COMPANY
& FINANCE |
Company and Finance News:
Societies Act Now in Force – Transition
Checklist
The new Societies
Act came into force on November 28, 2016. The new
law replaces the Society Act and aims to modernize the
rules for the creation and governance of societies in BC.
Quickscribe has maintained a "red
text" copy of the repealed Society Act for
convenience. You can access both of these laws via the Title
Search.
From CLEBC Website: http://www.cle.bc.ca/PracticePoints/BUS/16-Checklist-Transition-under-New-Societies-Act.html
This transition checklist from BC's New Societies Act for
Legal Support Staff (October 2016) takes you step-by-step
through the procedures you need to prepare for the
pre-transition and transition period, including by-law changes
and filings. This resource is valuable for all lawyers, legal
support staff, and directors of societies preparing for the new
Societies Act which comes into force November 28, 2016.
Click here
to view a pdf version of the checklist. Author: Christine Hall,
Corporate Services Paralegal and Supervisor, Owen Bird Law
Corporation, Vancouver.
Selling your business? Ask Your Advisor about the
Pending New Tax Rules on Goodwill
With the tax treatment of goodwill set to change on Jan. 1, tax
advisers are advising small and medium business owner-mangers
who are contemplating a sale of their business or need to
extract cash from it to consider their options now. "The new tax
rules will result in higher taxes on the sale of goodwill and
the inability to defer income from the sale of a business using
a corporation," says David Rotfleisch of Rotfleisch &
Samulovitch P.C., a Toronto tax boutique. The federal government
tabled the changes in the Liberals' first budget in March. The
plan was to repeal the current regime and treat goodwill under
the general capital-cost allowance, or depreciation regime.
Steve Suarez, a tax partner with Borden Ladner Gervais LLP in
Toronto, says the changes were prompted by the increasingly
complex niceties of a separate depreciation regime for eligible
capital property. Read the full
article in the Financial Post.
SCC Rules Debtors Impliedly Consented to Disclosure of
Mortgage Discharge Statement
On November 17, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada (the "SCC")
released its decision in Royal
Bank of Canada v. Trang, 2016 SCC 50. This case
involved the proper interpretation of certain disclosure
exceptions in the Personal
Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act,
S.C. 2000, c.5 ("PIPEDA"). Writing for a unanimous
court, Justice Côté overturned the Ontario Court of
Appeal's decision and ordered the Bank of Nova Scotia
("Scotiabank") to disclose the debtors' mortgage discharge
statement to the Royal Bank of Canada ("RBC") for two reasons:
(1) such disclosure was required to comply with a court order
pursuant to s. 7(3) of PIPEDA; and, (2) the debtors
had impliedly consented to such disclosure. The SCC held that
each of these two reasons would have been enough on their own to
allow the appeal.
A Mortgage Discharge Statement is Personal Information
under PIPEDA
PIPEDA is a federal privacy statute that generally
prohibits organizations from disclosing personal information,
such as that within a mortgage discharge statement, without
the knowledge and consent of the affected individual. Section
7(3) of PIPEDA provides a list of legislative
exclusions to the requirement of knowledge of consent,
including where disclosure is required to comply with an order
made by a court to compel the production of information.
Read the full
article by Mark Fancourt-Smith of Lawson Lundell
LLP.
FICOM News
The Financial Institutions Commission of BC published the
following announcements and bulletins in November:
- Insurance
Letter: Adoption of OSFI Guidelines and Amendments to FICOM
Requirements for OSFI Guideline B-2
more...
- Notice of Hearing
Mortgage Brokers Act
more...
- Industry Update
Mortgage Broker Conflict Of Interest Disclosure In B.C.
more...
Visit the FICOM website
for more information.
BC Securities – Policies & Instruments
The following policies and instruments were published on the
BCSC website in the month of November:
- 31-347
– CSA Staff Notice 31-347 – Guidance
for Portfolio Managers for Service Agreements with IIROC
Dealer Members
This notice provides guidance to registered portfolio managers
that enter into service arrangements with dealer members of
the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada
(IIROC). This notice should assist portfolio managers in
meeting their obligations on client statement delivery.
- 91-305
– CSA Multilateral Staff Notice 91-305 (Revised)
– Frequently Asked Questions relating to
Multilateral Instrument 91-101 Derivatives: Product
Determination and Multilateral Instrument 96-101 Trade
Repositories and Derivatives Data Reporting
The CSA is publishing this staff notice to provide market
participants with guidance, in the form of "frequently asked
questions", on matters relating to derivatives trade
reporting.
