why macushlaw

who we are

what we do

how to contact us

what we're saying

join the team

how we give back

why macushlaw

who we are

what we do

how to contact us

what we're saying

Home
Beyond the Act: Indigenous Advisory Process for Reform

Beyond the Act: Indigenous Advisory Process for Reform

The Indian Act has gone through many amendments since its inception nearly 150 years ago with the unsuccessful goal of “getting rid of the Indian problem” as quoted by Duncan Campbell Scott, who served as Deputy Superintendent of Indian Affairs from 1913 to 1932.

When the 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy came out under Justin Trudeau’s father, Pierre Trudeau, it attempted to rescind the Indian Act completely which would result in First Nations becoming regular citizens, essentially disenfranchising us from our distinct legal status and ultimately our inherent rights to which the federal government has a fiduciary duty to uphold. The White Paper was a loophole for the government to wipe its hands clean of their fiduciary duties to First Nations. Thankfully the Indigenous leaders of the day fought against it, and it was shelved.

As much as the Indian Act is an oppressive, discriminatory hindrance and barrier to First Nations rights, many First Nation’s people feel that it also serves as a protective shield. Rescinding the Indian Act without something to fall back on such as a self-government agreement for a First Nation, would result in First Nations rights holders having to deal directly with the provinces and territories rather than with the federal government in a government-to-government relationship.

Since the failure of the White Paper, the Indian Act has been chipped away at piece by piece like the carving of an old soap stone that one day might just crumble. Today, the government is finally realizing that no one is better suited to make changes to the Act than First Nations people themselves who have been calling for specific amendments to the Act for decades. The change must be Indigenous led, “nothing about us without us” and this is part of the reason why Indigenous Services Canada has recently set out the establishment of an Indigenous Advisory Process (IAP) to guide and inform the review of outstanding sections of the Indian Act that need reform. The IAP is part of the government of Canada’s comprehensive reform process. The intention of the IAP is to address inequities within particular sections that now need to align with UNDRIP in efforts to become a more reconciliatory government.

The comprehensive reform consultation process is an attempt to transition away from the Indian Act. This was first triggered by the Descheneaux case where injustices in the Act relating to discrepancies in First Nation status registration were called out. With consultation plans in place in 2018 and 2019, the consultation process may have taken a bit of a back step when Covid struck because only now was there a recent announcement made by the Minister of Indigenous Services, Patty Hadju. The announcement states that the IAP will begin its review of the second generation cut off rule, where a person may lose their right to First Nation status registration under the Indian Act after two consecutive generations of parenting with a person who is not entitled to registration themselves (non- status).

Second generation cut off was introduced in the 1985 amendments to Bill C-31 under section 6(1)(f) and 6(2) and is a classic example of how solving one problem can lead to another host of problems. To simplify this equation, which is quite similar to the splitting of chromosomes when determining birth genetics, I will use my immediate family as an example. I for instance am considered to have section (6)(1) status which means that my children are section 6(2) status because their father is non status. If one of my section 6(2) children has a child with a non status person, my grandchild will lose his/her status altogether.

Its simple math then that a 6(2) status and a 6(2) status having children adds up to their children being a full 6(1) but its not that simple. When you include children who are customarily adopted, sixties scoop survivors returning to their territory to find out more about their identity, and those seeking to become reinstated after being designated wrongly under section 6 of the Act (which poses its own set of challenges including having to meet certain criteria based on a person’s year of birth), the math can become complicated. Furthering the problem is that it is difficult for some First Nations members to prove their status due to issues with identification. Those who are rightfully First Nations may not be able to receive benefits and services because they can’t prove it on paper.

With recent shocking developments in acts of “pretendianism”, I imagine that the IAP’s undertaking of section 6 will factor in this controversial discussion. While blood quantum is not necessary to determine status, it is important to be able to quantify ones First Nation’s ancestry through their lineage. Where I come from for instance, I always introduce myself and who my grandparents last names are so that people in the community can know which family line I come from.

In its analysis of section 6, the IAP will most likely have to grapple with the relevant influx of First Nations now opting into self government and opting out of certain sections of the Indian Act through other methods of legislation whereby First Nations are taking control of their own administration, one being their membership. It begs the question; will the IAP recommendations result in the decision-making power being in the hands of the First Nation’s to determine who has status and who doesn’t? Or will a more affirmative rights-based approach be taken to indicate status such as a Powley Test for First Nations?

