Charter Committee Research Articles

Factum of the Charter Committee on Poverty Issues, the Canadian Health Coalition and the FCJ Refugee Centre in Toussaint v Canada (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)

Factum of the Charter Committee on Poverty Issues, the Canadian Health Coalition and the FCJ Refugee Centre in Toussaint v Canada (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)

Optimization of reaction variables <i>in situ</i> transesterification of <i>Jatropha curcas</i> seed oil for biodiesel production

Biodiesel was produced from seed oil of Jatropha curcas by in situ acid-catalyzed transesterification with methanol. Optimization of the reaction parameters was carried out using response surface methodology based on Box-Behnken design. All the four variables investigated were found to be significant. The empirical model obtained adequately expresses the relationship between the biodiesel yield and the statistically significant reaction variables (R 2 = 96.97%). The optimization result predicted an optimal biodiesel yield of 84.07% at a reaction temperature of 48°C; a reaction time of 240 min; with 5 cm 3 methanol/g of the seed and catalyst concentration of 0.88M. The validation result was in agreement with the predicted biodiesel yield. The fatty acid methyl profile of the biodiesel shows that it predominantly contains methyl esters of octadecenoic acid, octadecadienoic acid and hexadecanoic acid which make up about 87% the biodiesel. The fuel properties of the biodiesel were in agreement with the requirements of Worldwide Fuel Charter Committee Biodiesel Guidelines. Keywords: Jatropha curcas , Biodiesel, In situ transesterification, Optimization, Box-Behnken

Optimization of Reaction Variables in situ Transesterification of Jatropha curcas Oilseed in Biodiesel

Biodiesel was produced from seed oil of Jatropha curcas by in situ acid-catalyzed transesterification with methanol. Optimization of the reaction parameters was carried out using response surface methodology based on Box-Behnken design. All the four variables investigated were found to be significant. The empirical model obtained adequately expresses the relationship between the biodiesel yield and the statistically significant reaction variables (R2 = 96.97%). The optimization result predicted an optimal biodiesel yield of 84.07% at a reaction temperature of 48°C; a reaction time of 240 min; when 5 cm3/g a volume of methanol and catalyst concentration of 0.88M. The validation result was in agreement with the predicted biodiesel yield. The fatty acid methyl profile of the biodiesel shows that it predominantly contains methyl esters of octadecenoic acid, octadecadienoic acid and hexadecanoic acid which make up about 87% the biodiesel. The fuel properties of the biodiesel were in agreement with requirements of Worldwide Fuel Charter Committee Biodiesel Guidelines.

Investor Rights and the Judicial Denial of the Neoliberal Constitutionalism

This paper argues that the Canadian judiciary engages in a form of constitutional abnegation by insisting that international investment law, as represented by NAFTA’s investment chapter, plays no role in Canada’s constitutional order. By conferring rights upon investors, enforceable against states in private arenas, for breach of investment treaty obligations, states are subject to the disciplines that sometimes mimic, and other times go well beyond, those found in dominant national constitutional systems. The Canadian judiciary lacks the courage – ‘constitutional courage,’ in Harry Arthur’s words – to admit that external legal regimes can have the effect of significantly transforming domestic constitutionalism. To illustrate, I take up constitutional litigation initiated by the Council of Canadians, the Canadian Union of Canadian Union of Postal Workers, and the Charter Committee on Poverty Issues challenging the consistency NAFTA’s investment chapter with Canada’s constitution. Predictably, their arguments were dismissed by various levels of court on the basis that international law and domestic constitutional law operate in ‘different spheres.’ It turns out that, according to these judges, the international investment regime has no connection with constitutionalism here or abroad.

Factum of the Intervener: Charter Committee on Poverty Issues, Pivot Legal Society and Justice for Girls in Tanudjaja v. Canada (Ontario Court of Appeal)

The Charter Committee on Poverty Issues, Pivot Legal Society, and Justice for Girls intervened jointly in the appeal of a motion to dismiss the Application in this case. The Appellants argue that the Respondents’ laws, policies, and programs have created and sustained increasing levels of homelessness and inadequate housing in Ontario and Canada in a manner that violates life, security of the person and equality guarantees under sections 7 and 15 of the Charter. The Interveners submit that hearing and deciding the Appellants’ legal claim based on a full evidentiary record, falls squarely within the assigned role of the judiciary in Canada’s constitutional democracy. The Interveners urge the Court of Appeal to reverse the Superior Court’s decision and to allow those suffering rights violations because of homelessness and inadequate housing to obtain a full and fair hearing of their Charter claims in this case.

