About Me-email is... grant.go@aol.com

My photo
garden bay, west coast, Canada
persistent digging,never say never

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Gregor Robertson or Susan Anton?

To tell you the truth they both scare me, Gregor may highlight a green hue in his Mascara choices but to me he appears to be cut from the same corporate cloth as those who came before him and as for Susan Anton, I wonder what is happening in her brain, I mean really, what won`t she say, from bike lane moratoriums to a 70 story St. Pauls hospital to now advocating removal of Occupy Vancouver demonstrators by whatever means possible, this I assume would mean use of water cannons, police dogs and tear gas....


The mainstream media still doesn`t get it, certain bloogers have their head stuck so far up their own asses they unfortunately will never get it..


Maple Leaf Foods Inc. unveiled a sweeping $560-million overhaul that will see it close most of its aging meat-processing factories in Canada in a bid to slash costs as it fights with more efficient global rivals.
Facing increased competition from U.S. meat suppliers and pressure from shareholders to improve the financial results, Maple Leaf chief executive officer Michael McCain pledged in an interview to significantly boost the company’s profits by closing eight plants and distribution centres, building a massive new factory in Hamilton and upgrading plants in Brampton, Ont., Winnipeg and Saskatoon. But the plan also comes with a human cost: It will cut 1,500 jobs, or about 12 per cent of the work force in the meat division, Maple Leaf’s largest unit.


Read whole story here
_____________________________________________________________________________________________  Most media has been concentrating their efforts in discrediting the "Evolution" by using the taxing the rich argument, claiming how futile taxing the rich would be in lowering the National debt, and that would be true however......However the media and right wing rant blogs have avoided the bigger questions and implications, ad nauseum emanating from the depths of the corporate balck hole...."It`s different in Canada, we have fairer taxation, Canada`s middleclass is well off, our banks behaved".....I love the buzz words, in particular this one.."Productivity"...The above story about Maple Leafs Foods is not a story about 1000,s of family supporting jobs vanishing, no, it`s a success story about productivity....


When and if the world financial picture improves, the markets, the markets will rise and oil will surge in price resulting in an even bigger shocks at the pump, gas prices will drive consumer demand downward thus repeating this hideous financial cyclethon we`re on, ..


Gregor and Susan are subtly suggesting violent measures to remove the occupiers, a certain nasty little blogger is almost demanding it, violence that is, ....yes indeed, this is Canada so by all means bring out the water cannons, the tear gas and the sonar stunner, who do these people think they are, they aren`t peaceful loving hockey fans, they aren`t football fanatics they are but down and outers, stinky smelly degenerates so by all means arrest them, haul their sorry asses to jail, after all, doesn`t Harper have some super max prisons needing to be filled....

What Maple Leaf Foods is doing is exactly what all the other corporate players are doing, becoming more productive with fewer and fewer workers, outsourcing jobs combined with automation means but one thing...

"Race Against the Machine" and human labour will be the only victim!...Below is a little prelude to the future
___________________________________________________________________________________________

More Jobs Predicted for Machines, Not People

Published: Monday, 24 Oct 2011 |
By: Steve Lohr
The New York Times

  • Twitter
    61

    LinkedIn
    Share

Man vs. Machine
Photo: Don Klumpp | Getty Images

A faltering economy explains much of the job shortage in America, but advancing technology has sharply magnified the effect, more so than is generally understood, according to two researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The automation of more and more work once done by humans is the central theme of “Race Against the Machine,” an e-book to be published on Monday.
“Many workers, in short, are losing the race against the machine,” the authors write.
Erik Brynjolfsson, an economist and director of the M.I.T. Center for Digital Business, and Andrew P. McAfee, associate director and principal research scientist at the center, are two of the nation’s leading experts on technology and productivity. The tone of alarm in their book is a departure for the pair, whose previous research has focused mainly on the benefits of advancing technology.
Indeed, they were originally going to write a book titled, “The Digital Frontier,” about the “cornucopia of innovation that is going on,” Mr. McAfee said. Yet as the employment picture failed to brighten in the last two years, the two changed course to examine technology’s role in the jobless recovery.
The authors are not the only ones recently to point to the job fallout from technology.

Read the whole story here
_________________________________________________________________________


"Occupy the World"...The "evolution"....What is evolution in BC, last night on Global news there was a shocking story about how both Media and the corporate world see British Columbia, how they see our high-tech future....In an attempt to prop up a faltering and sagging Christy Clark Global news did a story about the future of jobs in BC...The story told of a bright future for families and the Province of BC....Apparently the future of British Columbia will rely on....


Coal mining....The story highlighted a young person with a degree in geology who got a job in the coal mine, the story went onto say...There is an extreme shortage of skilled coal miners!....I wonder why, BC`s future relying on coal to China for steel manufacturing, remember the Golden Decade Gordon Campbell promised, priorities being put on educating BCers into being the most literate and highest educated on the planet and now, and now your future is in truck driving, put down your pens and books and pick up that shovel and get in that truck, take your family and move to the frozen north.....


I`m not denigrating working with Gas n oil and coal dust but for a young person to enter that field is a life-time commitment, working with toxic chemicals and health hazards and once in the game you can`t get out, reliant on boom-bust cycles in the frozen north, -40 below in the winter, huddled indoors waiting for the warmth to return....


It appears that the BC Liberals have given up on a modern society and sent Global news to sell the gullible BC public on a life in the frozen north distilling gas n oil...In fact if you watched Global news last night and tonight you would think there are no parts of BC besides those set aside for gas n oil that have any jobs....


British Columbia and Canada are making a huge mistake by relying solely on petro-chemicals to propel the future, the message is confused, Christy Clark announced a new tourism strategy just today, Christy Clark said she was concentrating on "eco tours" ...


Yet with oil n gas, pipelines and oil tankers the eco-tourists will stay home...


None of that matters to Canada`s politicians, Harper is drunk on Alberta tar sand and Christy Clark is giddy for gas, and if anyone wants a life-long job driving a truck by all means head to frozen Fort Nelson, I spent a year there one month in 1975, you can have it!

"Occupy the World" is about common sense, it`s about corporate theft, occupy the world is about nasty bloggers wanting them dragged by force through the streets for mere pleasure, that and the occupiers message wasn`t clear enough, one particular nasty blogger goes down there looking for confrontation, there can be no other conclusion because he wouldn`t know a piece of art if he tripped over it, would a just message make "Occupy the World" acceptable to any of them, there is no message when Eyes and Ears are shut...

"There is none so blind as those who refuse to see"

Let EnCana gas poison lakes and destroy watersheds, let employees kill themselves through exposure of chemicals and hope the families of said workers don`t drink the toxic water, let`s give money dedicated for health and education to LaFarge cement and EnCana gas because....


Because they haven`t got enough money yet!....Poison thy environment and get praised by  big media, close down and shutter plants and halve your employment numbers and get a tax break......Yet join a world-wide justified protest against $billionaire corporate thieves and get hit by Susan Anton`s and Gregor Robertson`s water cannons!


Vision or NPA....No one cares and none of these candidates are worthy.


Welcome to Boom Town BC


Don`t forget your gloves and gas mask


The Straight Goods


Cheers Eyes Wide Open

Saturday, October 22, 2011

One Night in Madiera Park

The summer of discontent, the boiling point, political battles personal tragedies and the inevitable came towards me like a runaway freight train without a conductor, no one in control no way to stop it and it ran me over and left me scarred for life....

