One day we'll find out what really happened -- but I suspect it will come out in a biography written twenty years from now when it won't make a whit of difference... .
Harper drops suit against Liberals over Cadman allegations
DANIEL LEBLANC
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
February 7, 2009
OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper has abandoned his $3.5-million libel lawsuit against the Liberal Party over allegations that he knew of Conservative efforts to bribe a dying MP in 2005.
Friday's move was in direct contradiction with Mr. Harper's past vows to take the matter to a total victory in front of a judge.
"The truth is that this will prove to be in court the biggest mistake the leader of the Liberal Party has ever made," Mr. Harper said last March, speaking about Stéphane Dion.
The matter was settled, without an apology or a trial, and with all sides refusing to comment.
Joseph Magnet, a professor of law at the University of Ottawa, said the decision fuels the impression that the lawsuit was an attempt by Mr. Harper, who last fall was about to fight an election, to "deflect attention" from the furor, which has since subsided.
"These defamation suits … manage a crisis by mounting an offence," Prof. Magnet said. "They push the problem down the line in time, and it's maybe what happened here."
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Burqas and court
The recent uproar over whether a witness testifying must do so after removing her burqa seems to have focused on the question whether wearing a burqa is a religious matter.
Newspaper commentary has questioned the matter (as did the judge) by making a religion/culture distinction.
The trouble is that such distinction has, within it, an implied sub text -- that religion is a separate part of life quite distinct from culture. That is, to use a Christian analogy, religion is something you do on Sunday morning.
If course, for a committed believer, especially in a faith like Islam, all aspects of life are imbued with religious meaning. And clearly wearing a burqa is based on a life in which faith is paramount.
It doesn't matter if I believe in that faith or think G-d wants women's faces to be hidden from view (actually, I believe quite the contrary) -- the issue is what the witness believes -- and to my mind there can be no doubt she wears the burqa to serve her faith.
That, of course, does not end the issue. Religion does not trump all other interests. A religion that, say, believes in slavery would not be given a free pass to owns slaves in Canada. Religions that refuse blood transfusions are commonly over ruled where children's lives are at risk.
But the issue is balancing religious freedom and other interests. To suggest, in the burqa case, that religion isn't involved is disingenuous.
Newspaper commentary has questioned the matter (as did the judge) by making a religion/culture distinction.
The trouble is that such distinction has, within it, an implied sub text -- that religion is a separate part of life quite distinct from culture. That is, to use a Christian analogy, religion is something you do on Sunday morning.
If course, for a committed believer, especially in a faith like Islam, all aspects of life are imbued with religious meaning. And clearly wearing a burqa is based on a life in which faith is paramount.
It doesn't matter if I believe in that faith or think G-d wants women's faces to be hidden from view (actually, I believe quite the contrary) -- the issue is what the witness believes -- and to my mind there can be no doubt she wears the burqa to serve her faith.
That, of course, does not end the issue. Religion does not trump all other interests. A religion that, say, believes in slavery would not be given a free pass to owns slaves in Canada. Religions that refuse blood transfusions are commonly over ruled where children's lives are at risk.
But the issue is balancing religious freedom and other interests. To suggest, in the burqa case, that religion isn't involved is disingenuous.
In this I agree with a Montreal Rabbi, whose letter to the National Post see below:
Re: Veil Of Ignorance, Tarek Fatah, Feb. 5.
I found myself surprisingly offended by Tarek Fatah's column, in which he claims that since "there is no requirement in Islam for Muslim women to cover their face," there is justification for a judge to order its removal.
As a religious Jew, I know there are a number of customs that have minimal textual basis but have nonetheless become part of our practice. The donning of a kipah (skullcap) is just one example.
Furthermore, there are many customs of dress and practice that have been accepted as the norm in sects of Hasidic Judaism. It is not my place to judge whether they should or should not be donning these clothes, nor should it be Mr. Fatah's. And I object to a Toronto judge ordering the removal of a burqa, just as I would object of a similar order for the removal to a streimel (hassidic hat). I would expect both Mr. Fatah and the judge to recognize this issue for what it's truly about: religious intolerance.
Rabbi Ira Ebbin, Beth Zion Congregation, Cote St-Luc, Que
Polling -- a snapshot but a telling one
Ignatieff narrows gap behind Tories in two months since he became leader
Montreal Gazette Saturday, February 7, 2009
Page: A14
Section: News
Byline: JULIET O'NEILL
Dateline: OTTAWA
Source: Canwest News Service
The popularity gap between the government and the official opposition has narrowed once again, with 37 per cent of decided voters supporting Stephen Harper's Conservatives and 31 per cent behind Michael Ignatieff's Liberals, according to the results of the latest Ipsos Reid poll.
The survey conducted for Canwest News Service and Global Television showed the Liberals have steadily narrowed a 23-point gap behind the Conservatives in early December to six points in the two months since Ignatieff replaced Stéphane Dion as leader.
"Ignatieff's clearly in the game," John Wright, Ipsos Reid senior vice-president, public affairs, said in an interview yesterday.
Nationally, the Conservatives retain a commanding lead in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. But the Liberals have overtaken the Conservatives in Ontario for the first time since the federal election, and retain a firm lead in Atlantic Canada.
James Morton
Montreal Gazette Saturday, February 7, 2009
Page: A14
Section: News
Byline: JULIET O'NEILL
Dateline: OTTAWA
Source: Canwest News Service
The popularity gap between the government and the official opposition has narrowed once again, with 37 per cent of decided voters supporting Stephen Harper's Conservatives and 31 per cent behind Michael Ignatieff's Liberals, according to the results of the latest Ipsos Reid poll.
The survey conducted for Canwest News Service and Global Television showed the Liberals have steadily narrowed a 23-point gap behind the Conservatives in early December to six points in the two months since Ignatieff replaced Stéphane Dion as leader.
"Ignatieff's clearly in the game," John Wright, Ipsos Reid senior vice-president, public affairs, said in an interview yesterday.
Nationally, the Conservatives retain a commanding lead in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. But the Liberals have overtaken the Conservatives in Ontario for the first time since the federal election, and retain a firm lead in Atlantic Canada.
James Morton
Cadman suit dropped
This is interesting. The case is settled without costs (usually suggesting the plaintiff just wanted out) and the announcement is made late on a Friday.
