COMPANY
& FINANCE |
Company and Finance News:
Partner Up! – New Rules Allow Registered
Charities
to Invest in Limited Partnerships
Registered charities have traditionally been unable to invest in
limited partnership units without jeopardizing their tax-exempt
status. This year, the federal government proposed changes to
the Income Tax Act to allow charities
to invest in limited partnerships but there are rules and
restrictions that must be understood before such an investment
is made.
Subject to various rules and limitations in the Income Tax
Act, registered charities are able to invest in
corporations by acquiring and owning shares or other securities.
Many business ventures that attract charities as potential
investors are structured as partnerships. These investment
opportunities have traditionally been offside for registered
charities because of the legal meaning of partnership.
At law, a partnership is a relationship between two or more
parties that carry on business in common with a view to
generating profit. This definition poses a problem for
registered charities because every partner in a partnership is
deemed to be carrying on the business of the partnership. Read
the full article by Catherine Brayley, Margaret Mason, and Michael Blatchford with the law firm Bull
Housser.
FIC Bulletin – Prohibited Mortgage Broker Fees
The Office of the Registrar of Mortgage Brokers is aware that
some mortgage brokers are charging prohibited fees and using
coercive practices to induce consumers to complete on mortgage
transactions. In some cases brokers threaten legal action to
collect these fees if the consumer elects not to proceed with
the transaction. The Registrar's office protects consumers from
mortgage broker misconduct, and treats allegations of coercive
practices seriously. Industry is reminded that sections 4(3)(b)(ix) and 5 of the Business Practices and
Consumer Protection Act (BPCPA) prohibit mortgage brokers
from charging any fees for arranging a consumer mortgage in
British Columbia, unless those fees are deducted from the
mortgage advance at time of funding. Read the full bulletin here.
Franchises Act Introduced
Bill 38, the Franchises Act, was
introduced in the BC Legislature on October 5, 2015. If passed,
the bill will enact the Franchises Act, and will
apply to franchise agreements relating to franchises that are
operated wholly or partly in British Columbia. The bill intends
to do the following:
- confirm the duty of fair dealing of parties to a franchise
agreement and provide for remedies in the event of the breach
of that duty,
- confirm a franchisee's right of association and provide for
remedies in the event of the infringement of that right,
- require the disclosure, by a franchisor to a prospective
franchisee, of financial information and other relevant
information about a franchise or a franchise system before the
prospective franchisee enters into a franchise agreement,
- provide conditions for rescinding a franchise agreement,
- provide circumstances in which there may be liability for
damages, and
- prevent the waiver of the application of the law of British
Columbia or, in the event of a claim or dispute under a
franchise agreement, of the restriction of jurisdiction or
venue to a forum outside British Columbia for proceedings in
relation to the claim or dispute.
BC Securities – Policies & Instruments
The following policies and instruments were published on the
BCSC website in the month of September:
- 41-101 – CSA Notice of Amendments
Related to the Recognition of Aequitas NEO Exchange Inc.
Subject to obtaining required ministerial approval, the
amendments will come into force on November 17, 2015.
- 33-105
– Adoption of Amendments to National Instrument 33-105 Underwriting
Conflicts
The amendments come into force on September 8, 2015.These
amendments exempt foreign market participants from complying
with Canadian conflicts disclosure requirements in the context
of offerings of securities that qualify as "eligible foreign
securities".
- BCN
2015/05 – Notice of adoption of BC Instrument
23-502 – Exemption from certain requirements in Part 6
of National Instrument 23-101 – Trading Rules
The British Columbia Securities Commission has approved an
exemption from certain requirements in Part 6 of National
Instrument 23-101 – Trading Rules. This
exemption is effective September 21, 2015.
- 21-315 – CSA Staff Notice and
Request for Comment 21-315 Next Steps in Regulation and
Transparency of the Fixed Income Market
This notice describes the CSA's plan to enhance fixed income
market regulation, identify opportunities to improve market
transparency and better protect investor interests. It sets
out steps to facilitate more informed decision-making among
all market participants, improve market integrity and evaluate
whether access to the fixed income market is fair and
equitable for all investors. The comment period expires on
November 1, 2015
- 45-106 – CSA Notice of Amendments
Relating to Rights Offerings to National Instrument 45-106 Prospectus
Exemptions, National Instrument 41-101 General
Prospectus Requirements, National Instrument 44-101 Short
Form Prospectus Distributions, and National Instrument
45-102 Resale of Securities and Repeal of National
Instrument 45-101 Rights Offerings
The amendments would create a streamlined prospectus exemption
for rights offerings by reporting issuers and update other
requirements related to rights offerings. Subject to obtaining
required ministerial approval, the amendments will come into
force on December 8, 2015.
- 31-342 – CSA Staff Notice 31-342 Guidance
for Portfolio Managers Regarding Online Advice
This notice discusses online advice platforms operated by
portfolio managers. This notice should assist such portfolio
managers in meeting their regulatory obligations.