I hadn`t been able to go out much lately, by out meaning out on social or personal levels, mood swings and emotions still dominated my thought processes but strangely enough, maybe not strange to you faithful readers but in person for the most part I am very quiet but after being battered by what is now history I find myself opening up to almost everyone, straight talk from my heart with nothing held back and I don`t know why but in thinking about it I believe it`s because I have nothing left to lose, my Dad and best friend is gone my decades old pets are no more and personal possessions are but vague memories and lastly my first and only female soul-mate returned to an innocent childhood place in her mind, I`m pleased in a way on that last one for at least she is safe from the ravages of society...

I went out a couple of weeks ago to a local watering hole, one that I haven`t been at for a few years, not that there is anything wrong with the place but with my aversion to drinking and driving and living in a town void of transit or taxi it makes it difficult to indulge and with such long distances, in this case a 25 kilometer round trip to and from..

Well I made arrangements for safe travel and out I went, alone, and when I say alone don`t be sad for me because solitary indulgence really is my preferred choice although that too may be on the verge of change.

After traversing our winding highway my chariot dropped me off at our local saloon/restaurant, the Grasshopper, now I may not have a hounds tooth coat and shiny cowboy boots but I have to admit, I looked marvelous, cheap runners that look like expensive Nike`s a flat black T shirt and my most expensive piece of clothing I own, a $400 dollar leather coat that mom bought for me several years ago, I felt the eyes upon me when I sauntered in, a quick glance around the room and as usual there are no eligible females in sight, or at least that`s what I thought, the Grasshopper is separated in 2 sections, restaurant and drinks on one side and a pool table and a more generalized drinking area on the other, although both sides on this night were almost full with meal eaters only, I mean everyone was drinking but food seemed to dominate the landscape, mainly middle-aged or older couples and to tell you the truth, there wasn`t much beauty in the room, well, I didn`t expect much in the way of the female persuasion on a Tuesday night in downtown Pender Harbour...

The waitress was slow but eventually she came around and I ordered a large mugg of beer and told her to keep it crisp, while waiting for the waitress before and after I was splashing the balls around on the pool table, playing pool frees up my mind and on this particular evening Minnesota fats himself couldn`t have beat me, I was banking shots, screwing the cue ball around obstacles and the only sound one could hear on this side of the room was the crack of the balls and the smacking of the back of the pocket, the beer was cold and tasted fine, meanwhile all eyes, most eyes were gazed at me, well maybe they were glued to the shooting exhibition but either way eyes were burning my direction.......45 balls in a row, three racks, time for a respite and a chance for the cue to cool off, the waitress came by with another crisp beer and asked if I wanted any food, she told me about the Chicken wing special, hot wings for $4,99 a lb, I said perhaps a little later for now my appetite is calm, what a stupid thing I said I thought to myself as she walked away, oh well, no big deal, funny though, it was then I chuckled to myself out loud, that would explain the large group of poultry piglets in the joint.

While sitting for a bit I scanned the room and noted the present cast of characters and I couldn`t help but notice this rather large motley bearded man with a rather petite older woman beside him, there was something about him, I couldn`t quite put my finger on it but then it struck me in a flash....The man, the table had 7 dishes of hot wings on it, that would be 7 pounds of hot wings and being a newly converted brave free public speaker I couldn`t resist....I approached and asked him if he needed any help with his order and or is he in some sortta eating challenge, his older girlfriend burst out laughing and said no, he`s just a pig!!!....That too brought me a public chuckle...

Time to rack em up again, strangely no one wanted to challenge me at billiards or so I thought, from the far side of the restaurant a girl, I mean younger lady approached and tapped me on the shoulder and asked if she could join me for a game, ever the gentleman I said sure and I couldn`t help notice she had an English accent, something like what you would hear on Coronation street only slightly different, what is that accent I asked, she proudly proclaimed it was Zimbabwean, she was charming from the get go, Maggie(her name) boldly joined my table and for sure I thought a boyfriend, her boyfriend would soon too join us, she was too pretty to be single up here, 35ish and well rounded,  but no, she was indeed alone I learned that after my first inquiry,  she was from Zimbabwe and was traveling the world, sort of, Maggie was chatty and for whatever reasons she opened up to me.... Maggie insisted on playing pool using Zimbabwe rules, what the heck are Zimbabwe rules I muttered, apparently if you scratch a shot your opponent gets two shots back even if they miss the first one!....Well that is screwy I thought but resisted the easy opening she left me for a come-backer.....And after beating her 3 games in a-row we sat and chatted and to tell you the truth I was dying to enter her mind, how often will I get a chance to meet a White Zimbabwean visitor to Madiera Park,...There had to be an interesting story and maybe it`s my probative nature but she told me lots, personal stuff too..She`s been in Pender Harbour for 4 months, she`s a live-in caretaker for a local older couple that are long-time friends of her parents, her parents that live back in Zimbabwe... Maggie told me it wasn`t working out and she was leaving for Toronto in 2 days... The older couple, the man has Parkinsons disease and needs almost 24 hour care... but for whatever reason and I can`t explain it but it came across as not right, she didn`t seem the domestic type, Maggie was bubbly and very outgoing, she was in a party party mood and bought me a couple of large glasses of wine at her insistence..Now feeling a little brazen and sensing a willing reception...

 I peered deep into Maggie`s thirsty blue green eyes and caused to her to pause, what are you looking at she smirkily remarked, vacant of words I too paused and paused, no words cometh and finally I responded with .....What is Zimbabwe like, any apartheid fallout ongoing...Yea I know, that was a stupid thing to say, why that came out is beyond me..

Maggie quickly became very defensive and said don`t you judge me, you don`t know what it`s like there, I knew I hit a nerve so I pursued more, Maggie told a story of living on a large estate with many black servants, maids, gardeners, cooks, security, a mere dollar a day per servant and Maggie insisted that if they didn`t hire the blacks they would sit around on the side of the road doing nothing....Her story kinda threw me, not because it was unbelievable but because it was true, not the lazy black part but the servants back home part,   So here I`m aroused with this Zimbabwean Queen while my equal rights center is curious.....We had another drink...

When the waitress returned Maggie ordered a round while I ordered 2 pounds of wings and to my dismay the waitress informed me they had run out of wings, they started with 100 pounds of wings and the last pound just went out, well, I needed another icebreaker and being in a rather bold mood I rose to my feet and approached the table of the rather large motley bearded man with a rather petite older woman, their table now with but with one plate and a mere 3 wings on it and said...Madame, due to that now gorged manimal beside you who ate the wings off of 50 chickens means that me and my lady don`t get any, I hope your happy! ...Well,  the man slid the remaining plate over and said help yourself then we all proceeded to laugh...

On return to my table there was a now smiling relaxed Maggie who was entertained by my performance......My mind still abuzz with curiosity and attraction I couldn`t resist asking Maggie the obvious question.....What does it feel like to go from having several black servants doing all your domestic chores to being a live-in caretaker slash servant on 24 hour call, don`t you find that ironic, again I touched a nerve and Maggie trotted into the bathroom, well....I thought it might be a good time for some air, I took my drink and headed out to the adjacent outdoor deck...Not 2 minutes passed when Maggie joined me with a glass of wine in hand....Again I gazed directly into her soul looking for answers, this story isn`t complete I said, tell me more, Maggie had tears welling up and instinctively I knew something was coming, Maggie kissed me, twice, tender kisses,...... Maggie told me they wouldn`t let her out, she hadn`t been allowed out her entire time here on the coast, 24 hour live-in, can`t leave the house and she just couldn`t take it anymore, that`s why she is leaving and heading for Toronto....And boy am I a sucker for tears..

