Browsing by Author "Wanke, Irene"

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    "The judge said what?"
    (Legal Resource Centre of Alberta Ltd. (LRC), 1999) Bowal, Peter; Wanke, Irene
    Council to provide self-regulation of judges: "The objects of the Council
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Liability for layoffs in a declining economy
    (Legal Resource Centre of Alberta Ltd. (LRC), 1998) Bowal, Peter; Wanke, Irene
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Need donations? You'll need to become a charity
    (Legal Resource Centre of Alberta Ltd. (LRC), 1999) Bowal, Peter; Wanke, Irene
    "WHEREAS Landes Tenements Rentes Annuities Profittes Hereditamentes, Goodes Chattels Money and Stockes of Money, have bene heretofore given limitted appointed and assigned, as well by the Queenes moste excellent Majestie and her moste noble Progenitors, as by sondrie other well disposed persons, some for Releife of aged impotent and poore people, some for Maintenance of sicke and maymed Souldiers and Marriners, Schooles of Learninge, Free Schooles and Schollers in Universities, some for Repaire of Bridges Portes Havens Causwaies Churches Seabankes and Highewaies, some for Educacion and prefermente of Orphans, some for or towardes Reliefe Stocke or Maintenance for Howses for Correccion, some for Mariages of poore Maides, some for Supportacion Ayde and Helpe of younge Tradesmen, Handiecraftesmen and persons decayed, and others for reliefe or redemption of Prisoners or Captives, and for aide or ease of any poore Inhabitants concerninge paymente of Fifteenes, settinge out of Souldiers and other Taxes, Whiche Landes Tenements Rents Annuities Profitts Hereditaments Goodes Chattells Money and Stockes of Money nevertheless have not byn imployed accordinge to the charitable intente of the givers and founders thereof, by reason of Fraudes breaches of Truste and Negligence in those that shoulde pay delyver and imploy the same....." The elements that a "charitable organization" must include for registration purposes are als so defined in the Income Tax Act. All of the resources of the organization must be devoted to charitable activities and the organization must carry them out itself. Therefore, to qualify as charitable, the organization's purposes must be exclusively charitable. If charities could engage in a mixture of charitable and non-charitable purposes, there could be no certainty that donations to them would be channeled to the charitable purposes. In this way, charitable registrations can also be revoked once granted. Political purposes or objects are not charitable purposes. The rule that a charity cannot be established for political purposes does not mean that the charity cannot engage in "ancillary and incidental" political activities to further its charitable purposes. Just what ancillary political activities may be, and how much political activity may be carried out remains murky.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Regulation of the trade in hazardous wastes
    (Legal Resource Centre of Alberta Ltd. (LRC), 1999) Bowal, Peter; Wanke, Irene
    The problem of hazardous wastes is far greater than can be addressed by a bilateral Agreement. Poor countries may become dumping grounds for the rich, industrialized countries. In answer to short term desire for hard currency and job creation, developing countries might be most vulnerable to environmental and public health concerns. The dangers inherent in exporting hazardous wastes to developing countries became the focus of international interest even though such exports amounted to only a small percentage of total wastes and exports. The incentive to export hazardous waste to developing countries expands as prices rise and space dwindles for disposal of hazardous wastes in the developed world. The attraction of disposing of hazardous waste in developing countries has been that it could be done at a fraction of the price of disposal in developed countries. In addition to regulating transboundary movements and disposal of hazardous wastes, the Basel Convention was drafted to persuade signatory states to reduce the volume of their exports of hazardous wastes. To that end, states are encouraged to dispose of their own hazardous wastes and to develop means of minimizing or obviating the need to generate hazardous wastes. Technological advancement is key to reducing hazardous waste; therefore, international co-operation to develop and share reduction technologies, particularly with developing countries, is mandated by the Basel Convention. Despite the dangers posed by dumping hazardous wastes in developing countries, a total ban on the transboundary movement of hazardous waste was passed over in favour of mere regulation. The fact that the Basel Convention does not prohibit transboundary movement of hazardous wastes entirely creates some incentive for other countries which wish to continue to export hazardous wastes.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Restitution in Canadian criminal justice
    (Legal Resource Centre of Alberta Ltd. (LRC), 1998) Bowal, Peter; Wanke, Irene