For more information visit the BC Securities website.
|
Act or
Regulation Affected |
Effective
Date |
Amendment Information |
British Columbia Broiler Hatching Egg Scheme (432/88) |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
211/2015 |
British Columbia Chicken Marketing Scheme, 1961 (188/61) |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
211/2015 |
British Columbia Egg Marketing Scheme, 1967 (173/67) |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
211/2015 |
British Columbia Milk Marketing Board Regulation (167/94) |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
211/2015 |
British Columbia Turkey Marketing Scheme (174/66) |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
211/2015 |
Business Corporations Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, sections 263, 265 to 268, 270 to 274,
276, 279, 281 to 288 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Business Corporations Regulation (65/2004) |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
211/2015 |
Business Number Regulation (388/2003) |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
211/2015 |
Community Tenures Regulation (352/2004) |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
211/2015 |
Consumer Contracts Regulation (272/2004) |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
211/2015 |
Cooperative Association Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 291 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Designated Accommodation Area Tax Regulation (93/2013) |
Nov. 1/16 |
by Reg
220/2016 |
Financial Institutions Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, sections 304 to 308 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Insurance Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 322 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Insurance Societies Regulation (214/2015) |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
214/2015 |
Organic Agricultural Products Certification Regulation (200/93) |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
211/2015 |
Partnership Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 337 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Provincial Sales Tax Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 342 and 343 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Provincial Sales Tax Exemption and
Refund Regulation (97/2013) |
Nov. 1/16 |
by Reg 218/2016 |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
211/2015 |
Societies Act
(replaces Society Act) |
NEW
Nov. 28/16 |
c. 18 [SBC 2015], Bill
24, sections 1 to 251 and 365 only (in force by Reg
216/2015) |
Societies Regulation (216/2015) |
NEW
Nov. 28/16 |
see Reg
216/2015 |
Societies Transitional Interim Regulation (99/2016) |
NEW
Nov. 28/16 |
see Reg
99/2016 |
Society Act |
REPEALED
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 252 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Wines of Marked Quality Regulation |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
211/2016 |
ENERGY
& MINES |
Energy and Mines News:
Three Legal Pitfalls for Trans Mountain to
Avoid the Fate of Northern Gateway
Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline may have gotten the nod
from Ottawa. But proponents would be wise to draw some legal
lessons from the dismissal of Enbridge's proposed Northern
Gateway Project. In May 2016, the National
Energy Board reported seven court challenges to the Trans
Mountain project from environmental groups, municipalities and
indigenous communities. The Trans Mountain project may affect
different communities and landscapes than Northern Gateway but
it is hardly immune to threats that ultimately killed the
Enbridge proposal. For starters, the Northern Gateway project
was halted due to an improper use of an equivalency agreement
between the Government of British Columbia and the National
Energy Board. In its decision, the BC
Supreme Court held that while the province could rely on a
federal environmental assessment, it still had to issue its' own
Environmental Assessment Certificate. As Roy
Millen, Sandy Carpenter and Peter Hogg pointed out at the
time, the court effectively was telling the B.C. government that
it could impose its own conditions: Read the full
article by Supriya Tandan and published in the CBA
National.
Energy Battle Heating up: FortisBC Complains
as [Vancouver] Phases out Fossil Fuels
FortisBC is protesting green building plans that would
reduce energy consumption in
Vancouver and cut into its customer base, say city staff
The municipality is trying to phase out the use of
fossil-fuel-derived natural gas (and other non-renewable fuels)
in the city by
2050 and bring in more biomethane, a renewable natural gas
captured from agricultural waste, landfills,
waste-water-treatment plants and other sources. To help hit that
target, the city had brought in rules for new construction that
would require — by
2030 — new buildings to be heated by zero-emission
sources, such as district energy, electricity or renewable
natural gas. All homes would still be able to use gas ranges and
other appliances using natural gas in either form until 2050.
Although FortisBC will still be free to deliver product to
customers in the city, proven technology is not yet in use to
produce enough biomethane in BC to heat the city, and the
utility would stand to lose a massive amount of its market share
to electrical and district energy utilities as a result of the
city's policies. Read The Vancouver Sun
article.
Legal Challenges Will Not Prevent Kinder Morgan
from
Moving ahead, Experts Say
Court challenges by First Nations of Kinder Morgan's
$6.8-billion Trans Mountain pipeline could slow the expansion
down but are not likely to scuttle the project, say legal
experts. There are already seven challenges of the National
Energy Board (NEB) approval of the project at the Federal Court
of Appeal – four from First Nations. More are expected now
that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government has given its
approval Tuesday, [November 29th]. First Nations'
challenges are considered to hold more heft than those from
Burnaby, Vancouver and environmental groups because aboriginal
rights are entrenched in Canada's constitution and mounting
court cases have increased Canada's need to consult and
accommodate First Nations. "It could slow things down –
that's really the extent of it," said University of BC law
professor Gordon Christie of the First Nation legal challenges.