It bears all the hallmarks of a tactical suit brought for a brief advantage and then abandoned when it became awkward. The sort of strike suit big corporations bring to close down dissent.
Well, I suppose Harper needs to be (a little) nice to the Opposition so this suit had to go.
Harper, Liberals settle Cadman lawsuit
National Post
Friday, Feb 6, 2009
The Prime Minister's Office announced that they have settled a lawsuit with the Liberal Party over allegations that the Tories offered the independent MP a bribe.
- Nick Didlick for National Post
OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Liberal Party of Canada have settled their lawsuit over the Cadman affair out of court. In a terse statement late Friday, the two sides said they had "settled all issues" and agreed the case will be dismissed without costs.
James Morton
It bears all the hallmarks of a tactical suit brought for a brief advantage and then abandoned when it became awkward. The sort of strike suit big corporations bring to close down dissent.
Well, I suppose Harper needs to be (a little) nice to the Opposition so this suit had to go.
Harper, Liberals settle Cadman lawsuit
National Post
Friday, Feb 6, 2009
The Prime Minister's Office announced that they have settled a lawsuit with the Liberal Party over allegations that the Tories offered the independent MP a bribe.
- Nick Didlick for National Post
OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Liberal Party of Canada have settled their lawsuit over the Cadman affair out of court. In a terse statement late Friday, the two sides said they had "settled all issues" and agreed the case will be dismissed without costs.
James Morton
Friday, February 6, 2009
Xylitol and Dogs
Thanks to Val Heart of Animal Talk for this (I don't own a dog but want to pass on the information to all who do):
Last Friday evening, I arrived home from work, fed Chloe, our 24 Lb. dachshund, just as I normally do. Ten minutes later I walked into the den just in time to see her head inside the pocket of Katie's friend's purse. She had a guilty look on her face so I looked closer and saw a small package of sugar-free gum.
I remembered that I had recently read that sugar-free gum can be deadly for dogs so I jumped on line and looked to see if xylitol was an ingredient. Next, I called our vet. She said to bring her in immediately. Unfortunately, it was still rush hour and it took me almost 1/2 hour to get there.
Meanwhile, since this was her first case, our vet found another website to figure out the treatment. She took Chloe and said they would induce her to vomit, give her a charcoal drink to absorb the toxin (even though they don't think it works) then they would start an iv with dextrose.
The xylitol causes dogs to secrete insulin so their blood sugar drops very quickly. The second thing that happens is liver failure. If that happens, even with aggressive treatment, it can be difficult to save them. She told us she would call us. Almost two hours later, the vet called and said that contents of her stomach contained 2-3 gum wrappers and that her blood sugar had dropped from 90 to 59 in 30 minutes.
She wanted us to take Chloe to another hospital that has a critical care unit operating around the clock. We picked her up and took her there. They had us call the ASPCA poison control for a case number and for a donation; their doctors would direct Chloe's doctor on treatment. They would continue the iv, monitor her blood every other hour and then in 2 days test her liver function.
She ended up with a central line in her jugular vein since the one in her leg collapsed, just as our regular vet had feared. Chloe spent almost the entire weekend in the critical care hospital. After her blood sugar was stabilized, she came home yesterday. They ran all the tests again before they released her and so far, no sign of liver damage. Had I not seen her head in the purse, she probably would have died and we wouldn't even have known why.
Three vets told me this weekend, that they were amazed that I even knew about it since they are first learning about it too. Please tell everyone you know about xylitol and dogs. It may save another life.
James Morton
The bigger they come
There been a lot of hand wringing over U.S. Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps smoking marijuana. Certainly Phelps has been given a strong punishment -- both financial and otherwise.
The issue, however, seems to be more that people are shocked a man whose whole being seems dedicated to health would smoke marijuana. The legality seems somewhat off to one side.
Of course, if there was a photograph of Phelps smoking a cigarette the penalty would not have been imposed but I suspect the shock might have been even greater.
Anyway, see Colby Cosh below:
Colby Cosh: Phelps takes a hit
NP Editor, National Post
Friday, Feb 6, 2009
When pictures of U.S. Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps hoovering dope smoke out of a bong appeared in News of the World last weekend, a problem was immediately created for supporters of marijuana decriminalization. The problem is this: Even the perfunctory concessions we typically make to the dangers of marijuana look awfully ridiculous in the face of Phelps' use of it. Frankly, it seems like even the apologists have been way too hard on the stuff. Last week, for example, I would have been happy to state unthinkingly that marijuana takes away one's edge and has a tendency to undermine one's ambitiousness. But then, how many Olympic gold medals do I have? Phelps is being reviled for "poor judgment" by a community of editorialists whose highest collective achievement, not counting the plaques we occasionally hand out to one another, has been to keep a few more BMW dealers in business than there would otherwise be.
James Morton
The issue, however, seems to be more that people are shocked a man whose whole being seems dedicated to health would smoke marijuana. The legality seems somewhat off to one side.
Of course, if there was a photograph of Phelps smoking a cigarette the penalty would not have been imposed but I suspect the shock might have been even greater.
Anyway, see Colby Cosh below:
Colby Cosh: Phelps takes a hit
NP Editor, National Post
Friday, Feb 6, 2009
When pictures of U.S. Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps hoovering dope smoke out of a bong appeared in News of the World last weekend, a problem was immediately created for supporters of marijuana decriminalization. The problem is this: Even the perfunctory concessions we typically make to the dangers of marijuana look awfully ridiculous in the face of Phelps' use of it. Frankly, it seems like even the apologists have been way too hard on the stuff. Last week, for example, I would have been happy to state unthinkingly that marijuana takes away one's edge and has a tendency to undermine one's ambitiousness. But then, how many Olympic gold medals do I have? Phelps is being reviled for "poor judgment" by a community of editorialists whose highest collective achievement, not counting the plaques we occasionally hand out to one another, has been to keep a few more BMW dealers in business than there would otherwise be.
James Morton
Amazing photograph
Interesting picture. The days(daylight) are so short at either Pole that the sun only comes up a short way from the horizon and then it sets again. A scene you will probably never have the opportunity to see. This is the sunset at the North Pole with the moon at its closest point.
You also see the sun below the moon. An amazing photo and not one easily duplicated.