For more information visit the BC Securities website.
|
Act
or
Regulation Affected |
Effective Date |
Amendment
Information |
Designated Accommodation Area Tax Regulation (93/2013) |
Sept. 1/15 |
by Reg 162/2015 |
Division of Pensions Regulation (348/2012) |
Sept. 30/15 |
by Reg 70/2015 |
Members' Remuneration and Pensions Act |
Sept. 30/15 |
by 2012 Bill 38, c. 30, sections 164 and 165 only (in force by Reg 71/2015), Pension Benefits Standards Act |
National Instrument 21-101 Marketplace Operation (310/2001) |
Oct. 1/15 |
by Reg 179/2015 |
National Instrument 23-101 Trading Rules (252/2001) |
Oct. 1/15 |
by Reg 179/2015 |
National Instrument 33-105 Underwriting Conflicts (310/2001) |
Sept. 8/15 |
by Reg 168/2015 |
Pension Benefits Standards Act |
NEW
Sept. 30/15 |
c. 30 [SBC 2012], Bill 38, whole Act, except section 133 (4),
(in force by Reg 71/2015), as amended by 2014 Bill 10,
c. 22, sections 1 (a) to (c), (e), 2 to 24, 36 only (in force by Reg 71/2015), Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 2014 |
Pension Benefits Standards Act |
REPEALED
Sept. 30/15 |
by 2012 Bill 38, c. 30, section 134 only (in force by Reg 71/2015), Pension Benefits Standards Act |
Pension Benefits Standards Regulation (433/93) |
REPEALED
Sept. 30/15 |
by Reg 71/2015 |
Pension Benefits Standards Regulation (71/2015)
(replaces B.C. Reg 433/93) |
NEW
Sept. 30/15 |
see Reg 71/2015 |
Provincial Sales Tax Act |
Sept. 1/15 |
by 2015 Bill 10, c. 9, sections 44, 55, 57, 59 and 60 only (in
force by Royal Assent), Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2015 |
Public Sector Pension Plans Act |
Sept. 30/15 |
by 2012 Bill 38, c. 30, section 168 only (in force by Reg 71/2015), Pension Benefits Standards Act, as amended
by 2014 Bill 10, c. 22, section 36 only (in force by Reg 71/2015), Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 2014 |
ENERGY
& MINES |
Energy
and Mines News:
Environmental Appeal Board Revokes
Company Water Licence
On September 3, 2015, the British Columbia Environmental Appeal
Board (the "EAB") reversed a water licence issued to Nexen due
to serious technical flaws in the scientific evidence upon which
the licence was granted, as well as defects in the consultation
process with the Fort Nelson First Nation (the "FNFN").
Nexen applied for the licence on April 6, 2009 under s. 12 of the British Columbia Water
Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 483. The Ministry of Environment
(the "Ministry") granted the licence on May 11, 2012. The
licence authorized Nexen to divert water from the North Tsea
Lake into storage dugouts for the purpose of oilfield injection
and storage. The term of the licence was from May 11, 2012 to
December 31, 2017. Prior to being granted the licence, Nexen was
diverting water from the North Tsea Lake based on short-term
approvals, and had constructed works for that purpose. Due to
drought conditions and extremely low river water levels in 2012,
on April 18, 2013 the Ministry issued an order imposing
conditions on the licence. The EAB found it did not have
jurisdiction to review that order and only reviewed the decision
to issue the licence. Read the full article by Rick Williams, Sean Jones
and Dionysios Rossi with the firm Borden Ladner Gervais LLP.
BC to be Lead Regulator of LNG Terminals,
Even on Federal Port Lands
A provincial oil and gas agency will be the lead authority over
huge new liquefied natural gas plants if they are built in BC,
even on federal port lands, under proposed federal regulations.
Ottawa's plan to delegate authority to the BC Oil and Gas
Commission covers four proposed plants in the Prince Rupert area
in northwest BC on port lands or waters, including the
Petronas-led $11.4-billion Pacific NorthWest LNG plant.
In introducing the proposed LNG regulation in June, Stephen
Harper's Conservative government said it has no comparable
regulatory system to BC's and it would save tax dollars,
resources and time to adopt the provincial regulatory system.
Read the full article at The Vancouver Sun
website.
BC Government to Exempt Two Projects from
BCUC Review
in Response to Load Growth from Upstream
Natural
Gas Operations in the Peace Region
Following a stakeholder consultation this summer, the BC
Ministry of Energy and Mines is planning to exercise its
authority under the Utilities Commission Act (British
Columbia) (the "UCA") to exempt two transmission projects, the
North Montney Power Supply ("NMPS") project (proposed by
Alberta-based ATCO) and the Peace Region Electricity Supply
("PRES") project (proposed by BC Hydro), from review by the BC
Utilities Commission (the "BCUC") under Part 3 of the UCA. Among
other things, this exemption would relieve BC Hydro and ATCO
from the requirement under section 45 of the UCA to obtain a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the BCUC
for each of the projects.
