, the Ontario Liberal government quietly amended its freedom of information law with Omnibus Bill 122 that in part excluded “records relating to the provision of abortion services” from freedom of information requests.

You can read more about Pat’s case on her website here. She also lists the media coverage her case has garnered, including pieces from the National Post, Calgary Herald and Ottawa Citizen.

The basis of the challenge is that the Government of Ontario and the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC) have misinterpreted the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Our position is that section 65(5.7) of the FIPPA, the newly amended provision, cannot mean a ban on all materials related to the provision of abortion services, but must mean a ban on materials related to the provision of abortion services which contain personal information.

We come to this conclusion as the FIPPA has two goals: to make government documents public and to protect personal privacy. The number of abortions performed and the cost of those abortions is not personal information and therefore restricting access to that data is inconsistent with FIPPA’s goals. Section 65(5.7) must have been intended to cover only data related to the provision of abortion services which contain personal information.

This position also supports a constitutional interpretation of the FIPPA. Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press. As a blogger, Pat Maloney benefits from freedom of the press. In order for Pat to exercise her freedom of expression and comment on issues of public importance, such as abortion and the use of taxpayer dollars, Pat needs access to these documents. The government and the IPC’s interpretation of section 65(5.7) results in a violation of her freedom of expression. It cannot therefore be a proper interpretation.

This case is scheduled to be heard in the last week of October 2014. We expect a decision one to six months later.