You also see the sun below the moon. An amazing photo and not one easily duplicated.
Canada's Employers Cut Record 129,000 Jobs in January
By Theophilos Argitis
Feb. 6 (Bloomberg) --
Employers cut a net 129,000 workers, three times the loss forecast by economists, after a drop of 20,400 in December, Statistics Canada said today in
Today’s job losses may undermine the Bank of Canada’s forecast that the economy will recover more quickly than in previous recessions as credit markets and exports rebound.
Commons returning to civility
Good story from Star
Commons returning to civility
The Toronto Star
Friday, February 6, 2009
Page: A06
Section: News
Byline: Chantal Hebert
Source: Toronto Star
Against all odds, the much-battered 40th Parliament is off to a fresh and potentially productive start.
This could be a short truce, liable to be broken at the first sight of an opening in the polls for one of the main parties. Meanwhile, though, the House of Commons is tentatively on the way to becoming a place that is once again fit for visiting schoolchildren rather than a venue where their elders come to weep over the sorry state of the country's political debate.
For better or, usually, for worse, the tone in the Commons is essentially set by the government and the official Opposition over the 45-minute daily question period, and both have raised their game since the end-of-year parliamentary crisis.
The Liberal questions are more substantive and the government's answers less flippant.
In tone, if not in content, the official opposition under Michael Ignatieff has borrowed a page from the NDP and apparently rediscovered the virtues of earnestness and civility.
James Morton
Commons returning to civility
The Toronto Star
Friday, February 6, 2009
Page: A06
Section: News
Byline: Chantal Hebert
Source: Toronto Star
Against all odds, the much-battered 40th Parliament is off to a fresh and potentially productive start.
This could be a short truce, liable to be broken at the first sight of an opening in the polls for one of the main parties. Meanwhile, though, the House of Commons is tentatively on the way to becoming a place that is once again fit for visiting schoolchildren rather than a venue where their elders come to weep over the sorry state of the country's political debate.
For better or, usually, for worse, the tone in the Commons is essentially set by the government and the official Opposition over the 45-minute daily question period, and both have raised their game since the end-of-year parliamentary crisis.
The Liberal questions are more substantive and the government's answers less flippant.
In tone, if not in content, the official opposition under Michael Ignatieff has borrowed a page from the NDP and apparently rediscovered the virtues of earnestness and civility.
James Morton
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Ignatieff speaks
Michael Ignatieff recently spoke at the Economic Club of Canada on preparing for the Creative Age.
You can watch footage below:
James Morton
A caution about science in court
This is an important reminder -- remember Dr. Charles Smith... .
Science Found Wanting in Nation’s Crime Labs
By SOLOMON MOORE
Forensic evidence that has helped convict thousands of defendants for nearly a century is often the product of shoddy scientific practices that should be upgraded and standardized, according to accounts of a draft report by the nation’s pre-eminent scientific research group.
The report by the National Academy of Sciences is to be released this month. People who have seen it say it is a sweeping critique of many forensic methods that the police and prosecutors rely on, including fingerprinting, firearms identification and analysis of bite marks, blood spatter, hair and handwriting.
The report says such analyses are often handled by poorly trained technicians who then exaggerate the accuracy of their methods in court. It concludes that Congress should create a federal agency to guarantee the independence of the field, which has been dominated by law enforcement agencies, say forensic professionals, scholars and scientists who have seen review copies of the study. Early reviewers said the report was still subject to change.
Full story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/us/05forensics.html?_r=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&pagewanted=print
Science Found Wanting in Nation’s Crime Labs
By SOLOMON MOORE
Forensic evidence that has helped convict thousands of defendants for nearly a century is often the product of shoddy scientific practices that should be upgraded and standardized, according to accounts of a draft report by the nation’s pre-eminent scientific research group.
The report by the National Academy of Sciences is to be released this month. People who have seen it say it is a sweeping critique of many forensic methods that the police and prosecutors rely on, including fingerprinting, firearms identification and analysis of bite marks, blood spatter, hair and handwriting.
The report says such analyses are often handled by poorly trained technicians who then exaggerate the accuracy of their methods in court. It concludes that Congress should create a federal agency to guarantee the independence of the field, which has been dominated by law enforcement agencies, say forensic professionals, scholars and scientists who have seen review copies of the study. Early reviewers said the report was still subject to change.
Full story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/us/05forensics.html?_r=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&pagewanted=print
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Procedural irregularities ought not to trump substance
Modern courts focus on the substance, and not form, of cases. This principle is easily stated but sometimes overlooked.
Today's Court of Appeal decision in Horgan v. Tanktek Environmental Services Ltd., 2009 ONCA 109 is a good example of how a procedural irregularity ought not determine the substance of a case. Here the Court held:
[2] After raising the issues himself, the motion judge held that the appellants' motion to add parties could not proceed because the appellants did not file a confirmation form under r. 37.10.1 and because, although the appellants had set the action down for trial, they had not requested leave to bring their motion under rule 48.04(1). Without inviting or permitting submissions on these issues, the motion judge dismissed the appellants' motion. The motion judge went on to grant the respondent's motion for partial summary judgement, dismissing virtually all of the appellants' claims
[3] In our view, the motion judge's orders must be set aside on grounds of natural justice and fair procedure.
[4] If the appellants' motion was not before the motion judge because the appellants had not filed a confirmation form, the motion judge could not address the rule 48.04(1) issue or dismiss the motion. In any event, it was not open to the motion judge to dismiss the motion or rule that it could not proceed under rule 48.04(1) without permitting submissions to be made.
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
Today's Court of Appeal decision in Horgan v. Tanktek Environmental Services Ltd., 2009 ONCA 109 is a good example of how a procedural irregularity ought not determine the substance of a case. Here the Court held:
[2] After raising the issues himself, the motion judge held that the appellants' motion to add parties could not proceed because the appellants did not file a confirmation form under r. 37.10.1 and because, although the appellants had set the action down for trial, they had not requested leave to bring their motion under rule 48.04(1). Without inviting or permitting submissions on these issues, the motion judge dismissed the appellants' motion. The motion judge went on to grant the respondent's motion for partial summary judgement, dismissing virtually all of the appellants' claims
[3] In our view, the motion judge's orders must be set aside on grounds of natural justice and fair procedure.