Both of us now fully entwined mentally I changed the theme to humour and turned on the improv, with my best southern drawl I quoted some lines from one of my all time favorite movies,  The Long Hot Summer, a movie about the Varners, a rich Southern plantation/Town owner.... "Well Miss Clara, you can run and run and you keep on running......"       To which my surprise she knew the movie and turned on her own Southern drawl, mind you a drawl with a South African twist and threw a line back at me,....."You are just incorrigible Ben Quick"...We laughed relaxed and talked a little more..

Maggie went inside to refresh and after six or seven minutes I wasn`t sure if she was coming back, she did return though, she peered into my eyes and said she wanted to stay with me but she can`t,  Maggie said the Woman was coming to pick her up, she`s needed back at the house, Maggie told me she called the woman, her boss and asked if she could stay out for two more hours, the woman refused,........I thought to myself and said this is crazy, you are a grown woman, stay with me awhile..

I put my drink down and went inside to use the facilities, in the short time I was away my mind was spinning, was I in love, does love trump all, was it destiny, I haven`t been out socializing in a long time I haven`t been to the Grasshopper in years and to meet a woman from Zimbabwe in Madiera park Canada who has been kept on a household leash for four months seems almost like it was meant to..

Be.....But it wasn`t, for when I returned to the front deck a nasty older woman in a fancy gold coloured luxury car was yelling at Maggie to get in, I called to Maggie and shouted my last name and said call me as the car pulled away, with no vehicle in which to follow and a little too oiled for that as well I was saddened, yet there is hope for someone in the bar must know who or where Maggie is, the waitress a patron, someone.

I Remember what Maggie told me, it was her first time out in four months,  and nary a soul at the Grasshopper knew who she was or where she came from, the staff thought she was with me, I found an ad the next day in our local under care givers wanted, one in the Pender Harbour area, however inquiries to the ad had to go snail mail to a post box 50 kilometers away, Maggie would be in Toronto in 2 days...

Thanks for the memory Maggie...


The Straight Goods

Cheers Eyes Wide Open

Friday, October 21, 2011

Kick em when they`re Up, Kick em when they`re Down

Occupy the World has many grievances, too many to list here but there seems to be one common denominator, greed, excessive greed, most of you are familiar with Wal-Mart, they make $tens of billions per year in profit and now..

And now because of high US unemployment levels and easy access to more "willing" labour has decided to eliminate Health-care benefits for their mainly part-time work force and to greater diminish health-care coverage for their ever shrinking full-time work force....How much money does Wal-Mart need, when will the good corporate citizen raise it`s head and do the right thing, ....This is another example of what "Occupy the World" is all about!.....Below is Wal-Mart information from Wikipedia,
_____________________________________________________________________________


Area served Worldwide
Key people S. Robson Walton
(Chairman)
Mike Duke
(President and CEO)
Revenue increase US$ 421.849 billion (2011)
Operating income increase US$ 25.542 billion (2011)
Net income increase US$ 15.355 billion (2011)
Total assets increase US$ 180.663 billion (2011)
Total equity decrease US$ 68.542 billion (2011)
Employees Approx. 2.1 million (2011)
________________________________________
As you can see Wal-Mart is not hurting for cash so why would Walmart want to do this...The below excerpts are from an outstanding article from The New York Times
_______________________________________
 

 Wal-Mart Cuts Some Health Care Benefits for some


 .


      After trying to mollify its critics in recent years by offering better health care benefits to its employees, Wal-Mart is substantially rolling back coverage for part-time workers and significantly raising premiums for many full-time staff



      Citing rising costs, Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer, told its employees this week that all future part-time employees who work less than 24 hours a week on average will no longer qualify for any of the company’s health insurance plans.
      In addition, any new employees who average 24 hours to 33 hours a week will no longer be able to include a spouse as part of their health care plan, although children can still be covered.
       
      This is a big shift from just a few years ago when Wal-Mart [WMT  56.92    0.55  (+0.98%)   ] expanded coverage for employees and their families after facing criticism because so many of its 1.4 million workers could not afford or did not qualify for coverage—rendering many of them eligible for Medicaid.
      Under pressure from states saddled with rising Medicaid costs and from labor unions and community groups, Wal-Mart had agreed to offer part-time employees, even those averaging less than 24 hours a week, health care insurance after a year on the job, shaving a year off the eligibility requirement. Wal-Mart also said that it was offering health plans that cost its employees about $250 a year for family coverage.
      At the time, the moves were considered a departure from some of its major rivals and large employers, more than half of whom offer no company-sponsored health plan for part-time workers.



      On Thursday, the company would not say what percentage of its work force was part time or worked fewer than 24 hours a week.

      Greg Rossiter, a Wal-Mart spokesman, said the decision to deny coverage to new part-time employees resulted from the company’s revamping of its health care offerings in light of rising costs. 

       And with unemployment still hovering around 9 percent, employers may feel less compelled to offer expansive benefits to people desperate for work. 


      In Wal-Mart’s 2012 health offerings, premiums will increase for some plans by more than 40 percent,



      “No wonder people are protesting in the streets,” he said. “This is another example of corporations putting profits ahead of what’s good for everyday Americans. It’s outrageous and damaging to many hard-working families that the biggest corporation in America is increasing health care costs for many employees by 40 percent.”
       
      Wal-Mart says that its health care plans are affordable and competitive compared with those of its competitors. “We are proud to be among a few companies that continue to offer an affordable associate-only medical option for about a dollar per day or $15 per pay period,” Mr. Rossiter said. He noted that many companies offer health plans that start at $75 a week or more for each two-week pay period.

      Wal-Mart also significantly reduced the amount of money it contributes to the savings accounts workers can use to pay for medical bills that are not covered under their plan. Last year, the company put $1,000 into accounts for families but it will cut the amount by half for next year to just $500. Companies typically put more money into these accounts as a way of encouraging employees to choose these plans, which cost employers less than traditional policies.
      While Wal-Mart defends its decision to reduce these contributions, few companies have made similar cuts

      Barbara Collins, a sales associate at the Wal-Mart in Placerville, Calif., said that the premiums for the H.M.O. plan for herself and her 5-year-old son would rise to $18 every two weeks from $10.  

      Her big concern, she said, was that her deductible would jump to $5,000 a year, from $1,000—a daunting amount considering she earns $19,000 a year. “I don’t know how I’ll be able to afford it if I go to a doctor or to physical therapy,” she said.___________________________
       Read the whole shocking story here.

      This is what "Occupy the World" is all about, Greed, Greed Greed....And the only ones getting kicked are regular people! 

      The Straight Goods

      Cheers Eyes Wide Open 

      Tuesday, October 18, 2011

      Community Living BC in Action/ Gordon Campbell`s Legacy of Terror Continues!

       This is an example of how the BC Liberals terrorize the needy, they have no shame, this court case ruled against Community Living BC...But this loss didn`t stop the BC Liberals, these atrocities and acts of terror are happening all over BC...Only a lucky few who fight tooth and nail win.....Gordon Campbell should be jailed, the BC Liberals needs to be forcefully removed from power, who`s next on the hit list, BC Liberals have assaulted seniors, the blind, charities, disabled, thousands of seriously permanently  injured workers get the same treatment from Worksafe BC.


      Below is a case of a developmentally disabled child who comes of age only to be abandoned by the province of BC.


