Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group S/Natural Law

1: Common Good Impugned provision Section 15 How the court interprets section 15. He is denied - doesn’t want him to benefit for something that other people are supposed to be based on. To be an infringement - have to show government discriminated against disability

S.15: Trying to broaden the place of disabled people in society - disability equality further entrenched. S.44 - Have to contribute for 10 years before you get CPP - Only had 7 total years If you don’t contribute to the pot - drop out clause - you can still seek funds

Common Good: Allow people who are so disabled that they have no choice but to not contribute the ability to still benefit. Make sure they have their dignity -doesn’t demean them. Workers who can still work are less needy, less require CPP Common Good: Protect tax payers against unscrupulous people trying to manipulate system

2: Logical Steps to reach the goal.

Preventing you from getting into pot of money by following these steps 5 out of 10 last years Fair that you have to contribute before you can get any reward Must be so disabled that you cannot work Problem arises as he was still able to work afterwards.

Moral argument - These people are naturally subservient ergo they should have to follow section 44. Mimics religious indoctrination of subservient masses. Social engineering.

3: Law maker authority is unchallenged, Is law maker all knowing? Is law moral? Does it lead to happiness? This determine whether or not we follow it.

First Step: Delineating between groups - allows us to pursue goal of common good. Step two: Concrete terms Court of appeal points out statutory stuff must be followed Not a social welfare scheme Step three: establishing dignity by having clear rules. A measure of flexibility was created for all applicants by the fact that contributions need only have 	been made in five of the previous 10 years or two out of the previous three year

Some of the grounds of section 15 are immutable Disabilities not immutable, they change over time. Sacrificing this guy for common good. - people who are most downtrodden Even though you have to distinguish between groups of people, all maintain their dignity Even though ruler and ruled, not necessarily equal.

Section 44 doesn’t deny the common good vis a vis section 15.

4: Promulgated - written of course. Ties into fundamental justice - stable society Subject law to common good - decision subject to common good Granovsky v British Columbia

When approached by a natural law theorist, The decision in Granovsky v British Columbia almost seems like a foregone conclusion. By examining the four main concerns of the natural law perspective, the case unfolds in a way that directly falls into the expectations and presumptions that someone like Thomas Aquinas would have had during the time when the natural law theory was being developed.

The common good When first examining any law, we must determine whether or not that law is aimed towards satisfying the common good. All laws must satisfy this requirement; failure to do so will render a law immoral and will not compel obedience to those on whom it is foisted. The most relevant laws to deal with in this case are Section 15(1) of the charter of human rights, the CPP act itself, and the drop out provisions contained therein.

Section 15(1) of the charter states: 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

And section 44(2) of the CPP which is the drop out provision.

Does section 15(1) strive towards the common good? If analysed from the perspective of a loving god, the same loving god that supposedly pulls the strings of the natural law itself, this provision of the charter seems very much in keeping with his dictates. While not all men are equal (some are rulers, some are ruled) all deserve to be treated with the same respect and dignity as they are all creatures of god. Section 15(1) also serves an additional common good, which is that through its implimentation, it will help to make sure that the members of our society who are in some way,shape or form different than other members will not be marginalized by their “condition”. In keeping with natural law, all members of society desire happiness, and furthering social harmony can only aid in this pursuit.

What then is the social good contained within the CPP and the drop out provision in section 44(2). As is pointed out and agreed to by all parties, the CPP is not a social welfare program. The CPP is designed to assist only those members who have been contributing members of the workforce and have become disabled at some point in time during their employment, rendering them unable to continue working.