[4] If the appellants' motion was not before the motion judge because the appellants had not filed a confirmation form, the motion judge could not address the rule 48.04(1) issue or dismiss the motion. In any event, it was not open to the motion judge to dismiss the motion or rule that it could not proceed under rule 48.04(1) without permitting submissions to be made.
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
Vatican backtracks?
The
The
Buy American?
I suspect we will find the U.S. determination to favour American businesses will prove stronger than President Obama's inclination towards free(ish) trade.
Steel-state lawmakers vow to save 'Buy American'
By Doug Palmer
WASHINGTON, Feb 4 (Reuters) - Lawmakers from steel-producing states insisted on Wednesday that a "Buy American" plan remain part of the huge U.S. economic stimulus bill after President Barack Obama said Congress should look at dropping or changing it to avoid starting a trade war.
"If it's not in, I'm not supporting this package and I'll bring a lot of votes with me," House of Representatives Transportation Committee Chairman James Oberstar, a Minnesota Democrat, said after a Congressional Steel Caucus hearing.
Steel-state lawmakers vow to save 'Buy American'
By Doug Palmer
WASHINGTON, Feb 4 (Reuters) - Lawmakers from steel-producing states insisted on Wednesday that a "Buy American" plan remain part of the huge U.S. economic stimulus bill after President Barack Obama said Congress should look at dropping or changing it to avoid starting a trade war.
"If it's not in, I'm not supporting this package and I'll bring a lot of votes with me," House of Representatives Transportation Committee Chairman James Oberstar, a Minnesota Democrat, said after a Congressional Steel Caucus hearing.
Ontario court rules changing assets can be a factor in divorce settlements
Ontario court rules changing assets can be a factor in divorce settlements
TU THANH HA
Globe and Mail Update
February 4, 2009 at 2:08 PM EST
In a pivotal judgment for recessionary times, the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that significant changes in a person's assets can be considered a factor when judges split the net worth of a divorcing couple.
The decision was eagerly watched by divorce lawyers who have been deluged recently with cases where estranged spouses found their businesses and investments shrinking after their separation.
When dealing with divorcing couples, Ontario courts evaluate the assets earned during the marriage and order one of the spouse to make an equalization payment that will enable both sides to end up with roughly the same worth.
“In my opinion, a court may take into account a post-separation date change in the value of a spouse's assets,” Mr. Justice Robert Blair wrote on behalf of the three-judge appellate panel.
The case predates the current economic turmoil, pitting a textile entrepreneur from Ajax, Ont., Harold Serra, who separated from his wife, Barbara, in 2000 and divorced in 2003.
Mr. Serra argued that he couldn't meet the $3.3-million equalization payment he owed Ms. Serra because his business declined shortly after the separation, when an influx of Chinese exports led to the collapse of the Canadian textile industry.
The court of appeal agreed in its ruling.
“An equalization of net family property that requires Mr. Serra to pay more than his total net worth (and arguably as much as twice his net worth) because of a marked decline in the value of his major asset post-separation . . . is, in my view, unconscionable,” Judge Blair wrote.
However, the ruling makes it clear that, while it opened the door to readjusting payments when a person's net worth changes significantly, the change has to meet a high threshold.
“Concluding that it may be considered as a factor does not lead necessarily to a finding on the facts that an equalization order would be unconscionable. This is an important distinction.”
The ruling reduced the amount Mr. Serra had to pay his ex-wife to $900,000.
“Now for the first time, if your assets have gone down significantly, you have your foot in the door. Whereas before, even if your assets had dropped in value, you had no arguments,” said Mr. Serra's lawyer, Philip Epstein.
Ms. Serra's lawyer, James Morton, said she is disappointed and hasn't decided whether to pursue the case further. She has 60 days to decide if she wants to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.
“This is the state of law until the Supreme Court decides otherwise, for at least another two, three years,” Mr. Morton said.
Mr. Morton said the ruling could also apply when someone's assets dramatically increases between the time of separation and settlement, opening the door for ex-spouses seeking higher payments.
TU THANH HA
Globe and Mail Update
February 4, 2009 at 2:08 PM EST
In a pivotal judgment for recessionary times, the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that significant changes in a person's assets can be considered a factor when judges split the net worth of a divorcing couple.
The decision was eagerly watched by divorce lawyers who have been deluged recently with cases where estranged spouses found their businesses and investments shrinking after their separation.
When dealing with divorcing couples, Ontario courts evaluate the assets earned during the marriage and order one of the spouse to make an equalization payment that will enable both sides to end up with roughly the same worth.
“In my opinion, a court may take into account a post-separation date change in the value of a spouse's assets,” Mr. Justice Robert Blair wrote on behalf of the three-judge appellate panel.
The case predates the current economic turmoil, pitting a textile entrepreneur from Ajax, Ont., Harold Serra, who separated from his wife, Barbara, in 2000 and divorced in 2003.
Mr. Serra argued that he couldn't meet the $3.3-million equalization payment he owed Ms. Serra because his business declined shortly after the separation, when an influx of Chinese exports led to the collapse of the Canadian textile industry.
The court of appeal agreed in its ruling.
“An equalization of net family property that requires Mr. Serra to pay more than his total net worth (and arguably as much as twice his net worth) because of a marked decline in the value of his major asset post-separation . . . is, in my view, unconscionable,” Judge Blair wrote.
However, the ruling makes it clear that, while it opened the door to readjusting payments when a person's net worth changes significantly, the change has to meet a high threshold.
“Concluding that it may be considered as a factor does not lead necessarily to a finding on the facts that an equalization order would be unconscionable. This is an important distinction.”
The ruling reduced the amount Mr. Serra had to pay his ex-wife to $900,000.
“Now for the first time, if your assets have gone down significantly, you have your foot in the door. Whereas before, even if your assets had dropped in value, you had no arguments,” said Mr. Serra's lawyer, Philip Epstein.
Ms. Serra's lawyer, James Morton, said she is disappointed and hasn't decided whether to pursue the case further. She has 60 days to decide if she wants to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.
“This is the state of law until the Supreme Court decides otherwise, for at least another two, three years,” Mr. Morton said.
Mr. Morton said the ruling could also apply when someone's assets dramatically increases between the time of separation and settlement, opening the door for ex-spouses seeking higher payments.