      It`s toobad judges can`t jail the Government.....That task will be left to the voters, Although I would prefer pitchforks!

      __________________________________________________________________________________________

      Fahlman, by his guardian ad litem Fiona Gow v. Community Living British Columbia et al,


       2007 BCCA 15
       
      Date: 20070109

      Docket: CA034239
      Between:
      Neil Fahlman, An infant and a mentally incompetent person,
      By his guardian ad litem, Fiona Gow
      Respondent
      (Petitioner)
      And
      Community Living British Columbia and
      Her Majesty the Queen in right of the
      Province of British Columbia, as represented by
      The Ministry of Children and Family Development
      Appellants
      (Respondents)



      Before:
       The Honourable Madam Justice Rowles

      The Honourable Madam Justice Levine

      The Honourable Madam Justice Kirkpatrick


      E. E. Vanderburgh
       Counsel for the Appellants

      F. Kelly
       Counsel for the Respondent

      Place and Date of Hearing:
       Vancouver, British Columbia

      15 December 2006

      Place and Date of Judgment:
       Vancouver, British Columbia

      9 January 2007

        

      Written Reasons by:

      The Honourable Madam Justice Kirkpatrick

      Concurred in by:

      The Honourable Madam Justice Rowles
      The Honourable Madam Justice  Levine


      Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Madam Justice Kirkpatrick:
      [1]                The appellants (respondents in the Supreme Court), Community Living British Columbia (“CLBC”) and the Ministry of Children and Family Development (the “Ministry”), appeal from the order of the Supreme Court pronounced 12 June 2006 and entered 28 July 2006.  The order quashed CLBC’s decision to deny benefits to the respondent (petitioner in the Supreme Court) Neil Fahlman and required CLBC to reconsider Mr. Fahlman’s eligibility for benefits on the basis of the criteria mandated by the Community Living Authority Act, S.B.C. 2004, c. 60 (the “Act”) as it currently reads. 
      [2]                At the conclusion of the appellants’ submissions, we dismissed the appeal with reasons to follow.  These are the reasons.
      BACKGROUND
      [3]                Mr. Fahlman, who was nineteen at the time of the Supreme Court proceedings, was adopted by the respondent (petitioner in the Supreme Court) Fiona Gow at the age of five weeks.  He has multiple difficulties.  Specifically, Mr. Fahlman has been diagnosed with fetal alcohol syndrome, attention deficit disorder and pervasive developmental disorder, which is a type of autism. 
      [4]                CLBC is a Crown corporation established pursuant to the Act.  Prior to 1 July 2005, the Ministry and Community Living Services delivered services and support to adults with developmental disabilities living in the community.  As of 1 July 2005, CLBC assumed responsibility for delivering such support. 
      [5]                It appears that without adequate support, Mr. Fahlman’s disabilities create serious behavioural issues.  At age twelve, Mr. Fahlman qualified to receive services from the Ministry.  At age fourteen, he began receiving services from Community Living Services. 
      [6]                By the time Mr. Fahlman reached age fifteen, his emotional volatility, impulsiveness, size, strength and weight rendered Ms. Gow and her husband incapable of caring for him at their home.  He was placed in various foster homes.  Nonetheless, Ms. Gow has remained active in attempting to stabilize Mr. Fahlman’s circumstances.
      [7]                At the time of the Supreme Court proceedings, Mr. Fahlman was unemployed but in a stable situation.  He was living in a small cabin in Shawnigan Lake and seeing his care provider daily.  Mr. Fahlman had been receiving disability benefits from the provincial government since May 2005.  In addition, he was receiving funding for seven hours of one-on-one assistance, which enabled him to maintain a modicum of independence and stability. 
      [8]                In June 2005, CLBC commissioned a psychological assessment report to determine Mr. Fahlman’s eligibility for adult services once he turned nineteen on 29 January 2006.  CLBC’s eligibility criteria, as stated in its Provisional Policy Manual, are as follows: onset before age eighteen; measured significant limitations in two or more adaptive skill areas; and measured intellectual functioning of approximately 70 or below. 
      [9]                In preparing her psychological assessment report dated 15 June 2005, Dr. Barbara J. Burnside reviewed two reports prepared by Nathan Ory of the Island Mental Health Support Team and she assessed Mr. Fahlman’s cognitive abilities.  She framed her mandate as follows:
      Neil was referred for assessment of his cognitive abilities in order to decide upon his eligibility for services from the adult team of the Ministry…and…Community Living Services.  At the time of this assessment Neil was a client of the children’s team, but his case was reviewed as he approached age 19. ..To determine eligibility for services from the Adult Team, Neil’s IQ had to be determined.  [Emphasis added.]
      [10]            Dr. Burnside concluded:
      Although Neil’s IQ scores were not in the range that defines eligibility for services from Community Living Services, his adaptive behaviour was markedly challenged.  His scores on the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales were in the range of moderate deficit, and included a high level of maladaptive Behavior as well.  The Vineland scores justify presenting his case to the Eligibility Screening Committee, regardless of his cognitive scores.
      [11]            She noted that without “the supports now in place Neil would be extremely vulnerable to his own aggressiveness and impulsivity.  He could do significant harm to himself and the community without support”.
      [12]            On 22 September 2005, the Victoria Eligibility Committee for CLBC Adult Services discussed Mr. Fahlman’s case.  The Eligibility Committee concluded that Mr. Fahlman “does not meet the criteria of intellectual functioning of 70 or below”.  Accordingly, CLBC advised Ms. Gow that it would cease providing services to Mr. Fahlman after he turned nineteen.  On 12 October 2005, Ms. Gow, on Mr. Fahlman’s behalf, requested a review of the decision.  By a letter dated 24 October 2005, Dale Chandler, Quality Service Manager for the South Vancouver Island Region of CLBC, affirmed the CLBC’s decision.  The letter stated in part:
      The eligibility criteria are:
      ·         Onset before age 18
      ·         Measured significant limitations in two or more adaptive skill areas
      ·         Measured intellectual functioning of approximately 70 or below
      All of the above criteria must be present for an individual to be eligible for Adult Community Living Services.
      In Neil’s situation all the criteria are not present.  The report states that his “full Scale IQ score was in the borderline range, better than 8 percent of his age mates.”  His Full Scale IQ is listed as 79.  We do have some discretion as the intellectual functioning of approximately 70 or below does allow for some variation.  In Neil’s case however the variation is so great than an exception is not possible.
      I have determined that Neil is not eligible for supports through the Adult Community Living Services of Community Living British Columbia.  [Emphasis added.]
      [13]            Ms. Gow made unsuccessful efforts to locate alternative support for Mr. Fahlman.  Thereafter, she requested a review of Mr. Chandler’s decision.  Carol Goozh, Vice President of Quality Services at CLBC, conducted a further review of the decision to discontinue services.  She affirmed the decision by a letter dated 16 December 2005.  The letter read in part as follows:
      As outlined in the Community Living Authority Act, CLBC provides support and services to adults with developmental disabilities.  The definition of a developmental disability corresponds with the definition in the DSM 4 where “significantly impaired intellectual functioning” means an IQ of 70 or below, with a small margin for error, and “exists concurrently with impaired adaptive functioning.”  CLBC policy also specifies that the eligibility criteria for adult service is onset before age 18, measured significant limitations in two or more adaptive skill areas, and measured intellectual functioning of approximately 70 or below.
      As Neil has been assessed being in the borderline range of intelligence, with a full scale IQ of 79, he unfortunately does not meet the eligibility criteria for adult CLBC services.  [Emphasis added.]
      [14]            In his affidavit sworn 3 February 2006, Mr. Chandler reconsidered and confirmed Mr. Fahlman’s ineligibility for benefits.
      [15]            In the Supreme Court, Mr. Fahlman and Ms. Gow sought, inter alia: an order quashing CLBC’s 24 October 2005 decision to deny Mr. Fahlman adult services when he turned nineteen; a declaration that the CLBC’s decision to deny benefits on the basis of an IQ criterion is ultra vires its statutory authority; an order quashing Mr. Chandler’s reconsideration dated 3 February 2006 confirming Mr. Fahlman’s ineligibility; and an order remitting the complaint back to CLBC to reconsider Mr. Fahlman’s eligibility for adult services according to proper criteria.
      [16]            The learned chambers judge quashed CLBC’s decision and Mr. Chandler’s reconsideration.  He also ordered a reconsideration of Mr. Fahlman’s eligibility for benefits on the basis of criteria mandated by the Act as it currently reads.
      Statutory Framework
      [17]            At this point, it is helpful to set out the statutory scheme and the relevant sections of the Act:
      "adult" means a person 19 years of age or over;
      "authority" means Community Living British Columbia, established under section 2 (1);