"The kinds of arguments they are making, they don't have, at
this point, what counts as a veto," he said. And even if the
courts were to rule in First Nations' favour that they were not
adequately consulted, it does not mean the government and
company could not pay a penalty later with compensation for
First Nations, said Christie. There are First Nation court
challenges of BC Hydro's $8.3-billion Site C project, and that
project continues to move forward, noted Christie. Robin Junger,
a lawyer and co-chair of McMillian LLP's aboriginal and
environmental practice in Vancouver, said litigation does not
suspend the decision on Kinder Morgan's pipeline project, from
the NEB or the federal government. Read The Vancouver Sun
article.
|
Act or Regulation
Affected |
Effective
Date |
Amendment Information |
Administrative Penalties Regulation (35/2011) |
Nov. 7/16 |
by Reg
267/2016 |
Oil and Gas Activities Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 333 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Petroleum and Natural Gas Drilling Licence and Lease Regulation
(10/82) |
Nov. 7/16 |
by Reg
268/2016 |
FAMILY
& CHILDREN |
Family and Children
News:
Former New Brunswick Youth Advocate,
Politician, Picked as BC's New Child Rep
A former New Brunswick politician and the province's first child
advocate is British Columbia's acting representative for
children and youth and is slated to assume to post full-time by
early next year. Bernard Richard, 65, was recommended [November
15th] to take over the job by an all-party government
committee searching to replace Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond who held
the position for a decade. Richard will serve as acting
representative, effective Nov. 27, until his appointment can
become official with a majority vote in the BC legislature. The
legislature is not scheduled to resume sitting until early
February. Richard was elected to the New Brunswick legislature
as a Liberal from 1991 to 2003, where he held several cabinet
posts, including education and aboriginal affairs. He served as
the provincial ombudsman and the child and youth advocate after
retiring from elected office. BC selection committee chairman
Don McRae said Richard's record of serving children and youth,
managing public organizations and working with indigenous
communities qualifies him for the position. "What it came down
to was passion to do the job, ability to do the job and a proven
track record that you've done similar work in the past," said
McRae, a Liberal member of the legislature representing Comox
Valley. Read the Canadian Press story
by Dirk Meissner, published on FindLaw Canada.
|
Act or Regulation
Affected |
Effective
Date |
Amendment Information |
Adoption Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 253 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act
|
Adoption Agency Regulation (292/96) |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
211/2015 |
Adoption Regulation (291/96) |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
211/2015 |
Community Living Authority Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 294 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Provincial Court (Adult Guardianship) Rules (30/2001) |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
212/2015 |
Provincial Court (Child, Family & Community Service) Rules
(533/95) |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
212/2015 |
Small Claims Rules (261/93) |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
212/2015 |
Social Workers Regulation (323/2008) |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
211/2015 |
FOREST
& ENVIRONMENT |
Forest and Environment News:
Visual Quality Objectives and the Rule of Law
This past summer the Forest Appeals Commission (FAC) released
its decision in the appeal of Interfor Corporation v.
Government of British Columbia. The appeal considered a
contravention determination under the Forest
and Range Practices Act (FRPA) that the appellant
did not achieve the intended results specified in its forest
stewardship plan (FSP) in relation to visual quality
objectives (VQO), contrary to Section
21(1) of FRPA. The case is interesting from a legal
perspective given the almost impossibly subjective standards
the FAC was called upon to apply in order to dispose of the
appeal. At issue was whether the appellant achieved a VQO of
partial retention after completion of its harvesting
activities in a particular cutblock (as required in the FSP),
or whether the appellant, instead, achieved a VQO of
modification. Without getting bogged down in the legislative
linkages, the requirements of the various categories of VQOs
for altered forest landscapes are defined in Section
1.1 of the Forest
Planning and Practices Regulation (FPPR) from the lowest
degree of alteration preservation) through to the highest
(maximum modification). In between these two poles exist
retention, partial retention, and modification. In large
measure, these VQOs are defined in terms of scale within the
altered forest landscape, and in terms of visibility. So,
already, one might suggest that a problem exists insofar as
scale and visibility are closely linked. In this respect, the
FAC determined that visibility is assessed with reference to
human perception (literally, an eyeball test) and scale is,
instead, assessed relative to the landscape. Read the full
article by Jeff
Waatainen of DLA Piper and published in the latest
November-December issue of the BC Professional Forest
Magazine.
Fisheries Act to be Replaced January 1st
BC's new Fish
and Seafood Act is scheduled to come into force
on January 1, 2017. The new Act will consolidate and replace
the Fish
Inspection Act and the Fisheries
Act, and will modernize the licensing and
regulation of the buying, selling, handling, storing and
processing of fish, shellfish and aquatic plants. The Fish
and Seafood Act will increase the need for licences,
data collection, and traceability and would boost enforcement
and penalties.
Will Climate Litigation Come to Canada?
So Canada has ratified the Paris climate agreement. Now what?
