The whole thing looks rather odd to me, as I would have expected that changes to
the fundamental rules of the House to require far more than a simple majority.
Not exact matches
The
fundamental cause
of the
House of Commons expenses scandal was that MPs were setting their own
rules and judging those
rules about expenses.
Changing the
rules re Lords treatment
of Statutory Instruments would not address the
fundamental issues BUT would hamper proper scrutiny
of Executive actions AND divert attention from the pressing issue
of the size
of the membership
of the
House.
Even if a person qualifies for a reasonable accommodation under the statutes, a landlord does not have to waive a «no pets» policy if doing so would cause a great financial or administrative burden, if a «no pets»
rule is a
fundamental part
of the
housing program, or if the disabled person is not able to follow general
rules of tenancy.
Moreover, Justice Susan Himel
ruled that the laws that forbid running a bawdy
house, communicating for the purpose
of prostitution, and living off the avails
of prostitution were unconstitutional and are not in accord with the principles
of fundamental justice.
For example, the Ontario Court
of Appeal recently
ruled in Bedford v Canada that the prohibition on common bawdy -
houses for the purpose
of prostitution was unconstitutional and must be struck down because the laws do not accord with the principles
of fundamental justice enshrined in section 7
of the Charter.