In a report issued on April 27, 2015 (available here), BC Hydro describes the PRES project
as intended to resolve the "upstream" constraints in the
transmission system supplying the Peace Region in Northeast BC.
In the same report, BC Hydro describes its need to "serve some
of the most dramatic, single industry load (demand for
electricity) growth in a discrete area that it has experienced
over the past 50 years". Plans are underway in the Peace Region
for natural gas producers to power their compression facilities
using electricity drawn from BC Hydro's grid, rather than their
own gas, to generate the requisite power. Read the full article by Sebastian Nishimoto, Sven Milelli and Robin Sirett with McCarthy Tetrault
LLP.
|
Act
or
Regulation Affected |
Effective Date |
Amendment
Information |
Petroleum and Natural Gas Act |
Sept. 22/15 |
by 2015 Bill 25, c. 26, section 49 only (in force by Reg 174/2015), Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations
Statutes Amendment Act, 2015 |
FAMILY
& CHILDREN |
Family and Children
News:
Family Law Act Changes
On September 30, 2015, the Pension Benefits Standards Act
brought into force a number of consequential amendments to the
Family Law Act, dealing with
pension-related provisions.
Family Maintenance Enforcement Act
– Proposed Changes
With Bill 32, the Province has introduced
changes to the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act
– creating program efficiencies that will benefit the
lives of BC children and families. The changes, if passed, will
provide more time for government to collect default fees from
parents who have missed two or more spousal or child support
payments per year. The default fee can only be collected once
all support payments have been paid in full to families, at
which time government will have six years to collect the fee.
Previously, this six-year period began at the time the first
default fee was charged. Read the full government news release.
Parents Who Separate Before Their Child's
Birth:
Who's a Guardian? Anyone? Anyone at All?
By John-Paul Boyd:
I had a very interesting chat with a colleague yesterday about a
hypothetical situation in which a heterosexual cohabiting
couple, who are about to have a baby, separate before the baby
is born; our conversation centred on who could obtain standing
as the unborn child's guardian before moving out. The discussion
was very interesting and provided a pretty concrete illustration
of a central problem with the language of the Family Law Act on who's a guardian
and who isn't, and I thought I'd share what we were talking
about.
First off, here are the relevant bits of s. 39:
(1) |
While a child's parents are living
together and after the child's parents separate, each
parent of the child is the child's guardian. |
(3) |
A parent who has never resided with his or
her child is not the child's guardian unless one of the
following applies:
|
|
(b) |
the parent and all of the child's guardians make an
agreement providing that the parent is also a guardian;
|
|
(c) |
the parent regularly cares for the child. |
This section is really important. According to the provincial
government's document, The Family Law Act Explained, this
section means that "with few exceptions, the parents of a child
who reside with the child are automatically their guardians and do
not lose these responsibilities if they separate." Read the full article by John-Paul Boyd on the
Blog. |
Act
or
Regulation Affected |
Effective Date |
Amendment
Information |
Division of Pensions Regulation (348/2012) |
Sept. 30/15 |
by Reg 70/2015 |
Family Law Act |
Sept. 30/15 |
by 2012 Bill 38, c. 30, sections 135 to 156 only (in force by Reg 71/2015), Pension Benefits Standards Act, as amended
by 2014 Bill 9, c. 17, sections 25 and 26 only and 2014 Bill 10,
c. 22, section 34 only (both in force by Reg 71/2015), Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act and Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 2014 |
FOREST
& ENVIRONMENT |
Forest
and Environment News:
BC to Develop Response System for Land-Based Spills
The B.C. government is canvassing industry leaders in hopes of
developing a coordinated spill response system for the
province by 2016.
Jim Hofweber, executive director of the spill response regime
project, said the idea is to have a one-call response system
for land-based spills, similar to what is done now by the
Western Canada Marine Response Corp., which responds to all
spills in B.C. waters. The federal government has jurisdiction
over spills in Canadian waters, while the provinces are
responsible for dealing with land-based spills, including
those that wash up on shore.
The province is expected to bring enabling legislation in next
spring, with hopes of issuing regulations in February 2017,
Hofweber said. Read more of The Vancouver Sun
article.
Environmental Appeal Board Decisions
There were two Environmental Appeal Board decisions
released in the month of September:
Water Act
Visit the Environmental Appeal Board website for more information.
|
Act
or
Regulation Affected |
Effective Date |
Amendment
Information |
University Endowment Land Act |
Sept. 18/15 |
by 2015 Bill 3, c. 2, section 61 only (in force by Reg 172/2015), Building Act |
Water Regulation (204/88) |
Sept. 22/15 |
by Reg 178/2015 |
Wood First Act |
Sept. 18/15 |
by 2015 Bill 3, c. 2, section 62 only (in force by Reg 172/2015), Building Act |
HEALTH |
Audit of Private Surgery Clinic is
Harassment, Doctor Says
The Medical Services Commission wants to conduct an audit of
physicians doing operations at the Cambie Surgery Centre after a
previous audit at the private facility in 2012 suggested doctors
were double billing – charging both patients and the
government, contrary to provincial laws.