The accord, designed to spur action on cutting CO2
emissions, though unlike the Kyoto deal not "legally binding,"
has been hailed as a triumph for advancing the fight against
climate change. Some uncertainty for the deal notwithstanding
– U.S. President-elect Donald Trump has offered mixed
messages about the deal and, indeed, whether he believes in
climate change at all – the legal community is already
honing in on what the international deal means for Canada. And
there's good reason to prepare the briefs. In 2015, before the
Paris deal was struck, a Dutch court ordered the government to
reduce CO2 emissions by a quarter in a landmark
civil case initiated by climate activists. More recently, 21
children beat an effort to quash their lawsuit against the
American government in a federal court, where they plan to
argue that the government is impacting their right to live in
a clean and safe environment. Environmental and youths groups
are also suing Norway's government for violating the climate
treaty by awarding drilling licenses to oil companies in the
Arctic. Canada's history with climate litigation is more
scant. An attempt to force Ottawa to adhere to its own
legislation, implementing the Kyoto Accord, was
tossed out of a federal court in 2008. The Paris
Agreement, in theory at least, was designed explicitly to
prevent litigation against laggard governments. Read the full
article by Justin Ling and published in the CBA
National.
Environmental Appeal Board Decisions
The following Environmental Appeal Board decisions were released
in the month of November:
Water Act
Visit the Environmental Appeal Board website for more information.
|
Act or Regulation
Affected |
Effective
Date |
Amendment Information |
Administrative Penalties Regulation (Environmental Management
Act) (133/2014) |
Nov. 1/16 |
by Reg
218/2016 |
First Nation Tenures Regulation |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
211/2016 |
Forest Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, sections 309 and 310 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Hunting Regulation (190/84) |
Nov. 10/16 |
by Reg
270/2016 |
Motor Vehicle Prohibition Regulation (196/99) |
Nov. 10/16 |
by Reg
270/2016 |
Park, Conservancy and Recreation Area Regulation (180/90) |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
211/2016 |
Range Regulation (116/2004) |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
211/2016 |
Sole Proponent Fees Regulation (224/2013) |
Nov. 7/16 |
by Reg
264/2016 |
Solid Fuel Burning Domestic Appliance Regulation (218/2016)
(replaces B.C. Reg. 302/94) |
NEW
Nov. 1/16
|
see Reg
218/2016 |
Solid Fuel Burning Domestic Appliance Regulation (302/94) |
REPEALED
Nov. 1/16
|
by Reg
218/2016 |
Transfer Regulation (351/2004) |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
211/2016 |
Weed Control Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 362 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Wildlife Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 363 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Wildlife Management Areas Regulation (12/2015) |
Nov. 16/16 |
by Reg
272/2016 |
HEALTH |
Feds Promise Legislative Changes to Address
Canada's Deadly Opioid Crisis
Health Minister Jane Philpott is vowing to leave no stone
unturned as the federal government eyes a number of legislative
changes to address an opioid crisis that has resulted in
hundreds of deaths in Canada this year alone. The federal
government is trying to turn the tide of the emergency, Philpott
said at the conclusion of an Ottawa summit on the issue, noting
it will require partnership with her cabinet colleagues in
public safety, justice and foreign affairs. "In the coming
months, there are a number of pieces of legislation that are
going to address matters related to the opioid crisis and
certainly we will do the work necessary," she said. Health
experts and ministers gathered for a two-day event to examine a
national approach to addiction, overdose and deaths related to
opioid use. Canadians with mental illness and addictions should
not be treated differently than cancer or cardiac patients, said
Ontario Health Minister Eric Hoskins. "It was a beginning of our
collaboration and co-ordination, it will not be the end," he
said. Read The Vancouver Sun article.
Seeking Feedback on Regulation for
Health-care Assistants
The Province is seeking feedback on a proposed new approach to
regulate health-care assistants, which would see a new registry
model established under a newly formed single provincial nursing
college. Health-care assistants are front-line workers who
provide basic nursing care such as personal hygiene, dressing,
feeding and medication assistance to seniors and other adults in
a variety of settings including residential care, assisted
living and the client's home. There are almost 33,000
health-care assistants registered in the BC Care Aide and
Community Health Worker Registry. Currently, all health-care
assistants who work for publicly funded employers are required
to register, and some private employers have opted to
participate voluntarily. While the existing registry has
significantly improved the regulation of health-care assistants
since it was established in 2010, concerns about the limited
ability of the current registry model to provide oversight of
health-care assistants have been expressed by the BC
ombudsperson, the BC seniors advocate and through an external
review initiated by the Ministry of Health. After consulting
with professionals in the field, the proposed new approach for
regulating health-care assistants is intended to address these
concerns and enhance patient safety. Read Government news
release.
"Universality" Sort of – No One Else
Does Medicare this Way
Opinion – Ian Mulgrew
Another expert testifying at the groundbreaking B.C. Supreme
Court Medicare trial made it sound as if there is little hope of
an honest public policy debate about health care reform.
Professor emeritus at the University of Western Ontario and a
C.D. Howe Institute expert in health economics, Åke
Blomqvist portrayed the national discussion as befuddled by
Orwellian doublespeak and bedevilled by vested interests. He
claims leading developed countries in recent years have reformed
their health care systems for the 21st century, while
Canada remains mired in a rhetorical showdown. "Deep but
narrow," is how Blomqvist described "universality" in Canada
testifying at the constitutional challenge to B.C.'s Medicare
Protection Act. In other words, if you're talking
about financing hospitals and physician services, Blomqvist
explained, Canada has nearly 90 per cent coverage, it's deep.