This leads directly into the next issue that will be reviewed under the IAP which is the voting thresholds under section 10 of the Indian Act. The Act states that “a band may assume control of its own membership if it establishes membership rules for itself in writing in accordance with this section and if, after the band has given appropriate notice of its intention to assume control of its own membership, a majority of the electors of the band gives its consent to the band’s control of its own membership.”

The IAP review will most likely address the need to differentiate the variances between citizenship, registration, and membership. The criteria requirements, recognition and affirmation that comes along with those terms will need to be interpreted among other methods of how to strike section 10 of the Act and replace it with something that is more in line with the current times where First Nations are regaining sovereignty by taking back control and administrating their own programs and services. Whether this be through self government or implementing their own laws they may have the ultimate authority to recognize who is eligible as a registered member and keep track of their own membership lists rather than the lists being under lock and key with the federal government. For this to occur effectively, membership privacy must be protected, and the nations will need to first have appropriate records management in place for safe and secure storage of personal information. The government should be providing the resources to ensure that these mechanisms, and the capacity to maintain them, are accomplished. There must also be a reasonable and navigable complaint process available to First Nation members if their Nation is not conducting programs and services on their behalf accordingly.

IAP’s have been a solution for statutory and regulatory decision making for some time now, yet this is the first time it will be set up to take a good hard look at the Indian Act. It is important that the Minister ensures the IAP is comprised of a diverse demographic of impartial First Nation people from across the country who are well informed on the issues at hand. Ultimately, the Indian Act will eventually become a powerless document replaced with functional up to date Indigenous legal orders that suffice with the common law. The entire Act itself is inconsistent with UNDRIP and, in fact, is the complete opposite of what UNDRIP stands for. Now that Canada has adopted UNDRIP, they are mandated to abide by the declarations that outline Indigenous rights, and the Indian Act should be the first order of business.

Written by Katłı̨̀ą (Catherine) Lafferty

Next

join the team

how we give back

what we're saying

Home
Beyond the Act: Indigenous Advisory Process for Reform

Beyond the Act: Indigenous Advisory Process for Reform

The Indian Act has gone through many amendments since its inception nearly 150 years ago with the unsuccessful goal of “getting rid of the Indian problem” as quoted by Duncan Campbell Scott, who served as Deputy Superintendent of Indian Affairs from 1913 to 1932.

When the 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy came out under Justin Trudeau’s father, Pierre Trudeau, it attempted to rescind the Indian Act completely which would result in First Nations becoming regular citizens, essentially disenfranchising us from our distinct legal status and ultimately our inherent rights to which the federal government has a fiduciary duty to uphold. The White Paper was a loophole for the government to wipe its hands clean of their fiduciary duties to First Nations. Thankfully the Indigenous leaders of the day fought against it, and it was shelved.

As much as the Indian Act is an oppressive, discriminatory hindrance and barrier to First Nations rights, many First Nation’s people feel that it also serves as a protective shield. Rescinding the Indian Act without something to fall back on such as a self-government agreement for a First Nation, would result in First Nations rights holders having to deal directly with the provinces and territories rather than with the federal government in a government-to-government relationship.

Since the failure of the White Paper, the Indian Act has been chipped away at piece by piece like the carving of an old soap stone that one day might just crumble. Today, the government is finally realizing that no one is better suited to make changes to the Act than First Nations people themselves who have been calling for specific amendments to the Act for decades. The change must be Indigenous led, “nothing about us without us” and this is part of the reason why Indigenous Services Canada has recently set out the establishment of an Indigenous Advisory Process (IAP) to guide and inform the review of outstanding sections of the Indian Act that need reform. The IAP is part of the government of Canada’s comprehensive reform process. The intention of the IAP is to address inequities within particular sections that now need to align with UNDRIP in efforts to become a more reconciliatory government.

The comprehensive reform consultation process is an attempt to transition away from the Indian Act. This was first triggered by the Descheneaux case where injustices in the Act relating to discrepancies in First Nation status registration were called out. With consultation plans in place in 2018 and 2019, the consultation process may have taken a bit of a back step when Covid struck because only now was there a recent announcement made by the Minister of Indigenous Services, Patty Hadju. The announcement states that the IAP will begin its review of the second generation cut off rule, where a person may lose their right to First Nation status registration under the Indian Act after two consecutive generations of parenting with a person who is not entitled to registration themselves (non- status).