The 2012 audit found evidence that Cambie Surgery Centre and its
affiliated Specialist Referral Clinic billed patients for
publicly insured medical services in contravention of the
Medicare Protection Act. Now the
commission wants to drill down to prove doctors billed both the
patients and the Medical Services Plan (MSP).
The commission is the body mandated under provincial statutes to
manage the MSP on behalf of the province. The government gives
the MSP taxpayer funds to pay doctors fees (almost $3 billion
last year). Read The Vancouver Sun article.
Parents Still Hope to Treat Baby with Cannabis
Oil as Her Condition Improves
Parents of a severely ill baby girl in British Columbia
say they will not give up their fight to gain full custody and
treat her with cannabis oil, despite dropping court action that
sought greater control of her care.
A lawyer for Justin Pierce and Michelle Arnold withdrew the
application on [September 16th]
because five-month-old Mary Jane Pierce has been breathing
without a ventilator for two weeks.
But the couple still hope to show they deserve full custody and
the right to give her the oil at an upcoming protection hearing.
The Ministry of Children and Family Development obtained
temporary custody in August and will hold a hearing to determine
whether to make it permanent. Read The Globe And Mail
article.
|
Act
or
Regulation Affected |
Effective Date |
Amendment
Information |
Drug Schedules Regulation (9/98) |
Sept. 28/15 |
by Regs 180/2015 and 181/2015 |
E-Health (Personal Health Information Access and Protection of
Privacy) Act |
Oct. 1/15 |
by 2014 Bill 7, c. 8, section 83 only (in force by Reg 52/2015), Laboratory Services Act |
Health Authorities Act |
Oct. 1/15 |
by 2014 Bill 7, c. 8, section 84 only (in force by Reg 52/2015), Laboratory Services Act |
Health Care Costs Recovery Act |
Oct. 1/15 |
by 2014 Bill 7, c. 8, section 85 only (in force by Reg 52/2015), Laboratory Services Act |
Health Professions Act |
Oct. 1/15 |
by 2014 Bill 7, c. 8, section 86 only (in force by Reg 52/2015), Laboratory Services Act |
Hospital Insurance Act |
Oct. 1/15 |
by 2014 Bill 7, c. 8, sections 87 to 89 only (in force by Reg 52/2015), Laboratory Services Act |
Hospital Insurance Act Regulation (25/61) |
Oct. 1/15 |
by Reg 51/2015 |
Laboratory Services Act |
NEW
Oct. 1/15 |
c. 8 [SBC 2014], Bill 7, whole Act, except section 40 (5)
(in force by Reg 52/2015) |
Laboratory Services Regulation (52/2015) |
NEW
Oct. 1/15 |
see Reg 52/2015 |
Medical and Health Care Services Regulation (426/97) |
Oct. 1/15 |
by Reg 51/2015 |
Medicare Protection Act |
Oct. 1/15 |
by 2014 Bill 7, c. 8, sections 90 to 95, 97 to 99, 104, 105 only
(in force by Reg 52/2015), Laboratory Services Act |
Milk Industry Standards Regulation (464/81) |
Sept. 22/15 |
by Reg 176/2015 |
Pharmaceutical Services Act |
Oct. 1/15 |
by 2014 Bill 7, c. 8, section 107 only (in force by Reg 52/2015), Laboratory Services Act |
Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act |
Oct. 1/15 |
by 2014 Bill 7, c. 8, section 108 only (in force by Reg 52/2015), Laboratory Services Act |
LABOUR
& EMPLOYMENT |
Labour and Employment News:
Pension Benefits Standards Act – Now
in Force!
On September 30, 2015, B.C. Reg. 71/2015 brought into force
the new Pension Benefits Standards Act
– with the exception of section 133 (4). The new Act is
intended to modernize the law with respect to pensions in
British Columbia and to harmonize British Columbia's pension
legislation more closely with that of Alberta. The new Bill
does the following:
- provides for immediate vesting of members' pension rights;
- provides for more flexible pension plan structures in
addition to defined benefit plans and defined contribution
plans;
- requires that plan administrators ensure that plans have
governance policies and, for defined benefit plans or target
benefit plans, funding policies;
- enhances disclosure requirements;
- clarifies the roles and responsibilities of
administrators, participating employers and fundholders;
- creates uniformity and certainty in relation to the
content of plan documents;
- allows members to suspend membership in a plan;
- provides for administrative penalties for non-compliance;
- distinguishes between collectively bargained
multi-employer plans and non-collectively bargained
multi-employer plans and between actuarial excess and
surplus;
- enables former plan members to access locked-in funds in
circumstances of financial hardship;
- allows administrators to establish solvency reserve
accounts;
- empowers the superintendent to appoint a plan
administrator or designate an actuary;
- permits refunds of optional ancillary contributions;
- allows plans with no active members to continue with the
superintendent's consent;
- permits plans to force out small accounts;
- allows deferred members and, in prescribed circumstances,
retired members to select portability options on plan
termination;
- establishes a framework for jointly sponsored pension
plans;
- establishes a new framework for the regulation of
multi-jurisdictional pension plans.