But if you are talking actual "health care," which involves
drugs, dental, vision, mental wellness, long-term care, etc., we
are laggards – we cover too narrow a range of services.
Read the full Vancouver Sun opinion
piece by Ian Mulgrew.
Immediate Relief: Application for Certification of
BC Cold-Fx Class Action Dismissed
The British Columbia Supreme Court recently dismissed an
application for certification of a class action regarding the
cold and flu product Cold-Fx in Harrison
v. Afexa Life Sciences Inc. (Harrison).
The plaintiff alleged that Cold-Fx was falsely marketed as
providing "immediate relief" from cold and flu symptoms. Justice
Dillon dismissed the application, finding, among other things,
that there was no objectively identifiable class, no evidence of
two or more persons who had common complaints that they sought
to have resolved in a class action, no rational relationship
between the proposed class and the proposed common issues, and
no appropriate representative plaintiff. Notably, Justice Dillon
concluded that Mr. Harrison was merely a placeholder for his
counsel, and not a genuine representative for the class, as he
had been recruited by counsel and there was no evidence that he
had participated in the litigation other than providing a brief
affidavit four years prior to the certification application.
Read the full article by
Joshua Hutchinson and Robin
Reinertson with Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP.
|
Act or
Regulation Affected |
Effective
Date |
Amendment Information |
Amalgamation of Regional Health Boards and Community Health
Councils Regulation |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
211/2015 |
Emergency Health Services Act
|
Nov. 28/16
|
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 303 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Health Authorities Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 312 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Health Professions Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 313 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Hospital Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, sections 315 to
318 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Hospital Insurance Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, sections 315 to 318 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Hospital Transfer Regulation (359/94) |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
211/2015 |
Information Regulation (208/2010) |
Nov. 7/16 |
by Reg
265/2016 |
Mental Health Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 329 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Midwives Regulation (281/2008) |
Nov. 24/16 |
by Reg
274
/2016 |
Pacific Coast University for Workplace
Health Sciences Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, sections 334 to 336 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Patient Care Quality Review Board Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 338 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 340 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Provider Regulation (222/2014) |
Nov. 7/16 |
by Reg
266/2016 |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
211/2015 |
Public Health Bylaws Regulation (42/2004) |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
255/2016 |
LABOUR
& EMPLOYMENT |
Labour and Employment News:
Gender Expression and Gender Identity Now Express
Grounds of Discrimination under Code
Following the previous post
on the British Columbia government's bill to amend the Human
Rights Code [Code] earlier this year,
the bill recently received royal assent and "gender identity
and gender expression" are now expressly included in the Code
as protected grounds. Though the meaning and application of
these new protected grounds will need to be fleshed out by
Tribunal and court decisions, the Tribunal's website
now provides the following descriptions:
Gender Expression: Gender expression is
how a person presents their gender. This can include
behaviour and appearance, including dress, hair, make-up,
body language and voice. This can also include name and
pronoun, such as he, she or they. How a person presents
their gender may not necessarily reflect their gender
identity.
Gender Identity: Gender identity is a
person's sense of themselves as male, female, both, in
between or neither. It includes people who identify as
transgender. Gender identity may be different or the same as
the sex a person is assigned at birth.
Read the full
article by Ryley
Mennie and Jack Ruttle of McCarthy Tétrault
LLP.
|
Act or Regulation
Affected |
Effective
Date |
Amendment Information |
Employment Standards Regulation (396/95) |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
211/2015 |
Labour Relations Code
|
Nov. 28/16
|
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 325 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Public Sector Employers Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, sections 344 to 346 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
University Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, sections 359 to 360 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT |
Local Government News:
No "Grandfathering" Out of Requirement for
Development Permit
In a recent decision, the BC Supreme Court confirmed that
on-going development projects commenced before the enactment of
an Official Community Plan are not exempt from the requirements
of that OCP, nor will they be protected by the "legal
non-conforming" provisions of the Local
Government Act. The case of Columbia Shuswap
(Regional District) v Darnell, 2016
BCSC 1674 ("Darnell") concerns the developer of a
lakefront property. In 2005, the developer undertook a project
to restore a field on the property, which entailed placing large
amounts of fill within 30 meters of the lake. In 2014, the
Regional District adopted an official community plan bylaw (the
"OCP"), which, amongst other things, created a riparian
development permit area. Under the OCP, any work involving the
disruption or disturbance of soil and vegetation within 30
meters of a watercourse requires a development permit. The
property fell within the OCP's riparian development permit area.
Shortly before the OCP was adopted, the developer met with
Regional District staff, and was (allegedly) informed that she
would not be required to obtain development permits for her
on-going project (although at trial staff denied telling the
developer she did not need a development permit). A few months
later, the developer dumped 20 loads of fill within 30 meters of
the lake without obtaining a development permit. The Regional
District then informed her that she needed to obtain a
development permit, which she refused to do. This led the
Regional District to seek a declaration that the developer was
in breach of the OCP, an injunction requiring the developer to
obtain a development permit in accordance with the OCP, and an
order that if the developer failed to do so, the Regional
District could enter the property and remove the fill at the
developer's expense. Read the full
article by Madelaine Campbell of Stewart McDannold
Stuart.
