All I can say is this vendetta is a huge waste of tax dollars, damaging to the education system, and an abuse of power.

If the BCTF was appealing, would you be saying the same thing? Doubtful.

The BCTF is funded by their own members’ union dues. I couldn’t care less how they choose to spend that money. I agree it’s a complete waste of tax dollars for the gov’t to appeal this decision. Suck it up, move on and learn from your mistakes!

The BCTF wouldn’t be appealing after having been told twice in a court of law that they have broken the law. The lib’s think they are above the law and this appeal proves that beyond any doubt.

Court judgments are sometimes overturned on appeal to a higher court. In this case there is a higher court and the higher court has overturned similar judgments before..

Don’t call it a vendetta. There are reasonable grounds to appeal from my reading of the case.

The government is making the right decision in this case.

I am no supporter of the BCTF. I do disagree with the way the BC Liberals have abused their authority by tearing up contracts and consistently getting slapped in the courts. They are letting their right wing ideology/agenda rule their actions to the detriment of BC taxpayers.

If there was a reasonable voting alternative, the BC Libs would be wiped out just like the Socreds were.

Agree with 2cents.

If people believe that the BCTF wouldn’t have done the same thing if the tables were turned, they are living in a dream world.

I have reviewed numerous news articles on this subject and agree completely with one news source.

This fight is no longer a fight between the BC Lib-Con government and the BCTF, it is now a fight between the BC LIB-Con’s and our justice system.

“She implicitly condemned the BC Liberal governments of Gordon Campbell and Christy Clark as contemptuous of the law itself, working consistently and cynically for over a decade to exploit the justice system rather than work within it.

And judging from their initial reaction, the Liberals haven’t learned a thing. They still think systems are for gaming, not respecting.”

So… who are the arrogant bullies here?

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/01/29/Why-Clark-Refuses-to-Hear-What-Supreme-Court-Tells-Her/

What a surprise, People#1 agrees with the Tyee, a left of left news source!! LOL

“They still think systems are for gaming, not respecting.”

The last time I looked, the system still includes the Supreme Court of Canada.

In fact, in a similar case, the SCC sided with the appellant.

Well gus the last time I looked the BC Liberal Government lost it’s case in the Supreme court of Canada against it’s health care workers on similar grounds.

So similar in fact that that supreme court of BC Justice Griffin quoted the case in her ruling against the BC Liberal Government, stating; “The Court’s analysis followed the Supreme Court of Canada’s reasons in Health Services and Support v. British Columbia, 2007 SCC 27, a ground-breaking case finding that Freedom of Association included the right to the “process” of collective bargaining.”

Tell you what gus, if I am wrong on this I will stop posting to this site under my current moniker, or any other. But if you are wrong you must do this!

Agreed?

that is an easy one. Everyday I think it is time to give this up….. too much repetition after many years. There are much better sites where there is not such a great mixture of people, most are on the same level of debate capability and if not, they quickly disappear.

While they are typically at a similar capacity to debate issues, they are from the full spectrum of political, social, economic and environmental positions.

Quite frankly, there are limited numbers on here that fill that characteristic.

I think the main reason I like this site is because the issues are more local than world related than the types of sites I write about.

Now onto the key issue regarding the notion that “Freedom of Association included the right to the “process” of collective bargaining”.

You forget the first sentence of Charter. Read it again clearly. Without that first sentence, governments could not act in many cases where they need to act in order for the country to function.

gus, the point is; the Supreme Court of Canada did not forget, or over look, the first sentence of the Charter, and they still ruled against the BC Liberal government!

If the Liberals loose this time, they should have to pay all court costs out of their funds not from our tax dollars. One thing they want to suppress is what has happened or was said in cabinet meetings.

gus you need to read the rest of the charter..Section 33.
(1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15.(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.(4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4). clearly there needs to be some sort of declaration including intent to use section 1

“gus, the point is; the Supreme Court of Canada did not forget, or over look, the first sentence of the Charter, and they still ruled against the BC Liberal government!”

I think you should watch some of the supreme court of Canada sessions on TV.

If you did watch let us say 10 or so, you would understand that the appellants have 5 minutes to present their case. I have no idea what their case was. If they did not argue sentence one, which is better known as the “notwithstanding clause”, then the judges will not go there.

So, tell me, given the above info, how do you know that the judges did take that into consideration?

