Angela Jones will know for sure whether she is an eligible candidate to represent District 4: Cole Harbour – Westphal in the upcoming city elections by October 2. Election day is October 20, and early balloting starts October 6.
Jones was declared ineligible to run in the city council elections by the city’s election officer, Cathy Mellet. At issue is the validity of Jones’ current parental and maternal leave, scheduled to last until November 16, and whether this type of leave is in accordance with the Municipal Elections Act.
Jones requested a judicial review of the September 14 decision to declare Jones an ineligible candidate. Today in court, justice Richard Coughlan asked both parties—Angela Jones along with her lawyer, Matthew Moir, and Dan Campbell, representing HRM—to come to a consensus on an agreed statement of facts before they can move forward with the review. After an hour-long adjournment, both parties agreed to moving forward in order to make up the record.
Working under a very tight schedule with the election fast approaching, Coughlan set dates for both parties to provide him with the necessary paperwork leading up to October 2: By September 21, he must be provided with notice of participation, which will, if all goes well, include the agreed statement of facts. On September 24, Jones’s brief will be filed, and on September 26 the city’s brief will be filed. If a reply brief is necessary, it will be filed by September 28.
Jones is frustrated with the hold-up, but appreciative of the support she’s been getting from her district, and the rest of Halifax. “I am fighting so I can represent Cole Harbour. I hope this goes to show how much I want to win this election.”
This article appears in Sep 13-19, 2012.
Carpetbagger from Dartmouth.
It is silly to restrict anyone from running in an election on the grounds that they did not file the correct forms to their employer (in their function as such). If there is a perceived conflict of interest, it should be taken up by the employer, and if it is a public employer there could be an automatic trigger of relevant proceedings. Eventually, a person might get fired, which could then get contested in court – with ample time at hand. But shutting someone out from the election is wrong. It deprives everybody the chance to vote for that person and thus is bad for democracy. Furthermore, it forces rushed court rulings, which can be detrimental to justice – or, in the worst case, a nullification of the election, which is very costly.
These rules need to be rethought and changed.
In the particular case: Are you kidding me? The person is already on maternal leave, so there is no perceivable conflict of interest that another leave on top could fix. And they want that woman to sign and hand in forms asking for another leave? Is some HRM department bored, hungry for paperwork?
Since she’s due back to work in November, she’s currently on paternal leave (maternal leave is only for the first 3 months since the baby’s birth). On paternal leave, the employer has no responsibility to top up the EI pay received. So this can’t and shouldn’t be about a conflict with pay. However, since the department is up in arms tells me that Jones might be getting topped up by the city since the leave is filed as parental and policy dictates blah blah blah… While on a work leave the city likely has to pay nothing, just the lovely red tape of bureaucracy.
So the issue is probably money. Staff have to take time off to campaign on their own dime WHILE council can take time off to campaign (for MLA and MP or whatever esle) and get full pay…
Bundy – the legislation says nothing about maternal/paternal leave, paid or unpaid. City Hall is up in arms she says, maybe that is because she never followed the legislation. Maybe she never told her boss. Maybe we will get the truth when she and HRM file the agreed statement of facts.
JoeBlow, I suggest you reread the Act:
(9) Where a leave of absence is granted pursuant to subsection (2), the person to whom the leave of absence is granted shall not be paid but the person, upon application to the chief administrative officer of the municipality at any time before the leave of absence commences, is entitled to pension credit for service as if the person were not on a leave of absence and to medical and health benefits, long-term disability coverage and life insurance coverage, or any one or more of them, if the person pays both that person’s and the municipality’s, utility’s, board’s, commission’s, committee’s or official’s share of the cost. 2000, c. 9, s. 20.
And there lies the problem. She is on a paid leave.
Bro Tim – The Act contains no reference to maternal/paternal leave. It is clear.
I thought parental leave was for the benefit of the child. Y’know, society pays EI, jobs guaranteed; employers find a way to fill in, all in the interest in supporting the newborn, and the important bonding with Mom and Dad. Apparently not at all. You can use your leave to run for office. Too bad Junior, Mommy comes first. Hey dads, you can get in on this too. Imagine how a year of parental leave could improve your golf game! If a full year is not required, maybe we should cut it off earlier.