UBCM Analysis of Emergency Program Act (EPA)
Review Feedback
UBCM has completed an analysis
of feedback provided by local government in response to the
provincial discussion
paper on the legislative framework for emergency
management in BC. The discussion paper is part of the Province's
first full scale review of the Emergency
Program Act (EPA) since its inception in 1993. A
letter from UBCM President Murry Krause to Minister of State for
Emergency Preparedness Naomi Yamamoto briefly outlined the UBCM
submission, and requested the Minister review the issues and
concerns raised by the 49 local authority respondents. UBCM also
made three broad recommendations, based on local authority
input, for consideration by Emergency Management BC (EMBC) as
the process to amend the Emergency Program Act
continues:
- The need for further consultation in the process to renew
Act (including an ability to see draft legislation);
- Local authority difficulty in assuming greater
responsibility, in some cases even if corresponding funding
were to be provided; and
- A desire to maintain the current level of local government
authority (legislative or otherwise), and caution regarding
proposals that infringe on that authority.
Read the UBCM article.
Amendments to Contaminated Sites Regulation
The Ministry of Environment will be delivering a series of
webinars in November and December to outline the changes and
implications of the recently approved Omnibus amendments to the
Contaminated Sites Regulation. For more information on the dates
and registration, please refer to the following article
published on the UBCM website: http://www.ubcm.ca/EN/meta/news/news-archive/2016-archive/amendments-to-contaminated-sites-regulation.html
Verification of True Copies under Part 10.1 of the Land
Title Act
As announced on October
3, 2016, the Land Title and Survey Authority of British
Columbia (LTSA) is implementing the Quality Verification program
with lawyers and notaries to ensure electronic filing subscriber
compliance with Part
10.1 of the Land
Title Act. Compliance with the Act is critical to
maintaining the integrity of BC's land title system. The
Director of Land Titles published Practice
Note 02-16 Truing Up an Original Electronic Instrument to
clarify truing up principles. These principles provide guidance
concerning the interpretation of Part 10.1 of the Land
Title Act, specifically around true copies of electronic
land title forms. The Registrar of Land Titles will now begin
verifying subscribers' pending electronic land title submissions
for compliance with Part 10.1. Under the authority of s.
168.51 of the Land Title Act, the Registrar can,
while an application is pending, verify whether subscribers who
electronically signed submitted forms had in their possession a
true copy, a copy of a true copy or, where applicable, the
original of the supporting document. Read the full
article published on the BC Land Title & Survey
website.
|
Act or Regulation
Affected |
Effective
Date |
Amendment Information |
Architects (Landscape) Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 302 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
BC Online Regulation |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
211/2015 |
Compensation and Disaster Financial Assistance Regulation
(124/95) |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
211/2015 |
Destination BC Corp. Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 291 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
First Investment Plan Regulation (271/2016) |
NEW
Nov. 10/16 |
see Reg
271/2016 |
Gas Safety Regulation (103/2004) |
Nov. 1/16 |
by Reg
209/2016 |
Gaming Control Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 311 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Independent School Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 321 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Power Engineers, Boiler, Pressure Vessel and Refrigeration
Safety Regulation (252/2016) |
Nov. 7/16 |
by Reg
252/2016 |
Resort Associations Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, sections 347 and 348 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Resort Municipality of Whistler Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 349 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
School Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 351 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
School Site Acquisition Charge Regulation (17/2000) |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
211/2015 |
Teachers Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 356 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Union of British Columbia Municipalities Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, sections 357 and 358 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Vancouver Foundation Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, sections 361 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
MISCELLANEOUS
|
Miscellaneous News:
Is Third-party Litigation Funding
Coming to a Court near You?
Big corporations may soon be looking at third-party litigation
funding as a means to go after commercial matters they thought
would be too costly to fight. In September, Bentham IMF hosted a
panel of litigators, legal experts and academics from Canada,
Australia and the U.S. in Toronto to discuss the Canadian
perspective on litigation funding. The discussion focused on how
litigation funding might serve the legal market in Canada and on
the legal and ethical questions that arise in funding
transactions. "The funders are certainly in our marketplace
looking for cases," says Lincoln Caylor, commercial litigation
and fraud lawyer with Bennett Jones LLP in Toronto who was part
of the Bentham roundtable in September. "Firms that . . . don't
realize that if you're acting for potential defendants and/or if
you have potential plaintiffs [with] this in the market and it's
not going away." Bentham IMF released a white
paper today on the findings of the roundtable. "Our market
research indicates that Canada is likely to embrace litigation
funding, just as we have seen in other sophisticated legal
markets throughout the world. It's very exciting to be at the
forefront of building this industry in Canada," says Tania
Sulan, chief investment officer with Bentham in Toronto. Read
the full
article by Jennifer
Brown and published on the blog Legal Feeds.