Can Provincial OHSA Legislation Apply across Borders?
Ontario OHSA protects employee for safety concerns
raised while temporarily in BC, OLRB decides
The question often arises as to whether occupational health
and safety legislation in an employee's home province protects
him or her when temporarily working in another province.
According to one recent Ontario Labour Relations Board
decision, in some cases the answer can be "yes".
The employee was hired in Ontario, where he lived, in
September 2013. During his first year of employment, he worked
for the employer in both British Columbia and Ontario. In
February 2015, he was temporarily assigned to work in BC for
about three weeks as a Warehouse Supervisor. While there, he
raised a number of safety complaints relating to forklifts
(which he said were operated by untrained employees at high
speeds), the lack of first aid kits, obstruction of emergency
exits, black ice and other hazardous conditions. The employee
said that his efforts to have his concerns dealt with were
unsuccessful. Read the full article by Adrian Miedema with Dentons LLP and
published on JDSupera Business Advisor.
Make Whole Remedies and Good
Faith Crucial to Mitigation
A recent decision of the BC Court of Appeal provides a
cautionary tale for BC employers seeking to remedy a potential
wrongful dismissal.
In Fredrickson v. Newtech Dental Laboratory
Inc., Leah Ann Fredrickson had worked for
Newtech, a specialty dental laboratory, for about 8.5 years,
when she took a leave of absence in connection with her
husband's illness and an accidental injury to her son.
Newtech's owner, Vince Ferbey, took issue with the manner in
which Ms. Fredrickson took the leave and the effects on
Newtech's operations. When Ms. Fredrickson returned to work on
July 20, 2011, Mr. Ferbey advised her that she was being laid
off and gave her her Record of Employment. Ms. Fredrickson
considered that she had been dismissed and, on September 9,
2011, her counsel delivered that message to Newtech. Newtech
responded through its counsel on September 23, 2011, directing
Ms. Fredrickson to return to work on September 26, 2011,
pursuant to the "lay off" and noting in a further letter on
September 26 that, even if she had been wrongfully dismissed
by Newtech, she had a duty to mitigate her damages and accept
Newtech's offer of re-employment. Ms. Fredrickson did not
accept Newtech's offer, but instead, on October 18, 2011,
commenced an action for wrongful dismissal. Read the full article by Ryley Mennie with McCarthy
Tetrault.
|
Act
or
Regulation Affected |
Effective Date |
Amendment
Information |
Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities
Regulation (265/2002) |
Sept. 1/15 |
by Regs 145/2015 and 148/2015 |
Employment Standards Regulation (396/95) |
Sept. 15/15 |
by Reg 40/2015 |
Forms Regulation (166/2015) (replaces Reg 95/2012) |
NEW
Sept. 1/15 |
see Reg 166/2015 |
Forms Regulation (95/2012) |
REPEALED
Sept. 1/15 |
by Reg 166/2015 |
Pension Benefits Standards Act |
NEW
Sept. 30/15 |
c. 30 [SBC 2012], Bill 38, whole Act, except section 133 (4),
(in force by Reg 71/2015), as amended by 2014 Bill 10,
c. 22, sections 1 (a) to (c), (e), 2 to 24, 36 only (in force by Reg 71/2015), Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 2014 |
Pension Benefits Standards Act |
REPEALED
Sept. 30/15 |
by 2012 Bill 38, c. 30, section 134 only (in force by Reg 71/2015), Pension Benefits Standards Act |
Pension Benefits Standards Regulation (71/2015) (replaces
Reg 433/93) |
NEW
Sept. 30/15 |
see Reg 71/2015 |
Pension Benefits Standards Regulation (433/93) |
REPEALED
Sept. 30/15 |
by Reg 71/2015 |
Public Sector Employers Act |
Sept. 18/15 |
by 2015 Bill 3, c. 2, section 58 only (in force by Reg 172/2015), Building Act |
Public Sector Pension Plans Act |
Sept. 30/15 |
by 2012 Bill 38, c. 30, section 168 only (in force by Reg 71/2015), Pension Benefits Standards Act, as amended
by 2014 Bill 10, c. 22, section 36 only (in force by Reg 71/2015), Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 2014 |
Time Period for Review Regulation (164/2015) |
NEW
Sept. 15/15 |
see Reg 164/2015 |
Workers Compensation Act |
Sept. 15/15 |
by 2015 Bill 9, c. 22, sections 2 and 10 only (in force by Reg 164/2015), Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2015 |
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT |
Local Government News:
AGLG Legislative Amendments Introduced
Bill 36 – Auditor General for
Local Government Amendment Act was introduced in the
Legislature on September 28, 2015. The provincial government
signalled that legislative amendments would be introduced during
the fall session when the report from the Independent Review was released in the
spring.