You provide me with the proof.

Boudicca … thanks … I know all that ….

Clause number 1 is known as the “not withstanding clause” ….

In case you do not understand what that means … it means that despite what else is written in the Charter, governments may take actions which are not consistent with the rest of the Charter, IF the governing body can show that it is a reasonable approach.

It is the key clause of the entire Charter that makes it a flexible document rather than a cast in stone document!!!

Some people on this site seem to post a lot, an awful lot of links to “left wing” news sources such as the Tyee or the Huffington Post!

I suggest that they read or watch some of the “right wing” media and then perhaps try to find some balance between the two sides!!

That’s just my opinion!

gus, in your comment at 2:33 pm you stated; “The last time I looked, the system still includes the Supreme Court of Canada. In fact, in a similar case, the SCC sided with the appellant.”

My very next comment pointed out a BC Liberal Government Supreme Court of Canada loss in a similar case, and now you want more information? Last time I checked, I was not a researcher doing your bidding.

Now, how about sharing with the rest of us, that similar case where the SCC sided with the appellant?

I don’t think that gus would find a researcher who only reads the left side of the page of much use anyway.

It was nice debating with you gus, obviously the trolls have found me, so it’s time to move on to another subject, although they will continue to look for me and undoubtedly find me. I think of them as my sheeple followers ;-)

Your comment about “moths being attracted to light” has some merit it would seem.

Peeps, “moths being attracted to light”?

What with your constantly flowing verbal diarrhea, I’d suggest that it’s more like flies being attracted to cow manure!

Oops, forgot to mention “haha”!

GUS has too much time on his hands. Get a job instead of using this site for pretending you know something.

“My very next comment pointed out a BC Liberal Government Supreme Court of Canada loss in a similar case, and now you want more information?”

You do not have to do my bidding. You just have to get off your ass and do some serious independent research of the literature, as it is called in my line of work in order to defend you assertions. You can’t just write them or speak them, you have to back them up by precedent or de novo approach to the topic, take your pick.

Also, you are so blinded that you cannot even read what I wrote. You made an assertion that the judges looked at the “not withstanding clause”. I simply asked you how come you know that. Did you read the case, watch it on the parliamentary channel, or read someone’s summary of it, or get your information through some other means.

The least you can do is admit that it was none of those and that it was simply an assumption, if that is the case. If not, then back your statement up in some other fashion.

Otherwise I will assume you have retreated and abandoned you assertion.

If you have not figured out that researching on the internet is a large part of my job, then you are a bit slow on the uptake taxpayerteacher ….. ;-)

People#1 wrote: gus, in your comment at 2:33 pm you stated; “The last time I looked, the system still includes the Supreme Court of Canada. In fact, in a similar case, the SCC sided with the appellant.”

Now, how about sharing with the rest of us, that similar case where the SCC sided with the appellant?”

So, if I ask you to back up your statements it is fair of you to ask me to back mine up …..

Ready for this. I expect that it will take you a bit of quiet time to read the information I will link here. When you do take the time, I suggest you remove your left wing hat and put on an objective hat, otherwise you will never understand it.

Here is the decision I was referring to and what I sort of figured that a GED student might be able to locate with about four or five key words and at the most one level of drilling down. ;-)

THE FRASER DECISION: THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA REVISITS SCOPE OF CHARTER-PROTECTED COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS

On April 29, 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its long-awaited judgement in the case of Ontario (Attorney General) v. Fraser, 2011 SCC 20 (“Fraser”). In a decision that has surprised many, the Court found, by an 8-1 margin, that the Agricultural Employees’ Protection Act, 2002 (“AEPA”) is constitutional. Moreover, while the majority of the Court confirmed that the protection afforded to “freedom of association” in section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”) extends to collective bargaining, the Court seems to have restricted the scope of that protection.

A significant event was the 2007 Health Services decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in which the Court found that “freedom of association” includes a right to collectively bargain as a protected constitutional right. In reaching this decision, the Supreme Court overturned a longstanding trilogy of its own prior cases which had found otherwise.

The language of the 2007 Health Services decision was very broad, and the newly recognized right was framed as “the right of employees to associate for the purpose of advancing workplace goals through a process of collective bargaining”.

