Sabrina’s Law: Good and Bad

On January 1, 2006, Sabrina’s Law will come into force.  What it Sabrina’s Law, you ask?  Isn’t it obvious from the title, asks me, my voice dripping with sarcasm?  (I’ll get to that later.)

Sabrina’s law is named after a child who died of anaphylactic shock.  The purpose of the law is to ensure that schools have a policy and the training for dealing with anaphylactic children.

That’s a good thing.  It seems, for reasons beyond the scope of this column, that severe allergies are far more prevalent than in years past.  It is appropriate that those responsible for children in the absence of the parents are trained to deal with such emergencies. 

The law also imposes an obligation on parents to keep the school informed on the medication that a student takes.

Now, on to the bad aspects of Sabrina’s law. 

Why the heck do governments insist on making the names of laws completely useless?  Unless I know who Sabrina was, I am not likely going to look under “S” to find a law dealing with anaphylaxia in schools.  Titles of laws should be descriptive of the law.  The “Surveryors Act” is a good example.  A bad example is the “Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000”. 

I’ve got nothing against Sabrina.  Sabrina died from anaphylactic shock at school, I understand.  Mr. Wishart was a lawyer and MPP who was instrumental in starting the movement to protect franchisees.  However, if the legislators feel compelled to dedicate legislation to people, do so in the preamble or the body of the Act, not in the title.

The more annoying part of Sabrina’s Law is that it is a law on its own.  The Education Act deals with schools.  There is a part of the Act dedicated to safety.  Should not Sabrina’s Law be a few added sections to that part of the Education Act? 

It causes everyone in the legal system trouble when there are too many laws addressing similar issues.  For example, in the area of employment, there are at least 18 laws that are relevant.  I suspect that we could reduce that number to a lot less:  maybe even one comprehensive law dealing with employment relationships. 

It would be more efficient to do so, as there are many features of the laws that are repeated in many acts.  For example, in the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, there is protection for employees who report health and safety issues.  There are similar protections for employees who report issues under the Employment Standards Act and Human Rights Code.  If there was just one law, these provisions would not have to be repeated.

Another bad example is “Christopher’s Law”, which should be called the “Sexual Offender Registry Act” or, better yet, it should be part of a law dealing with the administration of justice. 

In the meantime, until they stop naming laws after people, I just hope there’s no new law created to honour someone named Billy-Jo-Jim-Bob.