Physical access for persons with disabilities

For persons with disabilities, the activities that able-bodied people take for granted can be major, often insurmountable challenges. Attempting to enter a restaurant for lunch with friends can result in lengthy and adversarial litigation if the facility is not accessible to a person with a disability or other mobility impairment. This litigation would be initiated after the individual was effectively refused service; a refusal based on hislher personal physical characteristics. If a shopping mall is not equipped with "access amenities", then the disabled person may be excluded from shopping there and thus exercising consumer freedom. If workplaces are not equipped to accommodate the access needs of persons with disabilities, then those people are effectively barred from gainful employment there. If a municipal goveniment building is inaccessible to disabled persons, then they may be excluded from participating in council meetings. These are all activities that the majority of the population enjoys as a matter of course, in that they represent the functions of a free citizen in a free society. If a person is excluded from such activities because of some personal characteristic, then that person is subjected to differential or discr~minatory treatment. The guarantees provided in Canadian feden! and provincial rights legislation, are such that people are not to be discriminated againsL Where buildings and facilities othen\iise open to the public are not accessible for persens with disabilities, then those people are being discriminated against. To challenge these discriminatory practices, individuals initiate complaints through the administrative justice system. To address the extent to which this is a problem, many sources were consulted. Constitutional lawyers, tribunal members, advocates for the disabled and land use planners were interviewed. Case law and legislation were reviewed. Literature on citizenship theory, dispute resolution and dispute avoidance was compiled and assessed. And, the field of land use planning was analyzed (drawing on the WTiter's educational and experiential background) as a possible alternative method for effecting systemic access for persons with disabilities. The conclusion of this study is that there does exist a proactive method for assuring access, a method that can apply the systemic remedy needed to deal with this problem. The current method, which is an adversarial and piecemeal complaint process, has proven ineffective in remedying this discrimination problem~ Failure to provide an appropriate remedy means that persons with disabilities will not enjoy the degree of citizen status enjoyed by the able-bodied. This is the current circumstance, and since equity is the aim of rights legislation, and since such legislative and administrative frameworks have failed in that purpose, then an alternative method is necessary. An alternative model is the one in which land use planning is based. It has conflict avoidance and conflict minimization as underpinnings. And, most importantly, land use planning is already a proyen method of combatting discrimination.

The law of the sea: the United States, Canada and the deep seabed

The Falkland Islands War of 1982 was fought over competing claims to sovereignty over a group of islands off the east coast of South America. The dispute was between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Argentina claims the islands under rights to Spanish succession, the fact that they lie off the Argentine coast line and that in 1833 Great Britain took the islands illegally and by force. The United Kingdom claims the islands primarily through prescription--the fact that they have governed the islands in a peaceful, continuous and public manner since 1833. The British also hold that the population living on the islands, roughly eighteen hundred British descendants, should be able to decide their own future. The United Kingdom also lays claim to the islands through rights of discovery and settlement, although this claim has always been challenged by Spain who until 1811 governed the islands. Both claims have legal support, and the final decision if there will ever be one is difficult to predict. Sadly today the ultimate test of sovereignty does not come through international law but remains in the idea that "He is sovereign who can defend his sovereignty." The years preceding the Argentine invasion of 1982 witnessed many diplomatic exchanges between The United Kingdom and Argentina over the future of the islands. During this time the British sent signals to Argentina that ii implied a decline in British resolve to hold the islands and demonstrated that military action did more to further the talks along than did actual negotiations. The Argentine military junta read these signals and decided that they could take the islands in a quick military invasion and that the United Kingdom would consider the act as a fait accompli and would not protest the invasion. The British in response to this claimed that they never signaled to Argentina that a military solution was acceptable to them and launched a Royal Navy task force to liberate the islands. Both governments responded to an international crisis with means that were designed both to resolve the international crisis and increase the domestic popularity of the government. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was facing an all-time low in popularity for post-War Prime Ministers while Argentine President General Galtieri needed to gain mass popular support so he could remain a viable President after he was scheduled to lose command of the army and a seat on the military junta that ran the country. The military war for the Falklands is indicative of the nature of modern warfare between Third World countries. It shows that the gap in military capabilities between Third and First World countries is narrowing significantly. Modern warfare between a First and Third World country is no longer a 'walk over' for the First World country.

Barnes Wines, Limited By-Law No. 80

The by-law reads: "A by-law to change the date for the holding of the annual meeting. Whereas it is deemed expedient to change the date for the holding of the Annual Meeting of the Company; Be it therefore enacted as a By-law of Barnes Wines, Limited as follows: That By-law No. 75 of the Company be and the same is hereby amended by striking out paragraph 24 thereof and enacting in the place or stead thereof the following: "24. Annual Meeting - The Annual Meeting of the Share-holders shall be held at the Head Office of the Company or elsewhere in Ontario on the first Monday in March in each year or on such other day as the Directors may be resolution determine."