While the right to collectively bargain was said not to guarantee a particular process of collective bargaining nor the necessary achievement of employees’ objectives, the majority in Health Services imposed, as a matter of constitutional law, an obligation on employers to bargain in good faith (a term of art in the labour law context). THIS ASPECT TO THE HEALTH SERVICES DECISION WAS CONTROVERSIAL FROM THE OUTSET AS IT WAS NOT AT ALL CLEAR HOW THE FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION COULD IMPOSE OBLIGATIONS ON OTHERS TO BARGAIN WITH THOSE WHO HAD CHOSEN TO ASSOCIATE.

In late 2008, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in the appeal of Fraser. Relying on the Health Services decision, the Court of Appeal found that, for the constitutional right of employees to collectively bargain to be meaningful, at a minimum the right must consist of:

•a statutory duty to bargain in good faith;

•statutory recognition of the principles of exclusivity and majoritarianism; and

•a statutory mechanism for resolving bargaining impasses and disputes regarding the interpretation or administration of collective agreements
THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DECISION IN FRASER

As noted at the outset, the Supreme Court overturned the Ontario Court of Appeal decision by an 8-1 margin. However, there were four sets of reasons issued in the Supreme Court’s decision, and they reveal a significant degree of disagreement within the Court over the scope of freedom of association.

The majority reasons clearly reaffirm the basic conclusion of Health Services that “freedom of association” encompasses a right to collectively bargain. However, they do so in words that seem narrower than the language of the Health Services decision itself:

Similarly, the majority reaffirmed the earlier finding that “freedom of association” does not give a right to a particular model of collective bargaining, including the “Wagner” model that is enshrined in the LRA and almost all labour relations statutes in Canada and the United States:

Our colleague [Rothstein J.] appears to interpret Health Services as establishing directly or indirectly a Wagner model of labour relations. The actual holding of Health Services, as discussed above, was more modest. Health Services affirms a derivative right to collective bargaining, understood in the sense of a process that allows employees to make representations and have them considered in good faith by employers, who in turn must engage in a process of meaningful discussion. … NO PARTICULAR BARGAINING MODEL IS REQUIRED

There were two sets of concurring reasons, agreeing in the result, but for very different reasons.

First, Mr. Justice Rothstein, writing for himself and Madame Justice Charron, strongly advocated for the Supreme Court to overturn the earlier Health Services decision.

Rothstein J. argued that Health Services had incorrectly expanded the scope of freedom of association, which should be significantly more limited:

In the view of Rothstein J., the question of WHICH PARTICULAR LABOUR RELATIONS REGIME SHOULD APPLY, AND WHAT MUTUAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS IT SHOULD CONTAIN, ARE MATTERS BEST LEFT TO THE LEGISLATURE, WHICH HAS BEEN THE TRADITIONAL POSITION OF THE COURTS.

What lessons can be drawn from the Fraser decision? Probably the one undisputed lesson is that the Supreme Court continues to struggle with the ambit of freedom of association in the employment context. While the majority’s decision will govern for the present, employers can expect that the issue will likely be revisited at some point in the future.

Perhaps the most interesting question following Fraser is its effect on government attempts to control public costs through the imposition of limits on existing and future collective agreements (as was recently done in the non-union broader public sector under Ontario’s Bill 16 wage restraint legislation).

Nevertheless, the Fraser decision suggests that the question of the government’s ability to control public costs through legislation is not foreclosed.

the above are select sections of the decision analysis linked below
http://www.hicksmorley.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=941

And that is what the current situation with BC and the BCTS is all about ……..

I hope that you can at least understand why I have taken the position on this that I have. There is a system in place. A decision was made by a lower court to the SCC and there are SCC decisions that go here, there, and everywhere over time.

Even lawyers, or maybe especially lawyers and judges have a difficult time to communicate these days, it seems.

Enjoy!!!! :-)

Dr. Manfred Spitzer, is a neuropsychiatrist who believes that for people to be able to use search engines for researching things other than facebook and telephone numbers, they have to know something about the subject matter they research.

Sort of like following the principle that if you do not understand engineering design, you will have no clue how to use a Computer Assisted Design/Drafting program to design an engineered structure.

Ok Gus, well played!! Now, after wiping the floor with some of those that disagree with you, do you really think you’ll get a response, let alone an intelligent one??

Just thinking “out loud” whether there are any non-taxpaying teachers in BC ….

