News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 6K     0 

From: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toro...urt-youth-led-climate-case-decision-1.7354795

Ontario's top court orders new hearing in youth climate case​

Young people arguing Ontario's weakened emissions target violates their Charter rights​

canadian-press-logo.jpg

Jordan Olmstead · The Canadian Press · Posted: Oct 17, 2024 12:22 PM EDT | Last Updated: 40 minutes ago
 
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-government-rebate-cheques-election-1.7354672

"Crombie vowed the Liberals will cut taxes for middle class families and hinted more details would be coming soon." Thank you, Ms. Crombie, now I know I won't vote Liberal. The last thing we need is a tax cut.

Broadly, I agree. I have, in fact, advocated for raising the PST/HST 2 points, which would be enough to balance the budget immediately and have a bit left over for program enhancement, or some mixture of the two.

That said, I would entertain three ideas on the tax file broadly, that could involve targeted reductions.

1) General simplification of taxes, fewer deductions/credits, and raising the basic exemption as a direct trade-off. Any windfall for upper middle income or wealthy Ontarians should be offset in one fashion or another.

2) I strongly favour a significant increase in the minimum wage, and would be willing to entertain a modest tax reduction targeted at small business in Ontario, as well as an additional benefit for the hospitality industry which is minimum wage heavy.
This could include a reduction in Business Education Tax or Employer Health tax for the general application; and for hospitality businesses could mean an increased assignee discount for alcohol purchases or relief on the LCBO markup or excise taxes.
But the additional income and sales tax from minimum wage hike should more than offset any forgone revenues.

3) I would consider tax relief where a given Ontario rate is particularly uncompetitive with peer jurisdictions. Again, I would seek to offset any revenue loss with increases in other rates where room exists.

4) Broadly, I think we need more tax revenue rather than less; so that we can not only balance the budget and make crucial investments, but so we can also pay down the debt and then split the reduced interest payments between further social investment and tax relief. (eventually)

Middle income tax rates in Ontario are not high, and nowhere near their historic highs. There is no justification for reducing them.
 
Last edited:
Anyone want to say 'Notwithstanding clause' with me?
Without reading the judgements, it would be interesting to know what specific Charter right the claimants allege were being breached.

The 'notwithstanding clause' has to be invoked with a specific piece of legislation. In order to do that, the government would have to replace the current Act (or Regulation) imposing the targets. There's a lot of legal procedural space between now and that. Even getting to the SCOC could outlive this current legislature.
 

From: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toro...urt-youth-led-climate-case-decision-1.7354795

Ontario's top court orders new hearing in youth climate case​

Young people arguing Ontario's weakened emissions target violates their Charter rights​

canadian-press-logo.jpg

Jordan Olmstead · The Canadian Press · Posted: Oct 17, 2024 12:22 PM EDT | Last Updated: 40 minutes ago
Without reading the judgements, it would be interesting to know what specific Charter right the claimants allege were being breached.

The 'notwithstanding clause' has to be invoked with a specific piece of legislation. In order to do that, the government would have to replace the current Act (or Regulation) imposing the targets. There's a lot of legal procedural space between now and that. Even getting to the SCOC could outlive this current legislature.

Let me post a link to the Decision of the Court of Appeal:


From the above:

1729349031803.png


There are 82 paragraphs in the decision, so I won't be posting the rest, follow the link for the details.

The Court of Appeal did not rule on the merits of the case, only deciding that the initial application judge erred in her assessment of this as a positive rights case, which is the not the correct analysis in the determination of the Appeals Court, which had ordered a new hearing.

****

For quick reference, the sections of the Charter at play here are:

1729349816903.png


And

1729349858549.png


Both of the above sections are subject to the use of the Notwithstanding Clause.
 
Let me post a link to the Decision of the Court of Appeal:


From the above:

View attachment 605618

There are 82 paragraphs in the decision, so I won't be posting the rest, follow the link for the details.

The Court of Appeal did not rule on the merits of the case, only deciding that the initial application judge erred in her assessment of this as a positive rights case, which is the not the correct analysis in the determination of the Appeals Court, which had ordered a new hearing.

****

For quick reference, the sections of the Charter at play here are:

View attachment 605623

And

View attachment 605624

Both of the above sections are subject to the use of the Notwithstanding Clause.
Thanks. For what it's worth, once the actual merits of the alleged Charter violations get assessed, I think it's going to be a high mountain, particularly given previous SCOC decisions. We will see.
 

Back
Top