      "child" means a person under 19 years of age;
      "community living support" means any of the following:
      (a) support and services to children and adults with developmental disabilities;
      (b) support and services to families to assist them in caring for a child or an adult with a developmental disability;

      (d) support and services to other prescribed persons;
      "developmental disability" means significantly impaired intellectual functioning that
      (a) manifests before the age of 18 years,
      (b) exists concurrently with impaired adaptive functioning, and
      (c) meets other prescribed criteria;

      Authority established
      2 (1)  There is established an authority to be known as Community Living British Columbia to exercise the powers and perform the functions and duties given to it under this Act.
      (2)  The authority is a corporation consisting of the board.

      Duties of authority
      11  The authority must do all of the following:
      (a) provide for the delivery in British Columbia of community living support identified by the minister and of administrative services
      (i)  using available resources through its own employees, or
      (ii)  by entering into agreements with the government or other persons to deliver or provide for the delivery of that support;
      (b) comply with Provincial standards prescribed by the minister under section 18 (1) (a);
      (c) manage the delivery of community living support and administrative services, including, without limitation, developing policies, setting priorities and allocating resources, in accordance with its service plan, budget plan and capital plan;
      (d) comply with the minister’s directions in carrying out his or her power under section 18 (1) (b) to monitor and assess the authority, and comply with processes to assess performance, set by the minister under section 18 (1) (c);
      (e) prepare, and submit to the minister after the end of its fiscal year, an annual report in accordance with the regulations;
      (f) perform other prescribed functions and duties.
      Service plan and other plans
      12  (1)  The authority must submit to the minister for approval, by a date specified by the minister,
      (a) a proposed service plan respecting the provision of community living support and administrative services for the period specified by the minister, and
      (b) a proposed budget plan and capital plan related to the provision of community living support and administrative services by the authority under the service plan referred to in paragraph (a).
      (2)  In developing a proposed plan referred to in subsection (1) in relation to the provision of community living support, the authority must endeavour to
      (a) offer a range of funding and planning options that promote choice, flexibility and self-determination, for example, individualized funding, independent planning support and the involvement of community resources,
      (b) promote choice and innovation in the manner in which services are delivered,
      (c) encourage shared responsibility among families, service providers and community resources,
      (d) utilize and further develop the capacity of individuals, families and community resources,
      (e) assist adults with developmental disabilities to achieve maximum independence and live full lives in their communities,
      (f) promote equitable access to community living support, and
      (g) coordinate the provision of community living support with services provided by the government and community resources.
      (3)  The minister may require that the authority modify a proposed plan referred to in subsection (1) in order to obtain the minister’s approval under that subsection.

      Power to make regulations
      29  (1)  The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations referred to in section 41 of the Interpretation Act.
      (2)  Without limiting subsection (1), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations as follows:
      (a) prescribing additional persons for the purposes of paragraph (d) of the definition of “community living support” in section 1;
      (b) prescribing additional criteria for the purpose of paragraph (c) of the definition of “developmental disability” in section 1;
      (c) prescribing additional duties of the authority under section 11;
      (d) respecting a policy under section 8 (3) or any matter relating to conflicts of interest, whether actual or potential, by a director, the chief executive officer, or another officer or employee;
      (e) establishing the authority for, or requirements or standards relating to the collection, use, disclosure, custody, control or ownership of, or access to, information by the minister, the authority, service providers or persons who are in receipt of funding under this Act;
      (f) respecting a common client information system among the minister, the authority and service providers, or any of them;
      (g) defining, for the purposes of this Act and the regulations, words or expressions used but not defined in this Act.
      (3)  The minister may make regulations as follows:
      (a) prescribing the form and content of and process for an annual report under section 11 (e) or a proposed plan under section 12 (1);
      (b) for the purposes of section 13, respecting consultation and collaboration and the making of agreements;
      (c) establishing a process to determine whether the authority is meeting and continues to meet the Provincial standards set by the minister under section 18 (1) (a);
      (d) respecting the transfer of records to or from the authority under section 23.
      (4)  A regulation made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council or the minister under this Act may provide differently for
      (a) different persons or classes of persons, and
      (b) different regions of British Columbia.

      [18]            As can be seen, s. 11 of the Act requires CLBC to provide “community living support”.  “Community living support” includes “support and services to children and adults with developmental disabilities” and “support and services to families to assist them in caring for a child or an adult with a developmental disability”.  Section 1 defines “developmental disability” as
      significantly impaired intellectual functioning that
      (a) manifests before the age of 18 years,
      (b) exists concurrently with impaired adaptive functioning, and
      (c) meets other prescribed criteria;