I have the complete decision on the Supreme Court of Canada’s Health Services and Support v. British Columbia, 2007 SCC 27 case.

Did you want me to cut and paste it all on here as well gus? Wow…. o_O

Not really Hart Guy …. just the same idiotic responses such as those from that teacher who has to remind all of us that he/she is not unique in that he/she pays taxes. LOL…

People#1 has retreated under the guise of you showing up …. but I just see that as an excuse to withdraw from the battle while beating his chest … :-)

You simply do not understand, do you People#1 …. the more you post on this, the dumber you will look, that I can guarantee.

“I have the complete decision on the Supreme Court of Canada’s Health Services and Support v. British Columbia, 2007 SCC 27 case.”

LOL

Is yours annotated as well?

Hey, Hart Guy, it seems that People#1 does not even understand what the decision of the SSC means to the Health Services decision of an earlier SCC decision.

That decision is not worth the paper it is written on anymore. A nice upper level case study for law students when they study Charter cases.

So, does this all mean that People#1 won’t post here anymore? Nice work gus!

No amount of cutting and pasting is going to change the fact that this BC Liberal Government has gotten it’s a$$ kicked every time they go to court, and will get it’s a$$ kicked again trying to appeal!

What a waste of time and our tax dollars!!!

I was just getting to that bet and the payment of the bet, JB … :-)

The problem is, we would have to engage the Meisners in this so that they could make sure People#1 does not appear under another name …… :-(

People#1 … do you still scratch simple images on cave walls?

I decided to use current technology to my advantage ….. it might be a wise choice for you as well …..

read my post from February 14 2014 9:00 PM

” ….. for people to be able to use search engines for researching things other than facebook and telephone numbers, they have to know something about the subject matter they research”

That was directed at you People#1 since you either do not read, understand what you read, or read only the left page as suggested by ewitt.

As far as the court case goes, it takes two to tango ….. The dance competition is not complete until the final dance, which has not yet happened.

As I have now said over and over, the lawyers acting on behalf of the province have made a recommendation which fits 2014 … not 2007 …

I cannot speak for anyone else, but this is the first thing that comes to my mind when I read the plethora of comments from gus.

http://pantsinacan.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/hot_air.jpg

Keep ur going Gus …Scambell in the SkirtA.K.A.cRUSTY..she should have stayed on the wireless…cause she is useless…ain’t done shitte for this Prov.

How did I know that People#1 wouldn’t follow through? Not that he had any credibility to begin with, but come on…

Peeps, just looked at your last response at 9:46, haha!

That’s the BEST that you can do, lol! I guess that I was correct asking Gus if he really thought that he might get a response, let alone an intelligent one!

Perhaps you should contact the Tyee and they can help you with a response. I’m not sure that I would expect much from the Tyee though, they’ve been in business for over 10 years and haven’t made a profit yet!

Gus wiped the floor with you, People#1! Pay your bet!

If people#1 had anyone in his corner they would have thrown the towel in after the drubbing he just took. Last response was the punch drunk flailing of someone reeling on the ropes about to go down for the last time.

That Alex Ts guy might still have a sandbox you can play in and they might have some featherweights like yourself that you could handle.Maybe someone could provide a link.

Bye. Don’t forget to write-just not here!

News flash JB, you can’t wipe the floor with hot air.

Re-read the bet, it was about the government losing the appeal, and gus wasn’t up to calling on it. He knows the Liberal government will lose it’s appeal (in more ways than one).

These Liberals have a losing track record in court, that will not change. In a sense, our government is a bunch of losers when it comes to being on the right side of the constitution, the law, and our justice system.

It seems that Dr. Manfred Spitzer was correct as people#1 is very adept at finding childish cartoons on the internet.

gus the notwithstanding clause can only be used through legislative declaration. gov must pass a piece of legislation that explicitly declares its intention to invoke the Notwithstanding clause. In addition, the legislation must explicitly state which laws are to operate notwithstanding the Charter, as well as which particular rights and freedoms the law will be immune from. S.1 has only been used 4 times in the charters history. in order for the government to rob us of rights it must be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. I see you can read court cases, good job. you made a big stink about s.1 being the reason the bc gov have abused the rights of teachers but the bc gov have never passed legislation stating the repression of S.2(d) for the BCTF only?

I knew you wouldn’t do it People#1. Have you got a another cartoon link you can show us? Please?