Unequal equalization in divorce proceedings
Today’s decision in Serra v Serra , 2009 ONCA 105 ruled that a post separation decrease in the value of assets may be taken into account in awarding an unequal equalization in a divorce case. Specifically, a market-driven decline in the value of the property may be taken into account in certain circumstances. The decision is complex and needs careful review but is of great importance in family law matters. Part of the decision read:
[44] At trial in LeVan, Justice Backhouse had concluded that the factors in s. 5(6) did not include post-separation changes in value, expressing the opinion (at para. 267) that if “the Legislature [had] intended that post valuation date increases and decreases in value might form the basis of a s. 5(6) application, I think it likely, given the frequency of these events, that it would have included a provision to this effect.” Here, the trial judge came to a similar conclusion. At paras. 135-136 she held:
Turning to the language of s. 5(6)(h) itself, a market-driven decline in value does not appear to come within the “acquisition, disposition, preservation, maintenance or improvement” of a property. This is to be contrasted to a situation in which the conduct of a spouse had an impact on the value of the property.
I conclude that the circumstances in which a court may order an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6) do not include a market-driven decline in the value of the property.
[45] Respectfully, I disagree.
[46] In my opinion, a court may take into account a post-separation date change in the value of a spouse’s assets, and the circumstances surrounding such a change, for purposes of determining under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act whether equalizing net family properties would be unconscionable. An order for an unequal division of net family properties is exceptional, however, and may only be made on such a basis (i) where the circumstances giving rise to the change in value relate (directly or indirectly) to the acquisition, disposition, preservation, maintenance or improvement of property (s. 5(6)(h)), and (ii) where equalizing the net family property would be unconscionable, having regard to those circumstances (taken alone or in conjunction with other factors mentioned in s. 5(6)).
GM pullout -- more falling sky?
At some point one might wonder, is the endless support of the automakers worthwhile? Sometimes it's better not to send good money after bad... .
CAW worried about GM pullout from Canada
Top General Motors Corp. executives in Detroit are mulling the company's fate, and the Canadian Auto Workers are worried that GM's future might not include Canada.
CAW worried about GM pullout from Canada
"If we choose not to be part of the solution, there's a very real possibility that GM could take our vehicles out of Canada and move them to the United States or another country," Chris Buckley, president of Local 222 in Oshawa, told CTV Toronto on Tuesday.
He pleaded for GM to speak with him about ways to keep the Canadian plants open.
A full GM pullout would result in 12,000 high-paying jobs disappearing. However, up to 80,000 jobs could disappear when one counts how many jobs are supported by auto assembly plants.
"They are very concerned that one of the Big Three will no longer be in Ontario," NDP Leader Howard Hampton said, referring to Ford and Chrysler as well.
Ontario's Premier Dalton McGuinty said there is a strong business case for GM to remain in this country, not least of which is the billions in financial assistance being offered by the provincial and federal governments.
"If you consider the productivity of their plants in Ontario and the quality awards that we have won and the recent investments that they have made, I think it's in the long-term interests of GM to continue to avail themselves of our labour force and our government's commitment to the future of this industry here," he said.
CAW worried about GM pullout from Canada
Top General Motors Corp. executives in Detroit are mulling the company's fate, and the Canadian Auto Workers are worried that GM's future might not include Canada.
CAW worried about GM pullout from Canada
"If we choose not to be part of the solution, there's a very real possibility that GM could take our vehicles out of Canada and move them to the United States or another country," Chris Buckley, president of Local 222 in Oshawa, told CTV Toronto on Tuesday.
He pleaded for GM to speak with him about ways to keep the Canadian plants open.
A full GM pullout would result in 12,000 high-paying jobs disappearing. However, up to 80,000 jobs could disappear when one counts how many jobs are supported by auto assembly plants.
"They are very concerned that one of the Big Three will no longer be in Ontario," NDP Leader Howard Hampton said, referring to Ford and Chrysler as well.
Ontario's Premier Dalton McGuinty said there is a strong business case for GM to remain in this country, not least of which is the billions in financial assistance being offered by the provincial and federal governments.
"If you consider the productivity of their plants in Ontario and the quality awards that we have won and the recent investments that they have made, I think it's in the long-term interests of GM to continue to avail themselves of our labour force and our government's commitment to the future of this industry here," he said.
Zimbabwe -- Does anyone care at all?
I almost hate to post this but has anyone noticed what's happening in Zimbabwe? Does anyone care?
A land with a well educated and a cultural of hard work brought to utter ruin by a tyrant? Blessed with fertile land and mineral deposits, Zimbabwe was once among the most prosperous of sub-Saharan African nations. It is now a place of penury, disease and oppression.
From today's Al Jezeera we read:
Zimbabwe's cholera crisis has reached unprecedented levels with nearly 63,000 people being infected by the epidemic, according to a report by a United Nations agency.
I note the official inflation rate is now 231 trillion percent a year. There is famine in what was a major grain exporter. Am I the only person following this story?
Enough. While the world stands by, the people of Zimbabwe are dying. This is a case where there can be no legitimate doubt -- there is a duty to intervene. Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Archbishop John Sentamu of York are calling for the forcible overthrow of Mr Mugabe; this is a time for action.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Buy Canadian -- Is Jack Right?
I'm in two minds about this -- yes, a trade war with our largest trading partner is a bad idea.
On the other hand, why shouldn't we encourage the purchase of locally made products especially if it does not violate trade agreements.
Of course the bigger problem is that the US Executive (that is the President) has limited power to ignore legislative acts requiring the purchase of only American made products. Here the reality of Canada's value as an oil exporter and, to a lesser degree, a source of water, might have to be traded on to make sure that Canada is treated fairly.
All that said, I don't think Layton deserves all the attacks he is getting on talk radio. While the idea may not be the right one, at least it is worth considering, and it is reasonable for Canada to stand up for Canadians -- heck, if we don't who will? (Consider “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? ... And if not now, when?” Hillel (Pirkei Avot Chapter 1:14)).
Canada should pursue 'Buy Canadian' strategy: Layton
Canada should adopt a "Buy Canadian" strategy in response to the "Buy American" clause included in the proposed U.S. stimulus package, NDP Leader Jack Layton urged Tuesday.