      [19]            In contrast, CLBC’s eligibility criteria, as stated in its Provisional Policy Manual, are as follows: onset before age eighteen; measured significant limitations in two or more adaptive skill areas; and measured intellectual functioning of approximately 70 or below. 
      [20]            It is clear that the IQ criterion relied on by CLBC is not expressly in the Act. 
      [21]            By virtue of s. 29, only the Lieutenant Governor in Council can pass regulations prescribing criteria for the definition of “developmental disability”.  It is common ground that the Community Living Authority Regulation, B.C. Reg. 231/2005 is silent on an IQ criterion and that no additional criteria has been promulgated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
      ISSUES
      [22]            The appellants frame the issues on appeal as follows:
      (a)        The learned chambers judge erred in his interpretation of the statutory definition of “developmental disability” in the Act by ignoring the requirement in the definition that applicants have “significantly impaired intellectual functioning”.
      (b)        The learned chambers judge erred in holding that CLBC’s use of an IQ criterion to interpret the phrase “significantly impaired intellectual functioning” in the statutory definition of “developmental disability” in the Act was an unlawful sub-delegation of the power granted to the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations prescribing additional criteria for the definition of “developmental disability”.
      (c)        The learned chambers judge erred in holding that CLBC’s use of an IQ criterion to interpret the phrase “significantly impaired intellectual functioning” as used in the statutory definition of “developmental disability” in the Act was an unlawful fettering of CLBC’s discretion under the Act.
      DISCUSSION
      Standard of Review
      [23]            I preface my consideration of the issues on appeal with the observation that the appellants do not challenge the chambers judge’s conclusion that the proper standard of review in this case is one of correctness.
      [24]            In my opinion, the chambers judge properly stated at para. 34 of his reasons that “the decision of the Board attracts a correctness standard of review where very little deference will be observed”.
      The Meaning of “Significantly Impaired Intellectual Functioning”
      [25]            I now turn to the appellants’ first ground of appeal.  CLBC and the Ministry contend that the learned chambers judge erred in his interpretation of the statutory definition of “developmental disability” in the Act by ignoring the requirement in the definition that applicants have “significantly impaired intellectual functioning”. 
      [26]            The appellants submit that an error is manifest in para. 23 of the chambers judge’s reasons, which reads in part: “…the determination of the CLBC, although meeting the first two statutory criteria, has been denied benefits on the basis of a third criteria [sic] of its own making”.  They allege that the chambers judge considered the requisite criteria for “developmental disability” to consist only of the lettered sub-paragraphs in the statutory definition.  The appellants argue that the chambers judge’s interpretation of “developmental disability” erroneously omits an unlettered criterion; that is, the existence of “significantly impaired intellectual functioning”.  Ultimately, the appellants maintain that Mr. Fahlman does not have “significantly impaired intellectual functioning”; as such, the board properly decided against his eligibility for benefits.
      [27]            The appellants contend that “significantly impaired intellectual functioning”, which the Act omits to define, should be accorded its technical and scientific meaning, which they claim can be found in “internationally accepted standards and authorities on mental retardation”.  One such authority is the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. (Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 2000) (“DSM-IV”), which provides diagnostic criteria for mental retardation.  The DSM-IV defines “significantly subaverage intellectual functioning” as an IQ of approximately 70 or below, with a measurement error of approximately five points.  The appellants cite additional international standards that employ criteria similar to those found in the DSM-IV.  They also cite extracts from legislative debates to the effect that the definition of “developmental disability” should correspond with the DSM-IV criteria.     
      [28]            In my respectful view, the chambers judge did err in finding only two statutory criteria for “developmental disability”.  Whether an applicant has “significantly impaired intellectual functioning” so as to be eligible for adult CLBC services constitutes another statutory criterion.  However, it is apparent from paras. 37 to 48 of the chambers judge’s reasons that he recognized the relevance of the inquiry into “significantly impaired intellectual functioning”. 
      [29]            It remains to consider whether the IQ criterion falls under the rubric of “significantly impaired intellectual functioning”.  I am not persuaded that it does.  The Act does not support the construction of the term as meaning only “measured intellectual functioning of approximately 70 or below”.  The appellants rely on the DSM-IV and other comparable texts to justify their use of the IQ criterion in determining whether the applicant is developmentally disabled.  However, it is apposite to note that the texts define “mental retardation”, as opposed to “developmental disability”.  Further, the phrase “significantly impaired intellectual functioning” appears in none of the texts: the DSM-IV alludes to “significantly subaverage intellectual functioning”.  These factors limit the texts’ usefulness. 
      [30]            In addition, I am not prepared to take judicial notice of the DSM-IV extracts.  Judicial notice is properly taken when facts are either “(1) so notorious or generally accepted as not to be the subject of debate among reasonable persons; or (2) capable of immediate and accurate demonstration by resort to readily accessible sources of indisputable accuracy”: R. v. Find, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 863, 2001 SCC 32 at para. 48, as cited in R. v. Krymowski, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 101, 2005 SCC 7 at para. 22.  I do not consider the texts to state unequivocally, the diagnostic criteria for “developmental disability”.  The texts in the instant case are distinguishable from the historical texts in Law Society of British Columbia v. Gravelle (2001), 154 B.C.A.C. 25, [2001] 7 W.W.R. 15, which were accepted as authoritative. 
      [31]            The DSM-IV and other texts can properly be characterized as expert evidence, only to be entered through a qualified witness.  No such evidence was adduced at the hearing in the Supreme Court.  In Nesbitt v. Nesbitt, 2005 BCSC 1311, the judge preferred an expert’s application of DSM-IV criteria over several lay interpretations.  In Egli (Committee of) v. Egli (2003), 20 B.C.L.R. (4th) 386, 2003 BCSC 1716, the judge made the following remark at para. 26 with which I agree: “diagnostic criteria from the psychiatric manual DSM IV…contain technical language that requires explanation”.         
      [32]            The appellants’ essential argument on this point is circular.  They submit that the court does not need expert evidence because the term “significantly impaired intellectual functioning” has a technical meaning, to be ascertained by reference to authoritative texts such as the DSM-IV.  However, at the same time, the appellants urge this Court to take judicial notice of those texts.  This line of reasoning does not advance the appellants’ argument and is unpersuasive.
      [33]            The appellants also rely on Hansard extracts to argue that the legislature intended use of an IQ benchmark to ascertain “significantly impaired intellectual functioning”.  However, it would be imprudent to equate the apparent intention of certain individual legislators to the intention of the legislature as a whole.  Moreover, in my view, the appellants’ interpretation of the Hansard extracts is unsustainable: the extracts cannot be said to indicate the legislature’s endorsement of the IQ criterion.  The IQ figure employed by the DSM-IV is referred to as a “guideline” and not a “hard-and-fast number in all instances”.  The respondents submit, and I accept, that the Hansard extracts more reasonably support the interpretation that the legislature decided against imposing an IQ criterion due to community concerns with a rigid guideline and the need for flexibility.  The inclusion of an IQ or other rigid criterion was to be the subject of ongoing consultation and review.  I note the following passages from British Columbia, Legislative Assembly, Hansard, Vol. 13, No. 5 (26 March 2003) at 5654-55:     
      J. MacPhail: …Let me ask the minister a question. Community living services for children, whether they be adult children or children under 19. I understand that the services are delivered on the basis of an IQ test and that the dividing line is 70. If you have an IQ of under 70, you get the programs, and if you have an IQ above 70, you don't — whether you're a child or an adult child...
      Hon. L. Reid: At this stage in the discussion, it is the international standard under the DSM-IV guideline, if you will. The reality is that the guideline isn't hard and fast at 70. It's supposed to be 70 plus or minus 5. That standard deviation is supposed to be considered in terms of functional assessment. My colleague assures me that process is underway in terms of people finding better ways to approach that.
      The member opposite is correct. It is clearly not in people's best interests to have a hard-and-fast number in all instances.
      J. MacPhail: That's good news…I met with one parent, for instance. Her child is just an adult now, 19 or 20, and with autism. The child is diagnosed autistic and is able to actually attend a post-secondary education institution, but is every day having to learn how to take the bus, cannot live independently and yet does not qualify for services because his IQ is — if I recall correctly — higher than 75 even. It's not much higher, but it's higher than 75. Because of this arbitrary cut-off point, as the minister describes it, he is unable to maximize his independence. It would be a maximization of independence in a way that would actually save the state money in the long run, because he will be able to get an education and probably be able to get a job as well, but he needs community living support.

      Hon. G. Hogg: Yes, we've been in many discussions with the interim board of community living B.C. around the definitional issues. Certainly, as the member appropriately points out, there are a number of parents who have concerns around the hard-and-fast guidelines. We have to have some standards by which we start to evaluate and provide services.
      At this stage, the best standard is the international standard through the diagnostic and statistical manual — DSM-IV — of the American Psychiatric Association. We have had discussions with them. They're well aware that there is needed to be some flexibility...
      They have been having a number of consultations…There have been a number of submissions from parents about that — about the definition, about the flexibility. They are looking at ways they can provide the greatest range of services with the greatest amount of flexibility that they can have.