Factum of the Intervener: Counsel for the Charter Committee on Poverty Issues and the Canadian Health Coalition in Chaoulli v. Quubec (Procureur GGnnral)

The Interveners submit that section 7 of the Charter (the right to life, liberty and security of the person) guarantees a right to health, including access to health care based on need rather than ability to pay. The Interveners submit that the impugned provisions do not infringe, but rather are a positive measure mandated by section 7. The impugned provisions prevent the development of a two-tiered system that would have a discriminatory effect on the ability of poor people, women, seniors and people with disabilities to access health care. Canada's international human rights obligations, in particular Article 3 of the Universal Declaration and Article 12(1) of the ICESCR, prescribe an interpretation of section 7 and 15 of the Charter that recognizes the right to access health care. In cases where the publicly funded health care system violates a Charter right to health, the appropriate remedy is to order governments to take required measures to respect, protect and fulfill the right to health for all members of Canadian society. It is not to grant the economically advantaged a constitutional right to pay for services effectively denied to the poor.

Factum of the Charter Committee on Poverty Issues and the Canadian Health Coalition in: Canada (Attorney General) v. Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care (Federal Court of Appeal)

The Charter Committee on Poverty Issues (CCPI) together with the Canadian Health Coalition, sought leave to intervene in before the Federal Court of Appeal to challenge Juctice Mactavish's finding, at trial, that depriving refugees of federal health benefits did not violate of the rights to life and to security of the person guaranteed under section 7 of the Charter. The intervention sought to challenge this finding, and the implication that those who rely on publicly funded health care do not enjoy the same level of section 7 protection found, in the 2005 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Chaoulli v Quebec (Attorney General), to apply to those who can afford privately funded health care. The CCPI/CHC application for leave to intervene was rejected by the Federal Court of Appeal.

Factum of the Intervenor: Charter Committee on Poverty Issues in J.G. v. Minister of Health and Community Services (N.B.) et al. (Supreme Court of Canada)

The Charter Committee on Poverty Issues (CCPI) submits that both child protection proceedings and the denial of legal aid disproportionately affect people in poverty, and marginalized women in particular. Section 7 must be read to impose an obligation on the State to ensure that disadvantaged members of society, who cannot afford counsel, receive equal access to a fair hearing in proceedings affecting their liberty and security interests. In the present case, it was fundamentally unfair to force the Appellant to defend herself in a child protection hearing. Without effective legal representation by counsel, the Appellant was denied the fair and equal treatment upon which the legitimacy of the judicial system and child protection proceedings depend. The denial of legal aid based on budgetary or administrative considerations alone cannot be justified under section 1 of the Charter. Furthermore, the categorical denial of legal aid to a poor parent in child protection cases does not minimally impair a parent's Charter right to liberty and security of the person.

Written Representations of the Proposed Interveners:  Charter Committee on Poverty Issues and the Canadian Health Coalition in Canada V Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care (Federal Court of Appeal)

Written Representations of the Proposed Interveners:  Charter Committee on Poverty Issues and the Canadian Health Coalition in Canada V Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care (Federal Court of Appeal)

Factum of the Intervener Charter Committee on Poverty Issues, Pivot Legal Society, Income Security Advocacy Centre and Justice for Girls in: Tanudjaja v. Canada (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)

The Charter Committee on Poverty Issues, Pivot Legal Society, the Income Security Advocacy Centre and Justice for Girls intervened jointly in the challenge to a motion to dismiss the Application in this case. The Applicants argue that the Respondents’ laws, policies, and programs have created and sustained increasing levels of homelessness and inadequate housing in Ontario and Canada in a manner that violates life, security of the person and equality guarantees under sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Interveners submit that hearing and deciding the Applicants’ legal claim based on a full evidentiary record, falls squarely within the assigned role of the judiciary in Canada’s constitutional democracy. The Interveners urge the Superior Court to dismiss the Respondents’ motion to dismiss the Application and to allow those suffering rights violations because of homelessness and inadequate housing to obtain a full and fair hearing of their Charter claims in this case.