During question period in the House of Commons, Layton said that there's a "golden opportunity" to boost slumping domestic sales with a "perfectly legal and appropriately designed 'Buy Canadian' strategy."
"The United States has had a 'Buy American' act for 76 years," Layton said. "It's perfectly legal under the World Trade Organization, and, in fact, under NAFTA, governments are allowed to buy at home in order to use taxpayers' money to create jobs for workers and to support communities and their industries.
"Mexico, China, Japan, South Korea, they all have national procurement policies, and it would be a good idea for Canada. Can the prime minister tell us what's wrong with a 'Buy Canadian' policy as permitted under continental and global trade rules?"
On the other hand, why shouldn't we encourage the purchase of locally made products especially if it does not violate trade agreements.
Of course the bigger problem is that the US Executive (that is the President) has limited power to ignore legislative acts requiring the purchase of only American made products. Here the reality of Canada's value as an oil exporter and, to a lesser degree, a source of water, might have to be traded on to make sure that Canada is treated fairly.
All that said, I don't think Layton deserves all the attacks he is getting on talk radio. While the idea may not be the right one, at least it is worth considering, and it is reasonable for Canada to stand up for Canadians -- heck, if we don't who will? (Consider “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? ... And if not now, when?” Hillel (Pirkei Avot Chapter 1:14)).
Canada should pursue 'Buy Canadian' strategy: Layton
Canada should adopt a "Buy Canadian" strategy in response to the "Buy American" clause included in the proposed U.S. stimulus package, NDP Leader Jack Layton urged Tuesday.
During question period in the House of Commons, Layton said that there's a "golden opportunity" to boost slumping domestic sales with a "perfectly legal and appropriately designed 'Buy Canadian' strategy."
"The United States has had a 'Buy American' act for 76 years," Layton said. "It's perfectly legal under the World Trade Organization, and, in fact, under NAFTA, governments are allowed to buy at home in order to use taxpayers' money to create jobs for workers and to support communities and their industries.
"Mexico, China, Japan, South Korea, they all have national procurement policies, and it would be a good idea for Canada. Can the prime minister tell us what's wrong with a 'Buy Canadian' policy as permitted under continental and global trade rules?"
Careful of metal plates ...
This story, from the Toronto Star, is truly odd.
For months dogs have been injured by live electricity in metal plates. Surely someone other than myself (see older blogs) thought "hmmn, if this can shock a puppy maybe it can shock a person?".
And yet it took till yesterday for Toronto Hydro to think of this?
COLIN MCCONNELL/TORONTO STAR
February 02, 2009
Emily Mathieu
Staff Reporter
Toronto Hydro is warning pedestrians to avoid metal sidewalk plates near lamp poles, as they mount an inspection and repair campaign.
Several GTA residents received shocks and two dogs died recently as a result of shorts, which have electrified the plates.
Toronto Hydro spokesperson Karen Evans said the work began at 7 a.m. with hydro mobilizing 600 people to open the 15,000 handwells covered by the plates, inspect them for short circuits and replacing the covers with non-conductive ones.
Iran in space
This may be the most significant, if under reported, news of the week. Reports out of Iran suggest the claim of a successful satellite launch are correct.
Iran's (apparently) successful launch of its own satellite by its own rocket shows how it is slowly but surely mastering the missile technology that the West and Israel fear one day might be available as a delivery system for a nuclear weapon.
It also shows, as Iran itself has triumphantly proclaimed, that the UN sanctions against Iran, which include sanctions against its missile programme as well as its nuclear activities, have not stopped this event.
Remember, if a rocket can launch a satellite into space the same rocket can drop a missile pretty well anywhere on earth.
Iran's (apparently) successful launch of its own satellite by its own rocket shows how it is slowly but surely mastering the missile technology that the West and Israel fear one day might be available as a delivery system for a nuclear weapon.
It also shows, as Iran itself has triumphantly proclaimed, that the UN sanctions against Iran, which include sanctions against its missile programme as well as its nuclear activities, have not stopped this event.
Remember, if a rocket can launch a satellite into space the same rocket can drop a missile pretty well anywhere on earth.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Why Omar Khadr must be set free
Why Omar Khadr must be set free
By James Morton,
Ottawa Citizen Special
February 2, 2009 4:03 AM
Whatever happens in the matter of Omar Khadr when President Barack Obama makes his working visit to Ottawa on Feb. 19, there seems little doubt that the young Canadian, the last westerner in the American military prison in Guantanamo Bay, will soon be coming back to Canada. If Prime Minister Stephen Harper doesn't ask for Mr. Khadr's return, as he has so far refused to do, the new U.S. administration might simply put him on a plane with a one-way ticket to Toronto.
In which case, the next question becomes: What to do with him? If we are who we say we are, there is only one answer -- we release him, cut him loose.
Mr. Justice Richard Mosley of the Federal Court of Canada has already determined that Omar Khadr was tortured at Guantanamo Bay. He held last year that what happened to Mr. Khadr there constituted a breach of both the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention against Torture, adding that Canada was a party to the mistreatment, albeit after the fact. His Honour wrote:
"The practice described to the Canadian [Foreign Affairs] official in March 2004 was, in my view, a breach of international human rights law respecting the treatment of detainees. ... Canada became implicated in the violation when the official was provided with the redacted information and chose to proceed with the interview."
The Canadian government did not attempt to appeal this decision.
Otherwise, the government's handling of the Khadr case has raised troubling questions that seemed long settled until the last few years -- by which I mean since the 17th century. On August 23, 1628, a naval officer named John Felton murdered George Villiers, formerly Lord High Admiral under Charles I. The murder raised fears of a broader treason. (It was a treasonous time; Charles I himself would be executed in 1649.) Charles asked his judges if Felton, who refused to name his accomplices, could be put to torture to make him speak. Blackstone, the great English jurist, later wrote that:
"The judges, being consulted, declared unanimously, to their own honour and the honour of the English law, that no such proceeding was allowable by the laws of England."
Torture was known in England, but it was never authorized by the Common Law. As early as 1460 Sir John Fortescue hailed England's refusal to condone torture as one of the its proudest claims. From its earliest days, the Common Law rejected torture not only because of its cruelty but also because it degraded all who used it. From time to time, the Executive condoned torture of prisoners because of fears of rebellion -- or what today we might call terrorism -- but judges never did. As an English court noted in 1846, in Pearse v. Pearse, "Truth, like all other good things, may be loved unwisely -- may be pursued too keenly -- may cost too much." Truth obtained by torture has always been too costly for the Common Law.
