The Lawyers Weekly - August 26, 2011

Student
Continued From Page 13
own statute made MUNSU dif-
ferent from [the university]. The
judge held the same view.”
Specifically, Justice James
Adams concluded that, “While
the Students’ Union’s fee struc-
ture and internal discipline is
subject to approval by the Uni-
versity’s Board of Regents, on a
fair reading of the Students’
Union Act, the Students’ Union
is autonomous in every other
respect.”
“A review of the lease and
licence agreements entered into
between the Students’ Union and
the University in respect of the
premises in question make it clear
that the University is treating the
Students’ Union as an autonomous
entity,” he stated in his decision.

“The decision does
raise an interesting
issue for the city of
St. John’s, in
particular how tax-
exempt bodies have
been recognized in
the past…
explicitly states that recognizing
such an exemption without a by-
law is in violation of the require-
ments set out in the…[A]ct.”
Justice Adams agreed with
the university, which had inter-
venor status, that the words “col-
lege” and “institution” were
intended to refer to establish-
ments affiliated with the univer-
sity for purely educational pur-
poses, such as Grenfell College
and the Marine Institute. “They
cannot be interpreted so broadly
that they would include the Stu-
dents’ Union despite the signifi-
cant role the University acknow-
ledges the Students’ Union plays
in the life of the University gen-
erally,” he wrote.

Reasons: Memorial University of
Newfoundland Students’ Union v. St.
John’s (City), [2011] N.J. No. 183.
Butterworths®
Kirsh and Alter: A Guide to Construction
Liens in Ontario, 3rd Edition
Harvey J. Kirsh, B. A., LL.B., LL.M., C.S. &
Matthew R. Alter, B. A., LL.B., C.S.
New Edition!
$150 + tax
Approx. 500 Pages
ISBN: 9780433442752
Top Construction Lien Guide is now Fully Updated
Originally published in 1984 and updated in 1995, this book remains
the definitive guide to construction lien law in Ontario. Now revised
and updated by the authors, two of the most highly respected
names in construction law, this new edition is more indispensable
than ever… a must-have legal reference tool for anyone dealing with
construction lien law.
Features & Benefits
• Provides step-by-step guidance on the practice and procedures
involved in a typical lien action
• Many hundreds of case law references and citations provide an
excellent starting point for legal research
• Current precedents help practitioners save time and money
in preparing construction lien pleadings and related legal
documents
• Supplies the solid information, illustrated examples and sound
advice you need all in a comprehensive, easy-to-follow format
Order Today! Take advantage of the 30-Day Risk-Free† Examination.
Visit www.lexisnexis.ca/bookstore or call 1-800-668-6481
Please quote Reservation Code 3306 when ordering.
Human rights tribunal awards $10,000
in condo pool discrimination claim
Pool
Continued From Page 14
Cryptosporidium as any others
are taken care of by maintaining
appropriate chlorine levels. ...

“On the evidence before me, there have been no outbreaks of Cryptosporidium attributed to pools in Ontario. Given the large number of [them], ... the absence thus far of a Cryptosporidium outbreak is significant.

“In summary, the evidence
reveals that the risk caused by
allowing children in diapers
(particularly those who wear
swim diapers covered by tight-
fitting plastic pants) to use the
respondents’ swimming pools is
extremely small.”
Overend suggested the
respondents “had no real clear
goal with respect to the health
and safety of their residents and
guests who might use the pool
facilities. It would appear that
they largely allowed the persons
using these facilities to self-regu-
late their cleansing activities and
degree of health before entering
the pools.”
She also inferred that they
“did not aspire to a goal of abso-
lute safety in their pools. In any
event, the goal of eliminating all
risk is not realistic given that
compliance with rules is imper-
fect and accidents do happen. ...”
The adjudicator concluded that
“the needs of the group (i.e., fam-
ilies with children in diapers) can
be accommodated without undue
hardship on the respondents. ...”
The unreasonable hours for
the under 16-year-olds “seemed
designed to minimize access to
the pools” as working parents
would not be able to swim with
their kids during those times. n