BC Man Signs First-of-its-kind Canadian Cryonic Contract
Province says laws only prevent sales of cryogenic
services with "expectation" of being resuscitated
A BC man who is challenging provincial laws surrounding the
preservation of the body after death has signed a groundbreaking
cryonic contract. The four-page deal between Keegan Macintosh
and the Lifespan Society of BC is believed to be the first time
a Canadian has signed with a local provider to keep their body
in a state of permanent suspension. The contract is the latest
twist in an unusual
BC Supreme Court showdown over the province's Cremation,
Interment and Funeral Services Act. Macintosh's
claim says the province is the only place in the world to outlaw
cryonics. In its legal response, the province has said the only
cryonics vendors barred by the legislation are those who imply
that customers may "expect" to be brought back to life in the
future. Read the CBC article.
|
Act or Regulation
Affected |
Effective
Date |
Amendment Information |
Association of Former MLAs
of British Columbia Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, sections 257 to 259 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
British Columbia Neurotrauma Fund Contribution Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, sections 260 and
261 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Christ for the Nations Bible College Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 291 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
College and Institute Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 291 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Crown Counsel Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 291 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Fees and Student Tuition Protection Fund Regulation (140/2016) |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
211/2015 |
Independent School Regulation (262/89) |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
221/2016 |
Knowledge Network Corporation Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 324 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Legal Services Society Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 327 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 328 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
New Relationship Trust Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 331 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Notaries Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 332 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Private Training Regulation (153/2016) |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
153/2016 |
Sea to Sky University Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, sections 352 to 354 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
World Trade University Canada Establishment Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 364 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
MOTOR
VEHICLE & TRAFFIC |
Motor Vehicle and Traffic
News:
We Should Know if BC Gets Uber before Provincial
Election, Says Minister
Nearly 81% of provincial Liberal delegates voted to
support ride-sharing
legislation at weekend convention
It may only be a matter of months before British
Columbians know whether ride-sharing services such as Uber and
Lyft will be allowed in the province. Minister of Community,
Sport and Cultural Development Peter Fassbender told host Gloria
Macarenko on CBC's The
Early Edition the province's extensive consultation
on ride-sharing shows support for the services. "Consumers have
told us clearly they want more choice, they want more
flexibility," he said. "They feel like at times they are
underserved and so we feel like it's important that we look at
what that might mean for them." Nearly 81 per cent of delegates
at this weekend's B.C. Liberal convention supported the creation
of ride-sharing legislation. This pro-ride share stance is in
opposition to Vancouver's position at the moment. Read the CBC
article.
Government Getting out of the Business of
Insuring High-end Luxury Cars
Government is moving forward to no longer insure the high-end
luxury car rate class (cars worth $150,000 and over) so that the
broader ratepayer is not subsidizing these cars. The owners of
these cars will have to go to private insurance instead,
Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Todd Stone
announced today. The high-end luxury car market is a growing
market, with 3,000 cars insured this past year, a 30% increase
compared to three years ago. Government is acting now to address
the rising costs to repair these cars and to eliminate any
pressures they cause on basic rates. The government will get to
work on the necessary legislative changes to have ICBC no longer
insure these high-end luxury cars. Read the Government news
release.
CVSE Bulletins & Notices
A number of important bulletins and notices have been posted by
CVSE in November. These include:
- Circular
10-16 Notice of Introduction of Pilot Car Load Movement
Guidelines
- CVSE1049
Extraordinary Load Approval Request
For more information on these and other items, visit the CVSE
website.
|
Act or Regulation
Affected |
Effective
Date |
Amendment Information |
Motor Dealer Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 330 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Motor Vehicle Act Regulations (26/58) |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
211/2015 |
Passenger Transportation Regulation (266/2004) |
Nov. 28/16 |
by Reg
211/2015 |
Violation Ticket Administration and Fines Regulation (89/97) |
Nov. 1/16 |
by Reg 219/2016 |
PROPERTY
& REAL ESTATE |
Property and Real Estate
News:
Strata Owners Attempt to Characterize
Fines as Strata Fees Unsuccessful
The Owners, Strata Plan BCS3648 v Podwinski, 2016
BCSC 2253, a short oral judgment made in August, tackles
an interesting issue. Section
116 of the Strata Property Act allows a strata
corporation to "register a lien against an owner's strata lot
… if the owner fails to pay the strata corporation any of
the following with respect to that strata lot:
- strata fees;
- a special levy;
- a reimbursement of the cost of work referred to in section
85;
- the strata lot's share of a judgment against the strata
corporation."
Conspicuous by its absence from this list is a fine applied to
an owner for a bylaw or rule contravention. Sometimes an owner
will take issue with a fine and refuse to pay it. This owner may
continue to pay strata fees as they come due. Can the strata
corporation accept such a payment, apply it first to the amount
owing for the fine, claim that the resulting shortfall means the
owner is now in default of paying strata fees, and thereby
obtain the security afforded by the statutory lien? This is the
situation that presented itself to the court in Podwinski.