Second generation cut off was introduced in the 1985 amendments to Bill C-31 under section 6(1)(f) and 6(2) and is a classic example of how solving one problem can lead to another host of problems. To simplify this equation, which is quite similar to the splitting of chromosomes when determining birth genetics, I will use my immediate family as an example. I for instance am considered to have section (6)(1) status which means that my children are section 6(2) status because their father is non status. If one of my section 6(2) children has a child with a non status person, my grandchild will lose his/her status altogether.

Its simple math then that a 6(2) status and a 6(2) status having children adds up to their children being a full 6(1) but its not that simple. When you include children who are customarily adopted, sixties scoop survivors returning to their territory to find out more about their identity, and those seeking to become reinstated after being designated wrongly under section 6 of the Act (which poses its own set of challenges including having to meet certain criteria based on a person’s year of birth), the math can become complicated. Furthering the problem is that it is difficult for some First Nations members to prove their status due to issues with identification. Those who are rightfully First Nations may not be able to receive benefits and services because they can’t prove it on paper.

With recent shocking developments in acts of “pretendianism”, I imagine that the IAP’s undertaking of section 6 will factor in this controversial discussion. While blood quantum is not necessary to determine status, it is important to be able to quantify ones First Nation’s ancestry through their lineage. Where I come from for instance, I always introduce myself and who my grandparents last names are so that people in the community can know which family line I come from.

In its analysis of section 6, the IAP will most likely have to grapple with the relevant influx of First Nations now opting into self government and opting out of certain sections of the Indian Act through other methods of legislation whereby First Nations are taking control of their own administration, one being their membership. It begs the question; will the IAP recommendations result in the decision-making power being in the hands of the First Nation’s to determine who has status and who doesn’t? Or will a more affirmative rights-based approach be taken to indicate status such as a Powley Test for First Nations?

This leads directly into the next issue that will be reviewed under the IAP which is the voting thresholds under section 10 of the Indian Act. The Act states that “a band may assume control of its own membership if it establishes membership rules for itself in writing in accordance with this section and if, after the band has given appropriate notice of its intention to assume control of its own membership, a majority of the electors of the band gives its consent to the band’s control of its own membership.”

The IAP review will most likely address the need to differentiate the variances between citizenship, registration, and membership. The criteria requirements, recognition and affirmation that comes along with those terms will need to be interpreted among other methods of how to strike section 10 of the Act and replace it with something that is more in line with the current times where First Nations are regaining sovereignty by taking back control and administrating their own programs and services. Whether this be through self government or implementing their own laws they may have the ultimate authority to recognize who is eligible as a registered member and keep track of their own membership lists rather than the lists being under lock and key with the federal government. For this to occur effectively, membership privacy must be protected, and the nations will need to first have appropriate records management in place for safe and secure storage of personal information. The government should be providing the resources to ensure that these mechanisms, and the capacity to maintain them, are accomplished. There must also be a reasonable and navigable complaint process available to First Nation members if their Nation is not conducting programs and services on their behalf accordingly.

IAP’s have been a solution for statutory and regulatory decision making for some time now, yet this is the first time it will be set up to take a good hard look at the Indian Act. It is important that the Minister ensures the IAP is comprised of a diverse demographic of impartial First Nation people from across the country who are well informed on the issues at hand. Ultimately, the Indian Act will eventually become a powerless document replaced with functional up to date Indigenous legal orders that suffice with the common law. The entire Act itself is inconsistent with UNDRIP and, in fact, is the complete opposite of what UNDRIP stands for. Now that Canada has adopted UNDRIP, they are mandated to abide by the declarations that outline Indigenous rights, and the Indian Act should be the first order of business.

Written by Katłı̨̀ą (Catherine) Lafferty

Next

Privacy Policy

Last Updated: March 5, 2021

Macushla Law Corporation and its affiliates (“macushlaw ” or “we”), are committed to protecting and maintaining the accuracy, security and privacy of Personal Information in accordance with applicable legislation and the Law Society of British Columbia’s cloud computing due diligence guidelines (“Law Society Guidelines”). This macushlaw (tm pending) Privacy Policy is a statement of principles and guidelines concerning the protection of Personal Information of our clients, service providers and other individuals (“you”).