      They are still having further consultations and discussions around how they can find an operational definition which is allowed to be based on the DSM-IV standard as well as giving them some flexibility — flexibility that also allows them to control or have a bar that makes some sense in terms of what the access criteria to the services are.  [Emphasis added.]
      [34]            Additionally, the appellants point to s. 5(1)(a)(i)(A) of the Regulation, which requires the authority to provide, until 31 December 2006, for the delivery of “support and services that are the same as community living support” to a child who is diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder.  Subsection 5(2) of the Regulation then requires the authority to, before 31 December 2006, determine whether the child has a “developmental disability”.  The appellants urge this Court to make the following negative inference.  The Regulation explicitly mandates the delivery of support to children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (from which, I note, Mr. Fahlman suffers).  This mandate appears distinct from the requirement to provide support for a child with a “developmental disability”.  It follows, the appellants suggest, that all persons – children or adults – with Autism Spectrum Disorder were not intended by the legislature to fall under the category of having a “developmental disability”.  However, I am not persuaded that such inference is warranted. 
      [35]            I emphasize that the legislature could easily have provided by regulation, under s. 29 of the Act,  that only individuals with an IQ of 70 or below are eligible for adult CLBC services.  It did not.  Therefore, IQ level cannot be determinative of the existence of “significantly impaired intellectual functioning”.  In my view, the Act is unambiguous in this respect.  In any event, it has been suggested that any ambiguity in a benefit-conferring statute should be resolved in favour of the claimant.  In the context of unemployment insurance benefits, the Supreme Court of Canada remarked in Canada (Attorney General) v. Abrahams, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 2, 142 D.L.R. (3d) 1 at para. 16 that since “the overall purpose of the Act is to make benefits available…I would favour a liberal interpretation of the…provisions.  I think any doubt arising from the difficulties of the language should be resolved in favour of the claimant”.  In my view, the Act can fairly be characterized as a benefit-conferring statute that is protective of vulnerable persons in the community.  Subsection 12(2) provides insight on the Act’s general purposes: to “assist adults with developmental disabilities to achieve maximum independence and live full lives in their communities” and to “promote equitable access to community living support”.   
      [36]            Ultimately, I do not consider that on any reasonable interpretation it can be said that the term “significantly impaired intellectual functioning” imports the IQ criterion employed by CLBC.  Thus, although the learned chambers judge may have failed to acknowledge directly the statutory criterion of “significantly impaired intellectual functioning”, I see no basis for interfering with his conclusion that the IQ threshold constitutes an unlegislated criterion that CLBC improperly applied in determining Mr. Fahlman’s eligibility.  I note in passing that in declining Mr. Fahlman’s application, CLBC essentially contravened the Operational Directive 2001/02 (effective 18 April 2001) issued by the Assistant Deputy Minister, which expressly stated that an “IQ of approximately 70 is not to be used as the sole determinant of eligibility”.  Although the Provisional Policy Manual dated April 2005 specifying the current eligibility criteria subsequently came into existence, the Operational Directive provides some insight as to how the CLBC was to make eligibility determinations.       
      Unlawful Sub-delegation
      [37]            With respect to the second ground of appeal, the appellants contend that the chambers judge erred in holding that CLBC’s use of an IQ criterion to interpret the phrase “significantly impaired intellectual functioning” in the statutory definition of “developmental disability” constituted an unlawful sub-delegation of the power granted to the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations prescribing additional criteria for the definition of “developmental disability”.  They submit that the chambers judge’s inattention to “significantly impaired intellectual functioning” in defining “developmental disability” led him to misconstrue CLBC’s reliance on an IQ score as an attempt to introduce unlegislated criteria into the definition.  The appellants maintain that the term “significantly impaired intellectual functioning” within the definition of “developmental disability” necessarily includes an IQ criterion. 
      [38]            Given my conclusion that the IQ measure does not fall under the criterion for “significantly impaired intellectual functioning”, it follows that the chambers judge did not err in construing CLBC’s express use of IQ as part of its eligibility criteria as an attempt to deny benefits on the basis of a criterion of its own creation.  It is clear from CLBC’s correspondences to Ms. Gow that Mr. Fahlman was denied benefits predominantly on the basis of his IQ score.  The chambers judge stated as follows at para. 24 of his reasons:
      It has often been stated that where legislation authorizes a delegate to make regulations then the delegate must make them and any delegation of that statutory authority will be ultra vires. In other words, the delegate cannot sub-delegate the law making power without statutory authority to do so. In the case at bar, the Lieutenant Governor has chosen not to promulgate a regulation to create the IQ criterion as a statutory consideration to be applied by the CLBC. Nevertheless, the CLBC appears to have adopted policy which amounts to binding regulation which appears to state that only individuals with an IQ below 70 to 75 will be eligible for the services it provides in accordance with the statutory scheme.
      [39]            The chambers judge relied on the Supreme Court of Canada decisions of Canada (A.G.) v. Brent, [1956] S.C.R. 318, 114 C.C.C. 296 [Brent] and Brant Dairy Co. v. Ontario (Milk Commission), [1973] S.C.R. 131, 30 D.L.R. (3d) 559 [Brant Dairy].  In Brent, immigration legislation empowered the Governor in Council to make regulations limiting or prohibiting a person’s admission into Canada for reasons enumerated in the statute.  The Governor in Council exercised its power by purporting to enact a regulation that delegated to special inquiry officers, the discretion to deny a person admission into Canada.  The regulation reflected the specifically legislated reasons and it was drafted in comparable language as the regulation-empowering section.  The court stated as follows at para. 4:
      Parliament had in contemplation the enactment of such regulations relevant to the named subject matters, or some of them, as in His Excellency-in-Council's own opinion were advisable and not a wide divergence of rules and opinions, ever-changing according to the individual notions of Immigration Officers and Special Inquiry Officers. There is no power in the Governor General-in-Council to delegate his authority to such officers.  [Emphasis added.]
      [40]            The court applied Brent in Brant Dairy, which similarly involved an improper attempt to sub-delegate statutory regulation-making power by converting it into a discretionary power to be exercised by sub-delegates.
      [41]            Ultimately, I see no basis for interfering with the chambers judge’s conclusion at para. 27 that
      the CLBC's action following these two lines of authorities, was ultra vires on the basis that it was an unlawful delegation of the power to make regulations, which under s. 29 of the statute resides with the Cabinet. In accordance with the statutory enactment, the Lieutenant Governor in Council alone has the ability to promulgate criteria to determine who meets the criteria for "developmental disability" as set out in s. 1 of the Act.
      [42]            Accordingly, I would not accede to this ground of appeal.
      Fettering of Discretion
      [43]            In respect of the third ground of appeal, the appellants contend that the chambers judge erred in holding that CLBC’s use of an IQ criterion to interpret the phrase “significantly impaired intellectual functioning” constituted an unlawful fettering of CLBC’s statutory discretion.  The crux of their argument is that the Act does not confer discretion on CLBC to determine eligibility for adult services.  The Act sets out specific criteria, the precise application of which is CLBC’s mandate.  According to the appellants, a precondition of “fettering of discretion” is the existence of discretion, which they claim CLBC did not enjoy. 
      [44]            The chambers judge concluded as follows at para. 28:
      I am of the view that…the CLBC has fettered its own discretion by adopting the IQ policy and then refusing to consider other factors that are relevant. Dr. Burnside made her recommendations in this case knowing full well that the IQ criterion established by the CLBC was not met but considered the seriousness of N.F.'s condition to be appropriate for continued assistance notwithstanding non-conformance with the IQ criteria which I have found to be wrongfully established by the CLBC. Therefore, in this case I find that the CLBC has impermissibly structured its discretion using its own rigid criteria of IQ below the 70 to 75 range in a manner which precluded it from considering the merits of N.F.'s case.
      [45]            The chambers judge also rejected the submission that the board justifiably adopted the IQ policy as part of its duty under s. 11 of the Act to “manage the delivery of community living support…services”.  The board had claimed that this duty included enunciating guidelines to interpret the undefined term “significantly impaired intellectual functioning”.      
      [46]            As Professor David J. Mullan explains in his text at 115-16, fettering of discretion as a ground of review falls under the category of abuse of discretion.  The essential allegation is that the decision-maker failed to exercise its discretionary powers genuinely in an individual case; rather, it rendered a decision on the basis of pre-existing policy.  Judicial tolerance for the adoption of guidelines has not extended to the establishment of formal rules to govern in particular cases.  A specific statutory power is a prerequisite to promulgating such rules. 
      [47]            Further, Professor Mullan observes how courts have admonished against informal policies and guidelines becoming invariable rules applied automatically in every case.  Individual matters warrant individual attention.  Accordingly, a statutory authority’s discretion should not be so fettered as to preclude individualized consideration of particular cases. 
      [48]            In Ainsley Financial Corporation v. Ontario Securities Commission (1995), 21 O.R. (3d) 104, 77 O.A.C. 155 (C.A.), the court declared ultra vires, a policy statement of the Commission.  The court found that the policy statement did not merely contain informal guidelines that facilitated the Commission’s regulatory functions.  Rather, the Commission had instituted rules that appeared mandatory due to the threat of sanctions.  The court at para. 14, citing Pezim v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Brokers), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 557, 168 N.R. 321 at para. 79, held that the Commission had no statutory authority to issue de facto laws disguised as guidelines. 
      [49]            Moreover, the respondents cite Maple Lodge Farms v. Canada, [1981] 1 F.C. 500, 42 N.R. 312 at para. 29 (F.C.A.), aff’d [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2, 44 N.R. 354 for the proposition that
      [t]he Minister may validly and properly indicate the kind of considerations by which he will be guided as a general rule in the exercise of his discretion…but he cannot fetter his discretion by treating the guidelines as binding upon him and excluding other valid or relevant reasons for the exercise of his discretion…  
      [50]            In the case at bar, I see no sound basis for interfering with the chambers judge’s conclusion that CLBC fettered its discretion.  First, I prefer the respondents’ characterization of CLBC’s mandate.  In my view, the Act clearly grants to CLBC discretion in determining eligibility for adult services.  As is evident from para. 37 of the chambers judge’s reasons, CLBC recognized in Supreme Court its “wide ranging discretion with respect to the provision of the benefits it is authorized to administer”.  Whether an applicant has “significantly impaired intellectual functioning” so as to have a “developmental disability” and therefore warrant “community living support” appears to be a discretionary decision.  Application of the statutory criteria does not necessarily yield an incontrovertible result.  CLBC’s duty to satisfy itself as to the presence of a qualifying impairment is to be exercised on the facts of each case.  
      [51]            Second, in adopting a policy interpreting “significantly impaired intellectual functioning” as requiring a below-70 IQ, CLBC can fairly be said to have fettered its discretion.  The respondents cite the Supreme Court decision of Lewis v. B.C. (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) (1979), 18 B.C.L.R. 305, 108 D.L.R. (3d) 525 (S.C.) [Lewis], which the Federal Court referred to in Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) (1993), 59 F.T.R. 85 at para. 78 (T.D.). 
      [52]            In Lewis, motor vehicle legislated provided that “upon being satisfied as to the fitness and ability of the applicant to drive and operate motor-vehicles of the relevant category", the superintendent shall issue a licence.  The judge noted at paras. 3 and 10 that
      the superintendent cannot, of course, lay down specific requirements and say that those who meet these criteria will receive a licence and those who fail to meet any one of them will be refused. That would be to enact regulations, which the superintendent has not the authority to do, and to abdicate the judgmental role which is given to him by the Act.