The case concerned "a multi-family, apartment-style condominium
complex located in Surrey." The respondent was a strata-lot
owner. The petitioner was the strata corporation. Read the full
BCLI article.
Metro in debt: Non-bank or "Private" Lenders Feed
(or Rescue) Debt-addicted Homebuyers
By the time desperate borrowers – and they are always
desperate – find Allan Sadler, they have already been
turned down by banks and credit unions. Mortgage brokers like
North Vancouver-based Sadler deal in the private lending market,
sometimes called the shadow lending market, and specialize in
arranging loans for borrowers with very poor credit history and
little proof of income. Usually the lenders make loans to home
buyers or other residential or commercial borrowers for a short
period of time, such as 12 to 18 months, and at higher rates,
which range from five to 15 per cent, depending on the level of
risk (weighing such factors as whether it is a first, second or
third mortgage and how much of the house has already been paid
off). Recently, Sadler's clients, a 53-year-old woman and her
55-year-old husband, were facing the foreclosure of the
Tsawwassen home they share with their 16-year-old son. They had
bought, renovated and sold a few homes through their own small
renovation company. They had also borrowed and lost "almost $2
million" when a 19-unit town home project they were developing
in Langley "didn't sell for as much as we thought it would,"
said the woman, who agreed to speak to Postmedia News, but
didn't want her name published. Read The Vancouver Sun
article.
|
Act or Regulation
Affected |
Effective
Date |
Amendment Information |
Building Officials' Association Act
|
Nov. 28/16
|
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 262 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Home Owner Grant Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 314 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
Property Transfer Tax Act |
Nov. 28/16 |
by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 341 only (in force by Reg
216/2015), Societies
Act |
WILLS
& ESTATES |
Wills and Estates News:
Counting the Days: How to Calculate the
Five-Day Survival Period
in Section 10 of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act
Section
10 of the Wills,
Estates and Succession Act provides for a 5-day
survival before a person may inherit from another. For example,
if in your will you leave your estate to your spouse, then she
must survive you for a period of at least five days (although
you may specify a longer survival period in your will).
Similarly, if you and your spouse hold your residence as joint
tenants, then for either of you to acquire the whole of the
property by right-of-survivorship, the survivor must outlive the
other by at least five days. Otherwise, in the case of a joint
tenancy, if both joint tenants die within five days of each
other, then one-half interest passes through the estate of each
co-owner. Section 10 (1) and (2) read as follows: Read the full
article by
Stan Rule, of Sabey Rule LLP and published on his blog Rule
of Law.
Inheritances Used to Purchase Property Placed
in
Joint Tenancy – November 2016 Update
On November 17, 2016 the BCSC decision in Lahdekorpi v.
Lahdekorpi, 2016
BCSC 2143, was released, which gives us yet another little
nugget on division of excluded property, in particular when
inheritance funds are used to purchase property placed in joint
tenancy with a spouse. At trial, the husband had conceded that
the wife's $30,000 inheritance was excluded property. Mid-way
through the trial, and after the Court of Appeal decision in V.J.F.
v. S.K.W., 2016
BCCA 186 was released, the husband changed his position
and argued that the wife was not entitled to keep her
inheritance because the money had been used to purchase the
family home, therefore he argued that she lost her claim to
exclusion by putting the property in joint tenancy, which gave
him right of survivorship. Mr. Justice Harris in Ladhekorpi
distinguished the V.J.F. case and found that the
wife's $30,000 inheritance was still considered excluded
property, saying, at paragraph 94: Read the full
article by
Karen F. Redmond published on JP Boyd on Family Law: the
Blog, by Collaborative Divorce Vancouver.
Committeeship and the Patients
Property Act
Re Haston 2016
BCSC 1962 is a good review of the law relating to the
appointment of a committee under the Patients
Property Act, as well as the criteria for choosing
the best party to be the committee. Once appointed the
committeeship voids any Powers of Attorney or Representation
agreements that existed prior to the court order for
committeeship.
21 The applicable statutory provisions for the
judicial determination of whether a person is incapable of
managing herself or her affairs are found in s.
3 of the Patients Property Act
Hearing of application
3 |
(1) |
If, on |
|
|
(a) |
hearing an application, and |
|
|
(b) |
reading the affidavits of 2 medical
practitioners setting out their opinion that the person
who is the subject of the application is, because of |
|
|
|
(i) |
mental infirmity arising from disease, age or
otherwise, or |
|
|
|
(ii) |
disorder or disability of mind arising from the use
of drugs, incapable of managing his or her affairs or
incapable of managing himself or herself, or incapable
of managing himself or herself or his or her affairs,
incapable of managing his or her affairs or incapable of
managing himself or herself, or incapable of managing
himself or herself or his or her affairs, it must, by
order, declare the person … |
Read the full
article by Trevor Todd, 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. |