Consent

By submitting personal information to macushlaw (tm pending) or its service providers and agents, you consent to our collection, use and disclosure of such personal information as set out in this this privacy policy and as permitted or required by law. Subject to legal and contractual requirements, you may refuse or withdraw your consent to certain of the identified purposes at any time by contacting us. If you refuse or withdraw your consent, we may not be able to provide you or continue to provide you with certain services or information which may be of value to you. If you provide macushlaw (tm pending) or our service providers and agents with personal information of another individual, you represent that you have all necessary authority and/or have obtained all necessary consents from such person to enable us to collect, use and disclose such personal information for the purposes set forth in this Privacy Policy.

what personal information do we collect?

Canadian privacy legislation defines “Personal Information” broadly as information about an identifiable individual or as information that allows an individual to be identified. For the purposes of this policy, Personal Information means information about an identifiable individual as defined from time to time in applicable privacy legislation. Generally speaking, Personal Information does not include what is considered business contact information: your name, title or position, business address, telephone number, facsimile number or e-mail address. The types of Personal Information that macushlaw (tm pending) may collect about you includes your name, home address, telephone number, personal e-mail address, billing and account information, information about a client’s legal issue and other information incidental to providing legal advice and services or information we are required to, or may during the course of our engagement with you, collect pursuant to the practice of law in British Columbia and elsewhere (including Personal Information about witnesses, family members, beneficiaries, directors, officers, employees, adverse parties, parties-in-interest, investigators, decision-makers, experts, other professional advisors and our clients’ business partners, investors, shareholders, competitors and customers whom are individuals).

We also collect from former employers and other third parties, and from publicly available sources, personal information about prospective or current employees, contractors and partners that is reasonably required to establish, manage or terminate an employment, contractual or partnership relationship.

why do we collect your personal information?

In general, macushlaw (tm pending) collects, uses and discloses Personal Information about our clients and service providers in order to provide our clients with professional legal services, and about applicants for positions with macushlaw (tm pending) for the purpose of evaluating the application and deciding whether to establish (and subsequently to manage or terminate) an employment, contractual or partnership relationship.

More specifically, we collect, use and disclose your Personal Information:

~ to establish and manage client relationships, provide legal advice, perform legal services, fulfill legal duties, and avoid conflicts of interest. This may include the sharing of Personal Information by and between macushlaw (tm pending) personnel and affiliated companies and partnerships for such purposes;

~ to share Personal Information to and from third parties for the purpose of providing legal services. Such third parties may include opposing parties; parties in interest; opposing, foreign and other counsel and advisors; witnesses; decision-makers; and experts;

~ to consider whether macushlaw (tm pending) should establish a commercial relationship with clients, suppliers and other third parties, including to evaluate credit standing and to match credit bureau or credit reporting agency information;

~ to establish and maintain commercial relationships with clients, suppliers and other third parties, including to issue invoices, administer accounts, collect and process payments, and to fulfill contractual obligations;

~ to establish, manage and terminate employment, contractual and partnership relationships;

~ to understand and respond to client, supplier and other third party needs and preferences, including to contact and communicate with such parties and to conduct surveys, research and evaluations;

~ to develop, enhance, market, sell or otherwise provide macushlaw’s (tm pending) products and services;

~ to market, sell or otherwise provide products and services of third parties with whom macushlaw (tm pending) has a commercial relationship;

~ to distribute our newsletters and other informational e-mail communications, conference information and other material to individuals on our mail and e-mail lists, including via third party mailing houses and e-mail service providers;

~ to develop and manage our knowledge-management precedent systems and databases;

~ to develop and manage macushlaw’s (tm pending) business and operations;

~ to detect and protect macushlaw (tm pending) and other third parties against error, negligence, breach of contract, fraud, theft and other illegal activity, and to audit compliance with macushlaw (tm pending) policies and contractual obligations;

~ to engage in business transactions, including the purchase, sale, lease, merger, amalgamation or any other type of acquisition, disposal, securitization or financing involving macushlaw (tm pending);

~ as permitted by, and to comply with, any legal or regulatory requirements or provisions; and

~ for any other purpose to which you consent.

to whom do we disclose your personal information?

From time to time, macushlaw (tm pending) may disclose your Personal Information to:

· service providers, including an organization or individual retained by Macushlaw (tm pending) to perform functions on its behalf, such as marketing, data processing, document management and office services;

· an organization or individual retained by macushlaw (tm pending) to evaluate your creditworthiness or to collect debts outstanding on an account;

· a financial institution, on a confidential basis and solely in connection with the assignment of a right to receive payment, the provision of security or other financing arrangements; or

· a person who, in the reasonable judgment of macushlaw (tm pending), is providing or seeking the information as your agent;

· to our insurers and to regulatory agencies such as provincial law societies, insurers or others in connection with regulatory or other activities relating to the obligations of macushlaw (tm pending) and its practice of the profession of law;

· to personnel in macushlaw (tm pending), government authorities, insurers, benefits providers, consultants or agents as reasonably required to establish, manage or terminate employment, contractual and partnership relationships; and

· any third party or parties, where you consent to such disclosure or where disclosure is required or permitted by law.

where do we store your personal information?