In announcing the introduction of this Bill the Province stated
it is intended to do the following:
- Clarify the terms and conditions of employment for the AGLG;
- Strengthen the audit council's authority to review and
monitor the performance of the AGLG;
- Enhance the minister's authority to review the AGLG Act and the functioning of
the office; and,
- Require that the AGLG consult with the Union of British
Columbia Municipalities prior to developing the performance
audit program.
In brief, the proposed amendments include:
- Removing the requirement that the AGLG be authorized to be
an auditor of a company under Section 205 of the Business
Corporations Act but making this a requirement for the
Deputy AGLG.
- A requirement that a AGLG appointment must now be made under
the Public Service Act.
- Provision that upon recommendation of the Minister of
Community Sport and Cultural Development, the Lieutenant
Governnor in Council may, with or without cause, order that
the AGLG be suspended, with or without remuneration, or
removed.
- A statement that in making the above recommendation the
Minister will consider a recommendation, if any, by the Audit
Council. The words "if any" were not included in the original
AGLG Act.
- Provision that the AGLG may provide information to a law
enforcement agency if they believe an offence has been
committed.
- Additional option for the Audit Council to secure support
resources. Currently the AGLG Act provides that
ministry staff resources may be provided to assist the Audit
Council. The amendments add the option for the Audit Council
to retain persons for this purpose (subject to approval of the
Deputy Minister).
- Opportunities for the Audit Council to review and provide
comment on the AGLG office's budget and programs.
- Provision that before preparing an Annual Service Plan, the
AGLG must consult with UBCM respecting themes on which some or
all audits must be based.
- Requirement that the Minister must begin a review of the Act
five years after the Act has been in force.
Read the full UBCM news release.
Environmental Bill of Rights
Divides Municipal Leaders
A UBCM resolution on a proposed environmental bill of rights has
drawn heated debate at [the recent] conference, and highlights
an urban-rural divide between assembled mayors and councilors.
The resolution, which passed, calls on the province to create an
environmental bill of rights that would guarantee rights to
clean air, water and food; "vibrant ecosystems;" public
participation in decisions that affect the environment; access
to justice when environmental rights are infringed; and whistle
blower protection.
The resolution was endorsed by delegates, but some, like
Williams Lake Mayor Walter Cobb, had strong objections.
"It's just another curtailment of resource communities," he told
Radio West host Rebecca Zandbergen. "It already takes
up to five years to get a permit to do some extraction of raw
materials out of our province.
If you want to shut down the resource communities in BC, then go
for it. Because this will just be another nail in our coffin."
Read the CBC article.
Coping with Community Mailboxes
The transition from home delivery to community mailboxes by
Canada Post has been making headlines across the country. Many
communities, and the local governments that represent them, have
expressed opposition to the very concept of the end of home
delivery service, and frustration with the manner in which
Canada Post is going about the transition. Some local
governments have opted not to oppose the transition entirely,
and have taken the path of negotiating agreements with Canada
Post to govern the process, while other local governments, and
most notably the City of Hamilton, have taken a more combative
approach.
The recent case of Canada Post Corp. v. Hamilton (City),
2015 O.N.S.C. 3615, a decision of the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, highlights some of the pitfalls of the stance taken by
the City of Hamilton. The court's reasons for judgment indicate
that there was, for various reasons, a general sentiment of
opposition to community mailboxes on the part of council of the
City of Hamilton. Read the full article by Michael Hargraves of
Stewart McDannold Stuart LLP.
|
Act
or
Regulation Affected |
Effective Date |
Amendment
Information |
Building Act |
Sept. 18/15 |
c. 2 [SBC 2015], Bill 3, sections 1 to 4, 6, 14 to 18, 19
(1), (2) (3) (a), 20, 21, 39 to 42, 45 only (in force by Reg 172/2015) |
Building Officials' Association Act |
Sept. 18/15 |
by 2015 Bill 3, c. 2, section 46 only (in force by Reg 172/2015), Building Act |
Community Charter |
Sept. 18/15 |
by 2015 Bill 3, c. 2, sections 48 and 50 only (in force by Reg 172/2015), Building Act |
Liquor Control and Licensing Regulation (244/2002) |
Sept. 15/15 |
by Reg 242/2014, as amended by Regs 42/2015 and 152/2015 |
Local Government Act |
Sept. 18/15 |
by 2015 Bill 3, c. 2, sections 52 to 55 only (in force by Reg 172/2015), Building Act |
Ombudsperson Act |
Sept. 11/15 |
by 2015 bill 31, c. 30, section 1 only (in force by Reg 170/2015), Ombudsperson Amendment Act, 2015 |
UBC Tall Wood Building Regulation (182/2015) |
NEW
Sept. 29/15 |
see Reg 182/2015 |
MISCELLANEOUS
|
Miscellaneous News:
No News Items this Month
There are no news items falling under this category for this
month.