So evidence obtained through torture is no evidence at all, which in Omar Khadr's case means no grounds for a trial. (It's also true that Khadr was a "child soldier" of 15 when captured, and that the case against him was looking flimsier by the day before Mr. Obama shut down the trials at Guantanamo, but those matters are secondary. He was tortured. He cannot be tried on evidence resulting from that. Full stop.)
Some people today argue that "coercive interrogation" is not the same thing as torture, and that distasteful acts may be necessary in the fight against terrorism. Others have seriously suggested allowing torture itself in extreme circumstances, but only after a judge has issued a "torture warrant." One American legal scholar suggested that such a warrant "would limit the torture to non-lethal means, such as sterile needles being inserted beneath the nails to cause excruciating pain without endangering life." He later claimed that he raised the issue only to spark debate, but at least to the Common Law, there are some things so obviously wrong as to not require debate. The mere enunciation of such a position is enough to show how repugnant it is.
Even before it was officially abolished, such torture as did take place in England was not used indiscriminately. It had to be authorized by the Privy Council under Royal Prerogatives. Its abolition, by statute, in 1640, was a significant step toward restraining the executive and making supreme the rule of law, including the view that no one is above the law. No one, not even the executive, may lawfully torture anyone else.
The danger in not protesting when other nations conduct "coercive interrogation," or torture -- as Canada has so far not protested on behalf of Omar Khadr -- is the degrading effect such silence has on the law everywhere. Along with the rest of the Common Law world, Canada has built its civic freedoms slowly, over time. But freedoms can be eroded in the same way. To allow "coercive interrogation" is to take a step away from freedom. Refusing it may briefly benefit a few wrongdoers, but it benefits everyone else -- has benefited everyone else -- for centuries.
In the words of Barack Obama's inaugural address: "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. ... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake."
James C. Morton is a lawyer at Steinberg Morton Hope and Israel in Toronto and adjunct professor and lecturer in evidence and advanced evidence at Osgoode Hall Law School, York University. He is also past president of the Ontario Bar Association.
By James Morton,
Ottawa Citizen Special
February 2, 2009 4:03 AM
Whatever happens in the matter of Omar Khadr when President Barack Obama makes his working visit to Ottawa on Feb. 19, there seems little doubt that the young Canadian, the last westerner in the American military prison in Guantanamo Bay, will soon be coming back to Canada. If Prime Minister Stephen Harper doesn't ask for Mr. Khadr's return, as he has so far refused to do, the new U.S. administration might simply put him on a plane with a one-way ticket to Toronto.
In which case, the next question becomes: What to do with him? If we are who we say we are, there is only one answer -- we release him, cut him loose.
Mr. Justice Richard Mosley of the Federal Court of Canada has already determined that Omar Khadr was tortured at Guantanamo Bay. He held last year that what happened to Mr. Khadr there constituted a breach of both the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention against Torture, adding that Canada was a party to the mistreatment, albeit after the fact. His Honour wrote:
"The practice described to the Canadian [Foreign Affairs] official in March 2004 was, in my view, a breach of international human rights law respecting the treatment of detainees. ... Canada became implicated in the violation when the official was provided with the redacted information and chose to proceed with the interview."
The Canadian government did not attempt to appeal this decision.
Otherwise, the government's handling of the Khadr case has raised troubling questions that seemed long settled until the last few years -- by which I mean since the 17th century. On August 23, 1628, a naval officer named John Felton murdered George Villiers, formerly Lord High Admiral under Charles I. The murder raised fears of a broader treason. (It was a treasonous time; Charles I himself would be executed in 1649.) Charles asked his judges if Felton, who refused to name his accomplices, could be put to torture to make him speak. Blackstone, the great English jurist, later wrote that:
"The judges, being consulted, declared unanimously, to their own honour and the honour of the English law, that no such proceeding was allowable by the laws of England."
Torture was known in England, but it was never authorized by the Common Law. As early as 1460 Sir John Fortescue hailed England's refusal to condone torture as one of the its proudest claims. From its earliest days, the Common Law rejected torture not only because of its cruelty but also because it degraded all who used it. From time to time, the Executive condoned torture of prisoners because of fears of rebellion -- or what today we might call terrorism -- but judges never did. As an English court noted in 1846, in Pearse v. Pearse, "Truth, like all other good things, may be loved unwisely -- may be pursued too keenly -- may cost too much." Truth obtained by torture has always been too costly for the Common Law.
So evidence obtained through torture is no evidence at all, which in Omar Khadr's case means no grounds for a trial. (It's also true that Khadr was a "child soldier" of 15 when captured, and that the case against him was looking flimsier by the day before Mr. Obama shut down the trials at Guantanamo, but those matters are secondary. He was tortured. He cannot be tried on evidence resulting from that. Full stop.)
Some people today argue that "coercive interrogation" is not the same thing as torture, and that distasteful acts may be necessary in the fight against terrorism. Others have seriously suggested allowing torture itself in extreme circumstances, but only after a judge has issued a "torture warrant." One American legal scholar suggested that such a warrant "would limit the torture to non-lethal means, such as sterile needles being inserted beneath the nails to cause excruciating pain without endangering life." He later claimed that he raised the issue only to spark debate, but at least to the Common Law, there are some things so obviously wrong as to not require debate. The mere enunciation of such a position is enough to show how repugnant it is.
Even before it was officially abolished, such torture as did take place in England was not used indiscriminately. It had to be authorized by the Privy Council under Royal Prerogatives. Its abolition, by statute, in 1640, was a significant step toward restraining the executive and making supreme the rule of law, including the view that no one is above the law. No one, not even the executive, may lawfully torture anyone else.
The danger in not protesting when other nations conduct "coercive interrogation," or torture -- as Canada has so far not protested on behalf of Omar Khadr -- is the degrading effect such silence has on the law everywhere. Along with the rest of the Common Law world, Canada has built its civic freedoms slowly, over time. But freedoms can be eroded in the same way. To allow "coercive interrogation" is to take a step away from freedom. Refusing it may briefly benefit a few wrongdoers, but it benefits everyone else -- has benefited everyone else -- for centuries.