    If the accused actually has money on his or her person at the time of arrest, and ownership of that money is not contested, it can be immediately scooped to satisfy any restitution order. If not, the victim must take the restitution order and file it at the Clerk of the Court of Queen's Bench, or equivalent superior court, and take proceedings, usually by way of garnishment or seizure, to enforce it. Anyone who has tried personally to take the technical steps necessary to enforce a civil judgment knows the wrenching difficulties inherent in that process. Indeed, this restitution legislation itself provides that the victim is free to pursue any civil remedy available, with or without an order of restitution. Where physical injury has occurred, a civil lawsuit for pain and suffering would have to be independently brought because this category of injury could never be included in a statutory restitution order. Centuries ago a court had no power at all to order restitution. It was not until 1592 that in England one was allowed to apply for a Writ of Restitution. When one considers that victims of crime have not always had the right in law to get their property back, we have made remarkable progress from rights of restitution toward rights of compensation for victims of crime. Today, the victim is not limited to recovered property or to instances involving the loss of physical property in order to make a claim for restitution. Today, one may claim compensation in criminal court which, up to now, had to be taken forward exclusively in civil litigation. What is the benefit, therefore, of pursuing a restitution order that goes beyond confiscated property? Simply, such an order represents the best legal action for a victim in most circumstances. If the offender has assets or is likely to be employed after the sentence is served, it may be worthwhile having a judgment on the record with the Clerk of the Court. This judgment can be periodically renewed until it is paid. This restitution process may eliminate the need to hire a lawyer and launch a civil action which would, in many cases, yield no greater benefit than that contained in a restitution order. It is still too early to know how these sections will develop in practice. Much will depend on how many eligible victims learn of this law to obtain a restitution order and how determined they are to pursue their claims. How much will the Crown co-operate in advancing a restitutionary claim? What evidence will they require of the victim? One hopes that the practical requirements will not necessitate the victims hiring their own lawyer in the cause. How will the judiciary embrace this new power to compensate victims of crime? At this point, however, one thing is clear. Victims of crime can claim a potentially potent tool to obtain restitution and compensation under this new legislative regime. This was clearly designed in response to the call for more direct personal accountability on the part of offenders and for more rights on the part of victims.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Supreme Court sees no judicial role in protecting the unborn
    (Legal Resource Centre of Alberta Ltd. (LRC), 1998) Bowal, Peter; Wanke, Irene
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Taxpayers' rights
    (Legal Resource Centre of Alberta Ltd. (LRC), 1999) Bowal, Peter; Wanke, Irene
    This statement of rights, reproduced here in its entirety, is available on the Revenue Canada website (http://www.rc.gc.ca). In the last few years, this Declaration has been printed on the back page of the Department's general taxpayer Guide to completing the income tax return. One cannot find any analysis and commentary on the Declaration in any books and guides published in the private sector. There are no judicial decisions that interpret and apply the Declaration. The reason for this lack of legal analysis on this Declaration is simple: it has no force of law. The Declaration of Taxpayers' Rights was never enacted into law, much less entrenched as a part of the constitution. It contains no meaningful procedural safeguards. It is a political statement of faith and intention, not a code enforceable at law. Some individual taxpayers in court and in letters will invoke the Declaration, unaware that it has no legal effect. One cannot sue for a government violation of the Declaration. Although a taxpayer may point to a right in the Declaration, it is not an enforceable right. A judge will only take light, general notice of the Declaration when deciding a tax case, because it is merely a government statement of goodwill. Over one million corporations, 158,000 importers, 110 million travellers; 21.3 million taxfilers, 2.3 million GST registrants, 1.3 million employers, 21,000 pension and related administrators, and 75,000 charities: this is what our federal income tax department dealt with alone in 1996-97 (Ensuring Fair Customs and Revenue Administration in Canada, available on website). Virtually, all Canadian taxpayers stand against the unlimited force of different levels of government to have various taxes assessed and collected throughout the year. There are few procedural rights or safeguards for them. While the fairness provisions provide some basis for discretion, there is nothing similar to the broad set of effective and generously interpreted rights for people charged with crimes. Even if the pronouncements contained in the Declaration of Taxpayers' Rights were enforceable, they are lacking in substance. They do not extend the benevolence we expect from government in all facets of daily life. None of these rights, for example, deal with the amount of tax levied. Rather, they only indirectly and partially address calculation and collection methods, so that these are fair and constrain the impulses of such a strong entity to take advantage of weaker parties.