Ontario might finally let dentists treat their spouses

It's not often that I see a bill in the Ontario legislature that I like.  Most bills tend to expand the scope of government control over citizens, thereby reducing individual liberty.

However, MPP Steve Clark of Leeds-Grenville riding recently introduced Bill 68 into the legislature.  It will reduce state control over regulated health professionals in a small but important way.

Right now, the Regulated Health Professions Act prevents dentists, chiropractors, physiotherapists and 20-odd other categories of health care practitioners from providing treatment to their spouses or partners because this is deemed to constitute "sexual abuse."  Yes, a dental hygienist who cleans her husband's teeth will lose her licence to practice for 5 years for this heinous act.  One hygienist actually did.  See my article from the Lawyers Weekly (The State Has No Business in Dentists' Bedrooms).

Bill 68 would amend the zero-tolerance rule for sexual contact between health practitioners and their patients, by allowing practitioners to treat their spouses and conjugal partners. This bill won't save the unfortunate doctors, chiropractors and others who have lost their licences already to this ridiculous law, but it should prevent further victimization of additional professionals. 

Let's hope it passes.

The Scrapie Affair

CCF Litigation Director Karen Selick published the following letter in the Globe and Mail today about our representation of farmer Montana Jones. 

The scrapie affair

It's important to put the recent scrapie incident in perspective (Eradicating Scrapie – letter, May 1). The neurodegenerative disease has been around for at least 280 years; the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's scrapie eradication program has been in existence for fewer than 10 years. Obviously, sheep and goats made it through the centuries without this government program.

There's good reason to question whether the program is an effective use of taxpayers' dollars. Some studies have indicated that the slaughter of specific genotypes to prevent one form of scrapie predisposes the “national flock” to greater susceptibility to other forms of disease. Some experts have questioned whether eradication is possible at all.

A CFIA official has acknowledged that, sometimes after a spike in cases, “nobody wants to report a case because of the bad economics … [so suddenly] you have two years of very few cases.” In other words, the draconian nature of the program may promote the practice of “shoot, shovel and shut up.”

Karen Selick, lawyer for Montana Jones, Belleville, Ont.

Rights and Freedoms not Born by the Charter

In his article "Myopic government ignores Charter anniversary" Irwin Cotler, Member of Parliament, writes that "Canadians now enjoy a panoply of rights and remedies that were almost inconceivable prior to the Charter...", while lamenting that the current federal government has marginalized the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

On the contrary, if anything, past governments have been guilty of marginalizing Canada's Constitution, the Charter only being one very recent and small part of it. (To learn more, visit www.ConstitutionDay.ca). Our rights and freedoms were not born by the Charter; they existed before it and are in fact close to 800 years old. Our original Constitution, the B.N.A. Act 1867, states that Canada is to have a Constitution "similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom", which means it includes all the written and unwritten elements of the U.K.'s Constitution, including all the way back to the Magna Carta of 1215.

The Charter After 30 Years

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is 30 years old in 2012.

Assumptions are not Permitted

The Ontario Divisional Court recently overturned a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision in Pieters v. Peel Law Association.