|
Act
or
Regulation Affected |
Effective Date |
Amendment
Information |
Commissioners for Taking Affidavits for British Columbia
Regulation (142/2015) |
NEW
Sept. 1/15 |
see Reg 142/2015 |
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act |
Sept. 20/15 |
by 2012 Bill 38, c. 30, section 163 only (in force by Reg 71/2015), Pension Benefits Standards Act |
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Regulation
(155/2012) |
Sept. 22/15 |
by Reg 175/2015 |
MOTOR
VEHICLE & TRAFFIC |
Motor
Vehicle and Traffic News:
Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2015
Sections Brought into Force
Effective September 22, 2015, B.C. Reg. 177/2015 brought into force
sections of the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2015, revising
the Motor Vehicle Act. The changes
provide a new definition for winter tires, and authorize the
Lieutenant Governor in Council to prescribe standards and
specifications for winter tires and to regulate types of chains
or other traction devices.
Passengers are Insured Vehicle "Users": BCCA
Are passengers in automobiles "using" those vehicles? If a
recent decision at the British Columbia Court of Appeal stands,
they indeed are – and that legislative interpretation
could have repercussions for the auto insurance industry.
In a decision passed down yesterday by the BCCA, Felix v. ICBC, the court was called
upon to determine whether a passenger who grabbed the steering
wheel, causing a crash and injuring the driver, was indemnified
under BC's public insurance scheme.
The incident occurred in July 2006, as the appellant, Marnetta
Felix, drove her drunken and argumentative boyfriend, Kevin
Hearne, home on the highway. A couple of times, Hearne grabbed
the steering wheel, apparently trying to scare his girlfriend.
When he grabbed the wheel the third time, however, Hearne pulled
it and crashed the car, killing himself and seriously injuring
Felix. Read the full article by David Dias and published by Canadian
Lawyer and Law Times blog Legal Feeds.
What Changes do You Want to See to
Cycling Regulations? (MVA)
Cycling advocates say BC's rules of the road need an overhaul
– or, at the very least, a good tune-up.
BC's Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) is the main
legislation regulating the use of everything from cars to
bicycles to skateboards on the province's roads.
But the act, written more than half a century ago, doesn't
reflect the realities of modern transportation, said Erin
O'Melinn, executive director of HUB Cycling.
"BC is behind on this, and I think our road safety legislation
is letting us down," she said.
Changes are coming to other parts of the country. This month,
major updates came into effect for Ontario's road laws, aimed at
improving bike safety.
Quebec is expected to introduce new bike safety measures this
fall. This week, the City of Montreal released a list of 20
recommendations, including allowing bikes to roll through stop
signs and even ride on sidewalks in some cases.
BC's Road Safety Law Reform Group, of which O'Melinn is a
member, has studied the topic for the last year. Next month, the
group plans to finalize a list of about a dozen recommended
changes and clarifications for the Motor Vehicle Act
– starting with the name. Read The Province article.
|
Act
or
Regulation Affected |
Effective Date |
Amendment
Information |
Motor Vehicle Act |
Sept. 22/15 |
by 2015 Bill 15, c. 13, sections 18 and 19 only (in force by Reg 177/2015), Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2015 |
Motor Vehicle Act Regulations (26/58) |
Sept. 22/15 |
by Reg 177/2015 |
PROPERTY
& REAL ESTATE |
Property and Real
Estate News:
Got kids? Find Another Place to Live
– Human Rights Legislation
It's illegal to bar children from housing, but parents still
face "adult building" ads
Twenty-two-month-old Ava McCubbin has a toddler's chubby cheeks,
blond hair and an infectious smile. She's also a big reason why
her parents, Gina and Bruce McCubbin, can't find a place to
live. "When I contacted a landlord and I explained that we had
Ava, she abruptly told me that she wasn't welcome." Bruce
McCubbin told CBC News. The McCubbins moved to Toronto from
Edinburgh, Scotland in July. For Gina McCubbin, who grew up in
Toronto's east end, it was a homecoming. They had a temporary
place to stay with Gina's mother. Bruce quickly found a good,
full-time job, and the couple started looking for an apartment
to rent.
They immediately started noticing a pattern, one confronting
many Canadians. View CBC article.
Vancouver Strata Councils Tackle
Short-term Rentals Head-on
Other cities are cracking down on Airbnb, which
has gained a strong foothold in Vancouver
Some Vancouver strata councils, frustrated with a lack of action
on the proliferation of short-term rental listings, are giving
up on City Hall.
At two downtown residential towers, owners and caretakers are
taking the situation into their own hands and attempting to
stamp out short-term rentals such as those on Airbnb.
"The City is providing no support," said Scott Mackenzie, strata
president at 930 Cambie St. "We have been dealing with the
ongoing issues of Airbnbs for nearly a year."
"In one unit alone, we have had countless issues: parties,
noise, damage to common space and even two weeks with a (sex
worker) in the unit."
The strata, said Mackenzie, registered a complaint with the City
of Vancouver, but after six months, it was asked to resolve the
issue via the Strata Property Act.
