Who decides if, how, and when, protesters who are blocking rail lines, ferries, driveways, or bridges are to be removed?
Both protesters, and politicians, have suggested that either the Premier of BC, or the Prime Minister of Canada should, or should not, remove protesters who are obstructing transportation infrastructure or natural gas pipeline construction. In many cases, these suggestions demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of how such decisions are made.
Neither the Premier of BC, or the Prime Minister of Canada, has the authority to direct the police to enforce, or not enforce, Criminal Code provision that prohibits the interference with property, or blocking of highways. They also have no authority with respect to the enforcement of court orders.
It would be completely undesirable for politicians to have authority over the conduct of police operations.
Police are permitted to arrest people, without a warrant or court order, if they commit a criminal offence. When protesters blocked the Premier\u2019s driveway, for example, the police simply attended and arrested those involved for the criminal offence of mischief.
With respect to protesters who were physically obstructing the construction of the natural gas pipeline, the company involved obtained an order from a judge which directs the police to arrest anyone engaged in this activity. Political leaders have no authority to prevent this order from being carried out or direct how this should be done. Public Safety Minister Bill Blair recognized this and confirmed that it was for the RCMP to decide how the court order was to be enforced.
Similarly, despite various political debates, CN Rail has been obtaining injunctions in other provinces to compel the removal of protestors who are blocking rail lines. The Prime Minister has no control over this process.
The second topic discussed on the show are the finances of ICBC, in the context of the recent claims by the provincial government that dire financial circumstances at ICBC require a move to a monopoly no-fault insurance system. While such a change would leave injured people with less compensation and would eliminate independent review of ICBC decisions, it would, conveniently for the government, permit refund cheques to be mailed out to people shortly before the next provincial election.
In this context, ICBC\u2019s finances are discussed. A review of ICBC\u2019s financial statements reveals that, between March 31, 2018, and March 31, 2019, ICBC\u2019s assets actually increased by $1.8 billion. This is more than the amount of money taken out of ICBC to balance the budget by the last provincial government.
The large increase in ICBC\u2019s attests were a result of it paying out much less than it took in over this period of time.
Despite this result, in this same one-year period, ICBC avoided showing a large surplus by substantially increased it\u2019s \u201cprovision for unpaid claims\u201d. It increased this figure from $11.9 billion to $14.29 billion in one year. This amount is supposed to be an estimate of how much future claims could cost. The large change, in one year, is a cause for skepticism.
The politically convenient outcome of the proposed change: refund cheques before an election, is a good reason to look very carefully at the financial rationale for a proposal that would leave accident victims with less compensation and eliminate the ability of courts to independently review ICBC decisions.\xa0
Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan is live on CFAX 1070 every Thursday at 10:30 am.
Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.\xa0