Your Personal Information is stored in secured locations and on servers controlled by macushlaw (tm pending), located either at our offices or at the offices of our service providers.

how may you obtain access to your personal information?

Upon your written request, subject to certain exceptions, macushlaw (tm pending) will inform you of the existence, use and disclosure of your Personal Information and will give you access to that information. Access requests should be sent to our office, using the contact information below. Your personal information may be shared, stored or accessed in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Economic Area and other jurisdictions or countries. Your information may be disclosed in response to valid demands or requests from governments, regulators, courts and law enforcement authorities in those jurisdictions or countries.

how do we protect your personal information?

To help protect the confidentiality of your Personal Information, macushlaw (tm pending) employs administrative and technological safeguards appropriate to the sensitivity of your Personal Information. Where Personal Information is sent to a third party for processing we ensure, through our contacts with them, that all Personal Information is kept secure. We operate secure data networks protected by industry standard firewall and password protection systems.

privacy and our website

Cookies, Beacons and Tracking – When an individual visitor accesses the macushlaw (tm pending) website, we may use a browser feature called a ‘cookie’ to collect information such as the type of Internet browser and operating system the visitor uses, the domain name of the website from which the visitor came, date and duration of the visit, number of visits, average time spent on our website, pages viewed and number of cookies accumulated. A cookie is a small text file containing a unique identification number that identifies the visitor’s browser, but not necessarily the visitor, to our computers each time our website is visited. Unless a visitor specifically informs us (e.g. by registering for an event or sending us correspondence from the website), we will not know who the individual visitors are. Similarly, we may use other technologies such as pixel tags, locally shared objects, clear GIFs and web beacons, to track what you view and interact with on our website. In addition to the identified purposes described in our Privacy Policy, we may use this website information and share it with other organizations with whom we have a commercial relationship to measure the use of our website, to improve the functionality and content of the website and to facilitate usage by a visitor. Visitors can reset their browsers either to notify them when they have received a cookie or refuse to accept cookies. However, if a visitor refuses to accept cookies, he or she may not be able to use some of the features available on our website.

Online Communications – In order to provide our website visitors with a service or information, visitors may voluntarily submit Personal Information to us for purposes such as asking a question, obtaining information, reviewing or downloading a publication, subscribing to our newsletter or a mail or e-mail list, participating in a seminar or other event, and participating in contests and surveys. If you are known to macushlaw (tm pending) as a registered user of an online service, we may combine and store Personal Information about your use of our website and the online information you have provided with certain other online and offline information we may have collected.

E-mail Communications – Occasionally, we may send marketing or promotional e-mail communications to you with information that may be useful, including information about the services of macushlaw (tm pending) and other third parties with whom we have a relationship. In this process, we may collect certain information such as the date/time you first opened our e-mail communications, the number of times you open our e-mail communications, the number of click-throughs per article, total click-through activity on the contents of our e-mail communications and compile generally the related statistics. We may combine and store any such information to manage and improve our e-mail communications to you. We will include instructions on how to unsubscribe and inform us of preferences if you decide you do not want to receive any future marketing or promotional e-mails from macushlaw (tm pending).

Links – Our website may contain links to other websites which are provided as a convenience only. Visitors are advised that other third party websites may have different privacy policies and practices than macushlaw (tm pending), and macushlaw (tm pending) has no responsibility for such third party websites.

changes to the privacy policy

We reserve the right to modify or supplement this Privacy Policy at any time. If we make a change to this Privacy Policy, we will post such changes on our website and make such revised policy and changes available upon request to our office. However, we will obtain the necessary consents required under applicable privacy laws if it seeks to collect, use or disclose your Personal Information for purposes other than those to which consent has been obtained unless otherwise required or permitted by law.

third party privacy policies

During the course of offering you the best client-service possible, we employ the use of third party software for internal system use. Each of these third-party services is screened internally to ensure compliance with Law Society Guidelines. The use, collection, and storage of your personal information is also subject to those third-party policies, and by use of our Services you agree to comply with such policies.

further information

Macushlaw (tm pending) has appointed James Struthers our office to oversee compliance with this Privacy Policy and applicable privacy laws. For information on macushlaw (tm pending)’s privacy practices, please contact Mr. Struthers at:

[email protected]

253 Columbia Street

Vancouver, BC V6A 2R5

Terms of Use

Your access to and use of any material on the macushlaw (tm pending) website constitutes your acceptance of, and is conditional upon your acceptance of and compliance with, the following provisions. These terms and conditions may change from time to time and it is your responsibility to check for such updates.