"There are no mechanisms to collect fines outside of small
claims court. Liens can be placed on a unit for strata fees and
special levies, but cannot be placed for fines," he said. Read The
Vancouver Sun article.
|
Act
or
Regulation Affected |
Effective Date |
Amendment
Information |
Homeowner Protection Act |
Sept. 18/15 |
by 2015 Bill 3, c. 2, section 51 only (in force by Reg 172/2015), Building Act |
Homeowner Protection Act Regulation (29/99) |
Sept. 3/15 |
by Reg 33/2015 |
Interest Rate Regulation (171/2015)
(replaces B.C. Reg. 39/2015) |
NEW
Sept. 17/15 |
see Reg 171/2015 |
Land Act |
Sept. 22/15 |
by 2015 Bill 25, c. 36, sections 30, 31 (part), 33, 34, 36, 37
(a) to (e), 38 to 40, 42 only (in force by Reg 174/2015), Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations
Statutes Amendment Act, 2015 |
Strata Property Act |
Sept. 18/15 |
by 2015 Bill 3, c. 2, sections 59 and 60 only (in force by Reg 172/2015), Building Act |
WILLS
& ESTATES |
Wills and Estates News:
Friend of Deceased Hoped to Use WESA
to
Cure New Will – Court Dismisses Claim
(Re) Massam Estate, 2015 B.C.J. No. 1607
Mr. Massam died September 21, 2011 aged 85 and left behind
neither a surviving spouse nor children. Mr. Massam had executed
a will in 1974 ("1974 Will") while he was with his former
spouse, Margaret. The 1974 Will provided that he left the
residue of his estate to Margaret, with a gift to her son
Terrance. While the couple later separated, there did not seem
to be any record showing that the couple actually divorced.
Sadly, Margaret pre-deceased him in 1993. There were a number of
things at issue in this case. The Public Guardian and Trustee of
BC, as official administrator for the Province, was asserting
that the 1974 Will is the subsisting last will and testament of
Mr. Massam. The defendants, Josh Thurston and his mother Robyn
Thurston, were friends of the deceased, and Josh was asserting
that an unsigned document dated September 20, 2011 ("unsigned
will"), should be held as the last will and testament. Mr.
Thurston would benefit from the unsigned will as it appointed
him executor and provided a specific bequest to him of $10,000.
Mr. Thurston represented himself throughout the proceedings.
While Mr. Massam's estate was quite modest (~$62,000), Mr.
Thurston's response was served as a counterclaim, claiming that
the unsigned will was a valid testamentary disposition. Mr.
Thurston's position was that the 1974 will was revoked by Mr.
Massam because he provided instructions for the unsigned will
shortly before his death. Mr. Thurston sought to employ the new
curative provisions of WESA so that the court may find
that the unsigned will is a valid testamentary disposition. He
also claimed the formal execution requirements of the former
Wills Act violated the Canadian Charter and Part 1 of the
Constitution Act. It should be noted that it was
uncontroversial that Mr. Massam never executed the unsigned
will. Read the full article by the Wills Variation Group
at the law firm MacIsaac & Company LLP.
Court Allows Disinheritance of Estranged
Children
The recent decision of Kong v. Kong confirms (and not for
the first time) that in some circumstances the court will
support the decision of a parent to exclude an adult child from
their will entirely, and deny a claim under BC wills variation
legislation. In this case the court disallowed the claims of two
disinherited sons, and allowed two others only a 5% share of the
estate.
A few observations from this case:
Read the full article by Richard Weiland with Clark Wilson
LLP.
Spousal Wills Variation Claims
Tippett v Tippett, 2015 BCSC 291,
is probably the most thorough analysis of the law since the
Supreme Court of Canada in Tataryn relating to how the
claims of a surviving spouse vs. the estate of the deceased
spouse is analysed under the Wills Variation Act.
The facts simply put were the plaintiff and the deceased married
in 1989 and acquired joint tenancy property in 1992 in which
they lived together as man and wife until 2009. Both parties
were employed and both contributed financially to the upkeep and
improvement of the property.
The deceased was diagnosed with a debilitating disease in 2000,
which necessitated the plaintiff leaving him in 2009 due to his
abusive behaviour attributable to his illness. She continue to
provide care services and financial assistance.
Two months prior to his death he severed the joint tenancy
property and left one half his interest in the property to
charities, with their remaining 50% to longtime friends who
provided care and companionship to him after the plaintiff left.
The court varied his will and awarded the surviving spouse 50%
of his estate. Read the full article by Trevor Todd with Disinherited –
Estate Disputes and Contested Wills.
|
Act
or
Regulation Affected |
Effective Date |
Amendment
Information |
There were no amendments this
month. |
The
content
of this document is intended
for client use only. Redistribution to anyone other than
Quickscribe
clients
(without the prior written consent of Quickscribe) is strictly
prohibited.
QUICKSCRIBE SERVICES LTD.
UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS EMAIL SERVICE
To unsubscribe from this service, click here. |