In the words of Barack Obama's inaugural address: "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. ... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake."
James C. Morton is a lawyer at Steinberg Morton Hope and Israel in Toronto and adjunct professor and lecturer in evidence and advanced evidence at Osgoode Hall Law School, York University. He is also past president of the Ontario Bar Association.
Second appeal of a summary conviction matter
R. v. Im, 2009 ONCA 101 deals with summary conviction appeals. Generally, as the Court of Appeal set out below, appeals from a Summary Conviction Appeal Court (i.e. Superior Court) will be allowed only rarely. The Court writes:
... access to this court should be limited to cases in which the applicant can demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying a second level of appeal. He went on to identify two categories of cases in which leave to appeal may be granted. First, if an issue raised has significance to the administration of justice beyond the particular case, then leave to appeal may be granted if the grounds are at least arguable. Second, where the merits appear to be very strong, leave to appeal may be granted even if the issues have no general importance, especially if the conviction in issue is serious and the applicant is facing a significant deprivation of his or her liberty.
Groundhog Day
Shubenacadie Sam, Punxsutawney Phil and Wiarton Willie all predicte six more weeks of winter.
Letter responding to CP article about "fawning" Ignatieff story in NYT
There is no doubt but that the 'cool' factor of
Truth is, Porky Pig would seem cool compared to President Bush.
So it hardly seems surprising that the genuinely interesting Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff would get a close look from
And in fact the story is far from fawning -- it merely states the obvious. Iggy is hip.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
The final nail
Gerry Nicholls, who worked with Stephen Harper at the National Citizens Coalition, said the budget was the final nail in the coffin of a government that had been turning its back on "small-c" conservative principles.
"Right now the Conservative government is in survival mode," Nicholls said. "They might do some symbolic things to make the base happy, on crime or culture perhaps, but for all intents and purposes, this is no longer a conservative government."
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
Superbowl
I can't watch! After the Pittsburg interception for a 100 yard touchdown everything else is too painful!!! (Guess who I am rooting for?). Goodnight all!!!
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
More dumb criminal activity
It is amazing how many people don't realize that what goes on the web gets noticed (ok, maybe we bloggers dream of being noticed, but really, posting terrorist threats on Facebook?).
The scary thing is that 300 people signed on to his group!
LAVAL, Que. - A 19-year-old Quebec man is facing three charges after allegedly making threats to blow up police property in messages he posted on the social networking website Facebook.
Police allege that Philippe Duquette created an online group and wrote about his intentions to blow up a police car and police station in Laval, just north of Montreal.
Nearly 300 people had signed up to his group.
No explosives or weapons were found at his home when police arrested him on Thursday.
He faces three charges including uttering threats.
The scary thing is that 300 people signed on to his group!
LAVAL, Que. - A 19-year-old Quebec man is facing three charges after allegedly making threats to blow up police property in messages he posted on the social networking website Facebook.
Police allege that Philippe Duquette created an online group and wrote about his intentions to blow up a police car and police station in Laval, just north of Montreal.
Nearly 300 people had signed up to his group.
No explosives or weapons were found at his home when police arrested him on Thursday.
He faces three charges including uttering threats.
Ignatieff in New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/fashion/01ignatieff.html?emc=eta1
By ERIC KONIGSBERG
Published: February 01, 2009
TORONTO
IN the last few years, Michael Ignatieff's friends in the United States and England began receiving self-deprecating e-mail messages from him lamenting how dull and low-profile his life had suddenly become. He had spent most of the preceding four decades making a name for himself in both countries - writing essays on the world's war zones for The New Yorker, The New Republic and The New York Review of Books; writing novels and screenplays; enjoying popularity as a television-show host in Britain and a regular at the Groucho Club; and teaching at Harvard and Cambridge universities. Now, he joked, he was stuck in the pedestrian life of a freshman civil servant - in Canada no less. Mr. Ignatieff shocked friends and colleagues three years ago by chucking the life of the mind for the hurly-burly of politics and returning, after a long exile, to his native country to win a seat in Parliament. And if he was bored, it wasn't for long. Last December, after a tumultuous fortnight of machinations in parliament, Mr. Ignatieff, 61, became the leader of the opposition Liberal Party, which has been called Canada's "natural ruling party" and has been in power for much of the last century. Should his party win control of the government, something it came close to doing last week and still hopes to in the coming months, he would become the next prime minister of Canada. Among the circles in which Mr. Ignatieff once traveled, there might be a sense that anybody capable of writing a novel ("Scar Tissue") that becomes short-listed for the Booker Prize - anybody, for that matter, who had the writer Martin Amis and Michael Palin of Monty Python as guests at his wedding - could figure out a way to jump the queue of Canadian politics.
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
By ERIC KONIGSBERG
Published: February 01, 2009
TORONTO
IN the last few years, Michael Ignatieff's friends in the United States and England began receiving self-deprecating e-mail messages from him lamenting how dull and low-profile his life had suddenly become. He had spent most of the preceding four decades making a name for himself in both countries - writing essays on the world's war zones for The New Yorker, The New Republic and The New York Review of Books; writing novels and screenplays; enjoying popularity as a television-show host in Britain and a regular at the Groucho Club; and teaching at Harvard and Cambridge universities. Now, he joked, he was stuck in the pedestrian life of a freshman civil servant - in Canada no less. Mr. Ignatieff shocked friends and colleagues three years ago by chucking the life of the mind for the hurly-burly of politics and returning, after a long exile, to his native country to win a seat in Parliament. And if he was bored, it wasn't for long. Last December, after a tumultuous fortnight of machinations in parliament, Mr. Ignatieff, 61, became the leader of the opposition Liberal Party, which has been called Canada's "natural ruling party" and has been in power for much of the last century. Should his party win control of the government, something it came close to doing last week and still hopes to in the coming months, he would become the next prime minister of Canada. Among the circles in which Mr. Ignatieff once traveled, there might be a sense that anybody capable of writing a novel ("Scar Tissue") that becomes short-listed for the Booker Prize - anybody, for that matter, who had the writer Martin Amis and Michael Palin of Monty Python as guests at his wedding - could figure out a way to jump the queue of Canadian politics.
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