Greece violating the European Social Charter regarding young persons labour rights (Complaint 66/2011, European Social Charter Committee Decision of 23 May 2012)

In the present framework of a severe economic crisis, Greece undertook several obligations towards the troika (EU, European Central Bank and IMF) regarding the reconstruction-deregulation of labour relations. Thus, the Law 3863 of 15 July 2010, introduced ‘special apprenticeship contracts’ between employers and individuals aged 15 to 18 as well as the deregulation of basic labour rights (social security and fair wage) of new entrants to the labour market aged under 25. In this context, the General Federation of Employees of the National Electric Power Corporation (GENOP-DEI) and the Confederation of Greek Civil Servants’ Trade Unions (ADEDY) filed a collective complaint to the Social Charter Committee underlining the violation of Greece’s obligations under the European Social Charter.

Application for Leave to Appeal: Charter Committee on Poverty Issues in Council of Canadians et al. v. Canada (Supreme Court of Canada)

This case concerns whether the investor- state adjudicative regime established by Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) respects the requirements of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the principle of constitutionalism. It raises the critical and unresolved question of whether the Charter requires the government to ensure that Charter rights are protected when it negotiates and implements new adjudication regimes under international agreements which impact on Charter rights. Though NAFTA tribunals cannot be expected to incorporate the Charter in their decision-making, the Executive action of negotiating the terms of treaties and international agreements is subject to judicial review for accordance with the Constitution. The present argument is not premature for lack of showing that a particular Chapter 11 tribunal decision impairs the constitutional or Charter rights of any individual Canadian. CCPI argues that the Chapter 11 adjudicative regime itself fails to respect the requirements of sections 7 and 15, by failing to ensure that Charter rights and values are adequately considered and protected. Investor-state adjudication frequently engages issues related to personal security or health, which have not been excluded from the scope of section 7. The threat of adjudication significantly affects government policy. Investor-state tribunals do not have the authority or competence to consider how their adjudication may impact section 7 interests. The Court has recognized in the Charter context that monetary awards and settlements against governments for public policy undertaken in good faith can interfere with the efficient functioning of government and reduce governments’ ability to provide social and health programs and services. Investor-state tribunals are under no obligation to consider or balance competing social interests in granting compensatory damage awards, even when Charter interests such as the right to health are engaged. Delegation of such unconstrained adjudicative authority to investor-state tribunals without ensuring that the rights to life, liberty and security of the person will be adequately protected amounts to a violation of section 7. The violation is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, as the adjudication process has not been crafted to ensure that domestic and international human rights are taken into account in investor-state adjudication. NAFTA Chapter 11 does not meet the basic procedural requirements of fundamental justice, as individual Canadians whose rights are affected do not have as-of-right standing in investor-state disputes. Section 1 serves as an important balance between all the rights at stake. A NAFTA Chapter 11 challenge allows for no such balancing. The NAFTA Chapter 11 regime cannot be justified under the Oakes test. If the goal of promoting foreign investment in Canada and protecting Canadian investment elsewhere is deemed sufficiently important, there is no connection between levels of foreign direct investment and the existence of investor-state dispute procedures. CCPI submits that the Supreme Court should issue a delayed declaration of invalidity.

Council for the Charter Committee on Poverty Issues in Council of Canadians et al. v Canada - Appellant Factum