      I am satisfied that in this case the responsible officer refused the licence solely by application of an inflexible rule and without regard to the actual fitness or ability of the applicant to drive a vehicle of the type in question. The limitation which the officer placed on the scope of appeal makes this very plain.  
      [53]            The judge at para. 10 made the following remarks with which I agree:
      Those performing the superintendent's duties quite understandably desire to avoid consideration of the merits of individual cases and the controversy which arises when applicants are turned down on the basis of judgment. They prefer the strict application of rules to which reference can be made. Had the legislature desired that licences be granted or refused on the basis of compliance with particular standards, it would have authorized such standards to be established by regulation. Instead, it has determined that the decision should be based on "fitness" and "ability", and made the superintendent and his delegates judges of these qualities in individual applicants.
      [54]            This Court considered a similar question in Lloyd v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), [1971] 3 W.W.R. 619, 20 D.L.R. (3d) 181 (B.C.C.A.).  In that case, the court found that the superintendent fettered his discretion by adopting a blanket policy of automatically suspending the licence of any person convicted of impaired driving.  This policy prevented the superintendent from undertaking the statutorily-mandated inquiry into the facts, circumstances and merits of each case. 
      [55]            In the instant case, had the legislature intended IQ to be partially determinative of “significantly impaired intellectual functioning” and, therefore, “developmental disability”, it could have invoked s. 29 of the Act.  Namely, the Lieutenant Governor in Council could have specifically prescribed the IQ threshold as an additional criterion “for the purpose of paragraph (c) of the definition of ‘developmental disability’ in section 1”.  Instead, the legislature seemed reticent to impose rigid rules.  Until the legislature decides to impose such rules, the Act as it currently reads confers discretion on CLBC to determine whether an applicant has “significantly impaired intellectual functioning” so as to be developmentally disabled and thus eligible for “community living support”.  In exercising its discretion, CLBC is to consider fully the facts, circumstances and merits of each application.  The IQ policy precludes such consideration and application thereof gives rise to a fettering of discretion.
      [56]            Accordingly, I would not accede to this ground of appeal.
      CONCLUSION

      [57]            For the foregoing reasons, I would dismiss the appeal.  In so doing, I dismiss the appellants’ application to adduce fresh evidence.  In applying the test articulated in Palmer v. The Queen, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759 at 775-76, 50 C.C.C. (2d) 193, I emphasize that the proposed evidence was entirely within the appellants’ capacity to obtain prior to the hearing of the petition.  The court in Palmer established that evidence should generally not be admitted if, by due diligence, it could have been adduced at trial.  This general principle is strictly applied in civil cases:  See: Spoor v. Nicholls (2001), 90 B.C.L.R. (3d) 88, 2001 BCCA 426 at para. 16.   
      [58]            Ultimately, I uphold the chambers judge’s order quashing CLBC’s decision and the reconsideration.  I also uphold his order for reconsideration of Mr. Fahlman’s eligibility for benefits on the basis of the criteria mandated by the Act as it currently reads.
      “The Honourable Madam Justice Kirkpatrick”

      I agree:


      “The Honourable Madam Justice Rowles”


      I agree:


      “The Honourable Madam Justice Levine”

      _______________________________________________________________________________________________

       Oh, if only I had a $million dollars

       Thank you friends........Your voices are worth that and more......Good Day

      The Straight Goods

      Cheers Eyes Wide Open