Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group S/Natural Law
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.
The CPP itself is designed for the good of the people underneath its provisions. CPP members pay money to the CPP and if they follow its edicts they are allowed to benefit from the program by getting a small pension. The CPP is a program that must be opted into, as such it is not a social welfare program that is designed to help a vast majority of the populace. While the CPP does give its members a small pension, the program has the ability to help people if they become disabled, especially during commencement of their employment. As per Thomas Aquinas, if a law allows for people to benefit from its provisions in a fair manner, and they choose to be under the law itself, it would prima facie seem to serve the public good of the public underneath the statute.
However, Granovsky has issue with Section 44 of the CPP which gives people who do not meet the criteria of the CPP to still benefits from its provisions. Under normal circumstances you would have to make contributions within 5 of the last 10 years or 2 of the last 3 years in order to be able to benefit from the opt-out program specifically designed for people who are injured. Granovsky was still able to participate in intermittent work but not enough that he could pay the necessary amounts. As a result even though he would have been able to benefit from it in the past, when he applied he had gone too long without contributions. Granovsky feels that Section 44 actually violates his Section 15 charter right to equality under the law as his dignity has been made to suffer as a result of the discriminatory provisions within the CPP.
Section 15 of the charter is undoubtedly aimed towards the common good. It is designed to ensure that no one is discriminated against as a result of age, race, physical/mental disability etc. But how does Section 44 work for the common good? It seems that the CPP and section 44 has multiple ways in which it protects the common good. By stipulating certain provisions such as the necessity of contributions over long periods of time, the CPP actually prevents unscrupulous people from attempting to abuse the system and leech funds off those who may need it more. Section 44 allows for people who are injured to still recieve some benefits that they might otherwise be denied, and prima facie its rules do not seem unreasonable. The drop out provision is designed to provide funds for people who will inevitably need it more than those who have been able to work for longer periods of time, and by providing this financial support, it furthers the goals of Section 15 of the Charter in regards to making sure that people who are injured and unable to work are not further marginalised by becoming part of societies poor and needy.
Granovsky seeks to point out that Section 44 actually has an additional, unintended result. The provisions of the CPP and the drop out provisions end up discriminating against people in his situation; people still able to work intermittently but not able to make full contributions. It also labels him as a "non-contributor" even though he had made a significant amount of contributions during the time when he was not rendered so unable to work that he couldn't keep up with the payments. He claims that the government is discriminating against him with this provision, yet we must ask, is this for the common good? It is worth pointing out that if we adapt Thomas Aquinas to a modern day locale, he would agree that discriminating against people cannot serve the common good as putting people in a disadvantageous position would serve to stunt their physical and spiritual well being. That being said, Thomas Aquinas was also a person who recognized that certain elements of society were essentially inferior to others. Putting that aside for now though, if we rightly assume that Thomas Aquinas would want people to flourish spiritually and physically, does section 44 prevent this? Ultimately, there must be a line in the sand drawn somewhere and the provisions of Section 44 do not seem to be horrendously unreasonable or demeaning to people that fall outside of them. Those people who do not fall within the provisions don't need the money as much as those who do. Section 15 is trying to broaden the place of people in society and the opt out provision helps to facilitate this. Just because the drop out provision does not help people in Granovsky's case does not mean the law isn't for the common good, it just means that one person has fallen outside of what might have been needed.
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
Thomas Aquinas was also keenly interested in making sure that the steps that are taken towards making a good law are logically taken. A law that requires multiple, unconnected things is not harmonious, and harmony and goodness go together hand in hand. The steps that one must follow in order to satisfy the CPP as well as the drop out provisions are very clear and do not seem entirely onerous. By paying for 5 out of the last 10 years, you've contributed half of what you normally would have been required to do. If the requirement had been that you needed to pay 8 years that may seem too draconian, especially because serious injuries can have lingering effects that reoccur and interrupt work several years after they have happened. Also some injuries take multiple years to rehab from as well. Subsequently, only requiring 2 out of 10 years to have been payed would leave the system open to being exploited and may not serve the common good that Aquinas yearns for.
The fact that you must be disabled to the point that you cannot work also seems to be a logical step as those who cannot work need much more than those who can. In the case of Granovsky there is a disconnect as he is able to work but still not generate large sums of money. However, with a health care system such as Canada's, Granovsky would no doubt be able to be much more suitable to making ends meet if he could work a few days a week. It is not a perfect solution, but at least it is a workable one.
Thomas Aquinas is clearly a man who wants the common good that is logically arrived at. Yet his version of the state of human affairs is unfortunately at odds with helping Granovsky. To Aquinas it would seem perfectly logical that by subjecting yourself to the CPP which is an optional program, you are subjecting yourself to the rules and whims of the administrators of that program. By following the rules of a system, you become subservient to it and by breaking the rules of the system, you naturally will not be able to benefit from it. Considering that Granovsky did not follow the rules of the system and he was able to work at all, he should know that he wouldn't be able to benefit from the CPP. It does not make any sense to Aquinas that one would knowingly break a valid rule and seek rewards as a result. Of course, this would not be something Granovsky would agree with, but when we consider that Aquinas was a member of the religious body politic, one known for using ritualised indoctrination techniques to subdue the masses, it would seem unlikely that he would applaud someone for trying to fight against the power structure. The CPP itself can be seen as a form of social engineering, and trying to break the edicts that came from its creators is the antithesis of what Thomas Aquinas would appreciate
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.
\
This brings us to the next point that Thomas Aquinas kens to, which is the unchallenged authority of the law maker. Since the law maker is the law maker seemingly by virtue of god, their rules must be followed by virtue of them being able to make rules at all. Law makers are considered all knowing, and while they may err on occasion, their rules by and large will be something that must be followed. In Thomas Aquinas' era, the rule making power would have been vested in the sovereign, whereas in Granvosky's time it would be vested within the parliament and subsequently any regulatory body that enacted programs like the CPP. By participating in the program, Granovsky is undoubtedly acknowledging the wisdom of the law maker, and as such should have no recourse to challenge its decisions according to Aquinas.
Seeing as the all knowing law makers would no doubt want their subjects to be happy and peaceful, they will create laws that are moral and ergo lead to happiness. They do this by delineating between which groups will be affected by their laws, give concrete terms so that the populace can understand what is expected of them, and lastly establish the dignity of all involved by creating these clear rules. The CPP clearly delineates between who falls within its provisions and who doesn't. It also gives very concrete terms and guidelines so that it can be followed. Finally it creates not only clear rules for people without injuries, but it creates clear rules for people that have injuries so as to recognize that the two groups need not be treated equally.
There can be no doubt that Granovsky's injury is serious. It has prevented him from working and he clearly needs the assistance of the CPP. That being said, his injury was not guaranteed to get worse. Section 15 of the charter deals with mostly with immutable characteristics of people such as their race, ethnicity or age. Mental and Physical disability are much more malleable and less rigid, but
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.