The appellant in this case submits that the investor-state adjudication provisions in the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) unconstitutionally eliminate or diminish the jurisdiction guaranteed to Canadian superior courts by s 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and by the constitutional principles of judicial independence and the rule of law. Further, adjudication of disputes brought by investors against Canadian laws, regulations and policies by tribunals unable to consider or protect the provisions of Canada's constitution violate constitutionalism and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The adjudication provisions accord investors of the United States and Mexico rights to claim damages against Canada before ad hoc tribunals for interfering with their property, economic or contractual rights. The adjudication provision encompasses virtually any government measure, including legislation, regulations or other measures that serve broad public interest objectives. Having an international tribunal that is able to review the decisions of Canada's superior courts and award relief to foreign investors that was denied in a domestic court violates sections 96-101 of the Constitution Act 1867, and undermines the judicial independence of domestic courts. The review of domestic court judgments by a tribunal that is constitutionally unaccountable, unbound by precedent, and of uncertain operating principles and procedures offends the rule of law. The Appellants submit that the government violates the principle of constitutionalism by conferring adjudicative authority over investor-state disputes to tribunals which do not interpret and apply NAFTA consistently with constitutional values and principles, but rather operate under the framework of private commercial arbitration. Further, while investor-state procedures authorize challenges to government regulatory and protective measures that directly impact on the enjoyment of sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (right to life, liberty and security of the person, and right to equality, respectively), investor-state tribunals are unable to ensure that these rights are considered or protected in the adjudication of individual investor claims or in the determination of appropriate remedies. Investor-state procedures thus violate ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are not justifiable under section 1.

Factum of the Charter Committee on Poverty Issues: Gosselin v Quubec (Procureur GGnnral) (Supreme Court of Canada)

The Charter Committee on Poverty Issues (CCPI) submits that sections 7 (the right to life, liberty and security of the person) and section 15 (the right to equality) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms impose positive obligations on governments to address the most basic needs of disadvantaged Canadians. Since the advent of the Charter, the circumstances of people in poverty have worsened and homelessness has greatly increased. For Canada's poorest citizens to benefit equally from Charter protections, such deprivations must fall within the scope of sections 7 and 15. The court is a competent and appropriate forum for adjudicating this case. It possesses both the institutional competence and legitimacy to scrutinize government inaction, adjudicate the presented evidence, and impose positive obligations if a Charter right is violated. Here, the court is not being asked to second guess policy questions, but to protect fundamental rights in accordance with Charter and international human rights principles.

Age, ambition, and the local charter: a study in voting behavior

This article tests ambition theory by looking into the relatively unexplored area concerning the voting behavior of local charter committee members. Our findings lend support to the notion in ambition theory that age is an important factor in understanding voting blocs and differences on issues. More specifically, our study suggests that differences in political ambition along age lines may help explain different attitudes toward issues of charter reform.

Factum of the Intervener Charter Committee on Poverty Issues (CCPI) in Eldridge v British Columbia (A.G.) (Supreme Court of Canada)

Factum of the Intervener Charter Committee on Poverty Issues (CCPI) in Eldridge v British Columbia (A.G.) (Supreme Court of Canada)

Factum of the Intervener: Counsel for the Charter Committee on Poverty Issues in Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General)

Factum of the Intervener: Counsel for the Charter Committee on Poverty Issues in Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General)

The Work of the Sixth Committee at the Forty-seventh Session of the UN General Assembly

At the forty-seventh session of the General Assembly, the Sixth Committee1reviewed the annual reports of the International Law Commission (ILC), the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization (Charter Committee), and the Committee on Relations with the Host Country. The Sixth Committee also considered proposals for new legal instruments relating to some aspects of sovereign immunity, consular functions, the diplomatic courier and bag, and environmental protection in wartime; a proposal to request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on questions relating to extraterritorial jurisdiction; and aspects of such other topics as national liberation movements, humanitarian law, protection of diplomats, and the United Nations Decade of International Law.

Book Notes

Previous articleNext article No AccessBook NotesPDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Ethics Volume 102, Number 3Apr., 1992 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/293442 Citations: 1Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1992 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Martha Jackman Application for Leave to Appeal: Charter Committee on Poverty Issues in Council of Canadians et al. v. Canada (Supreme Court of Canada), SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2004).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2311795

The Ninth International Congress on Large Dams

Among the administrative and technical questions to be considered at the meeting of the Executive Committee, most important is the election of the president of the National Commission on Large Dams in connection with the termination of Mr. G. Brown's (England) term of office. The Soviet and French committees on large dams proposed the candidacy of Mr. Mari (France), Chairman of the Charter Committee, who participated actively in the work of the International Commission on Large Dams.