No Lawyer – Client Relationship

No lawyer-client, advisory, fiduciary or other relationship is created by accessing or otherwise using the macushlaw (tm pending) website or by communicating with a lawyers by way of e-mail or through our website.

Not Legal Advice

The material provided on the macushlaw (tm pending) website is for general information purposes only. It is not intended to provide legal advice or opinions of any kind and may not be used for professional or commercial purposes. No one should act, or refrain from acting, based solely upon the materials provided on this website, any hypertext links or other general information without first seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice. The hypertext links, search mechanisms, portals, documents and information on this website are provided for your convenience only. These materials may have no evidentiary value and should be checked against official sources before they are used for professional or commercial purposes. It is your responsibility to determine whether these materials are admissible in a given judicial or administrative proceeding and whether there are any other evidentiary or filing requirements. Your use of these materials is at your own risk.

No Warranty

While macushlaw (tm pending) has made reasonable efforts to ensure that the materials contained on this website are accurate, it does not warrant or guarantee: the accuracy, currency or completeness of the materials; that the website will be available without interruption, error or omission; that defects will be corrected; or that the website and the server(s) that make it available are free from viruses or other harmful components. The website and the materials provided on the website are provided “as is” and “as available” without representations, warranties or conditions of any kind, either express or implied.

In no event shall macushlaw (tm pending), its partners, agents or employees be liable for any loss, cost or damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for harm to business, loss of profits, programs or data, interruption of activities or any other pecuniary or economic loss) whether direct, indirect, incidental, punitive, special, exemplary, consequential or otherwise arising out of any use or misuse of, or any defects, inaccuracies, errors or omissions in this site without regard to the form of action, even if macushlaw (tm pending) has been advised of the possibility of damages or if such damages are reasonably foreseeable.

Communications Not Confidential

macushlaw (tm pending) does not guarantee the confidentiality of any communication via e-mail, through the website, or through any third-party service that relates to a matter for which the firm does not already represent you. In matters that macushlaw (tm pending) does represent you, e-mail may not be secure.

Laws of British Columbia and Canada Apply

The laws of the province of British Columbia and the laws of Canada applicable therein shall govern use of this website and the interpretation, validity and effect of this agreement, notwithstanding any conflict of laws, provisions or your domicile, residence or physical location. You hereby consent and submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the province of British Columbia in any action or proceeding related to this website and agree not to commence any such action or proceeding except in Vancouver, British Columbia Canada.

Reserved Rights

Copyright © 2020 Macushla Law Corporation. All rights reserved. The macushlaw (tm pending) website contains information, communication, software (including program code that may execute on the server or that may be embedded in or downloadable from individual pages on this site), images, sounds, music, graphics, photos, videos and other materials and services (collectively, “Content”).

You agree that the Content and the selection, arrangement, architecture and enhancement of the Content and other website features (“Website Design”) are protected by Canadian and international intellectual and industrial property rights, including copyrights, trade-marks and other proprietary rights. These rights are valid and protected in all media existing now or later developed, and all use of the Content or Website Design shall be in accordance with such rights and the terms of this agreement.

Users of this website are granted a limited licence to display or print its content for their own personal non-commercial use, provided the Content is not modified. Any other use of the Content or the Website Design is prohibited. The Content and Website Design may not be otherwise reproduced, republished or re-disseminated in any matter or form without the prior written consent of macushlaw (tm pending).

Linking

You may link to the front page of this website at www.macushlaw.ca. Any other link to this website, and any linking to the pages within the site or framing of content on this site, is prohibited without the prior written consent of macushlaw (tm pending). Any reference on this website to any product or service by trade name, trade-mark, hypertext link or otherwise is provided to you for your convenience only and does not constitute or imply its endorsement or recommendation by macushlaw (tm pending). To the extent this website contains links to other websites, macushlaw (tm pending) does not control the availability or content of such websites. Your use of any linked websites is at your own risk.