As pointed out, in another place, by Sam Goldstein, please find below part of Bill C-25 The Truth in Sentencing Act tabled March 27, 2009 dealing with eliminating "2:1" sentencing.
The Act does not eliminate a judicial discretion to give enhanced credit. What it does is to limit judicial discretion to giving enhanced credit to 1 to 1.5.
What this act says is that judges can give up to 1.5 unless a Justice of the Peace at a bail hearing states that the person is being detained because of a previous conviction. Please read the Act itself for the specific mechanics.
The above is important because it will be incumbent on defence counsel to ensure a Justice of the Peace does not state that the above as the grounds for detention. Indeed, defence counsel consenting to a Defendant's detention ought to state alternative reasons for the consent on the record or with negotiations with the Crown in order to avoid being captured limited in asking for an enhanced credit of 1.5 later on.
I am grateful to Dan Medd who pointed this section out to me and its consequences.
BILL C-25
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody)
SHORT TITLE
1. This Act may be cited as the Truth in Sentencing Act.
CRIMINAL CODE
2. Section 515 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (9):
Written reasons
(9.1) Despite subsection (9), if the justice orders that the accused be detained in custody primarily because of a previous conviction of the accused, the justice shall state that reason, in writing, in the record.
3. Subsection 719(3) of the Act is replaced by the following:
Clause 3: Existing text of subsection 719(3):
(3) In determining the sentence to be imposed on a person convicted of an offence, a court may take into account any time spent in custody by the person as a result of the offence.
Determination of sentence
(3) In determining the sentence to be imposed on a person convicted of an offence, a court may take into account any time spent in custody by the person as a result of the offence but the court shall limit any credit for that time to a maximum of one day for each day spent in custody.
Exception
(3.1) Despite subsection (3), if the circumstances justify it, the maximum is one and one-half days for each day spent in custody unless the reason for detaining the person in custody was stated in the record under subsection 515(9.1) or the person was detained in custody under subsection 524(4) or (8).
Reasons
(3.2) The court shall give reasons for any credit granted and shall cause those reasons to be stated in the record.
Record of proceedings
(3.3) The court shall cause to be stated in the record and on the warrant of committal the offence, the amount of time spent in custody, the term of imprisonment that would have been imposed before any credit was granted, the amount of time credited, if any, and the sentence imposed.
Validity not affected
(3.4) Failure to comply with subsection (3.2) or (3.3) does not affect the validity of the sentence imposed by the court.
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
Saturday, March 28, 2009
New poll
Yes it's just a snapshot but for what it's worth:
Canadians warming to Ignatieff, poll suggests
Globe-Canadian Press
OTTAWA — People seem to be gradually warming to Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, but many still have a love-him-or-hate him view of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a new poll suggests.
The Canadian Press/Harris-Decima survey indicates the two men have similar levels of support, but Mr. Harper's negative ratings are much higher.
It found that 44 per cent of respondents had a favourable view of Mr. Harper, while 45 per cent were negative.
Mr. Ignatieff got a favourable rating from 45 per cent, but only 26 per cent held a negative view.
James Morton
Canadians warming to Ignatieff, poll suggests
Globe-Canadian Press
OTTAWA — People seem to be gradually warming to Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, but many still have a love-him-or-hate him view of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a new poll suggests.
The Canadian Press/Harris-Decima survey indicates the two men have similar levels of support, but Mr. Harper's negative ratings are much higher.
It found that 44 per cent of respondents had a favourable view of Mr. Harper, while 45 per cent were negative.
Mr. Ignatieff got a favourable rating from 45 per cent, but only 26 per cent held a negative view.
James Morton
No constitutional right to a preliminary inquiry
Yesterday's Supreme Court of Canada decision in v. S.J.L.-G., 2009 SCC 14 arises under the YCJA but has an important ruling relevant for all accused.
There is no constitutional right to a preliminary inquiry or to the outcome of such an inquiry.
The preliminary inquiry is a screening mechanism for determining whether the Crown has sufficient evidence to commit the accused to trial.
Relying on Hynes and Sazant the Court ruled that a preliminary inquiry allows for disclosure and then relies on lower court decisions to find there is no constitutional right to such a hearing.
The decision would seem to end any claim that the abolition of preliminary inquiries is unconstitutional.
The Court rules:
There is no constitutional right to a preliminary inquiry or to the outcome of such an inquiry.
The preliminary inquiry is a screening mechanism for determining whether the Crown has sufficient evidence to commit the accused to trial.
Relying on Hynes and Sazant the Court ruled that a preliminary inquiry allows for disclosure and then relies on lower court decisions to find there is no constitutional right to such a hearing.
The decision would seem to end any claim that the abolition of preliminary inquiries is unconstitutional.
The Court rules:
[21] It is well established that the preliminary inquiry is a screening mechanism for the purpose of determining whether the Crown has sufficient evidence to commit the accused to trial: R. v. Hynes, 2001 SCC 82, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 623, at para. 30, and R. v. Sazant, 2004 SCC 77, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 635, at paras. 14‑16. However, there is no constitutional right to a preliminary inquiry or to the outcome of such an inquiry: R. v. Ertel (1987), 35 C.C.C. (3d) 398 (Ont.
[22] Similarly, although the preliminary inquiry may also allow an accused to test the credibility of witnesses and better appreciate the Crown's evidence (Skogman v. The Queen), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 93, at p. 105), such incidental benefits do not give rise to a constitutional right to this proceeding: Re Regina and Arviv (1985), 51 O.R. (2d) 551 (
[23] Moreover, since R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326, R. v. Egger, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 451, R. v. O'Connor, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411, R. v. La, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 680, R. v. Dixon, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 244, and R. v. Taillefer, 2003 SCC 70, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 307, an accused has had a right under the Constitution to the disclosure of all relevant information that is distinct from the right to a preliminary inquiry. But the Crown's duty in this respect does not extend to producing a witness for discovery: R. v. Khela, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 201, at para. 18. Consequently, the incidental function of the preliminary inquiry as a discovery mechanism has lost much of its relevance: David Pomerant and Glenn Gilmour, Department of Justice Canada, Working Document, A Survey of the Preliminary Inquiry in Canada (April 1993), at pp. ix and 35‑36, and G. Arthur Martin and Joseph W. Irving, G. Arthur Martin: Essays on Aspects of Criminal Practice (1997), at p. 78.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Jamie Trimble, Ontario Bar Association President, addressing the OBA Council
The OBA is the largest provincial voluntary lawyers association in Canada and focusses much of its work on advocacy to government.
Vetrovec warning for an exculpatory witness?
Today's decision in R. v. Gelle, 2009 ONCA 262 raises the difficult issue of whether a Vetrovec warning is properly given when exculpatory evidence is given by an unsavory witness.
Historically the Vetrovec warning emerges from the former need for corroboration for certain witnesses or crimes. As a result, even today, when the Vetrovec warning is given the usual warning suggests the trier of fact look for some confirming evidence for the unsavory witness's testimony.
In that context it seems to make little sense to require a warning where the evidence given favors an accused.
Indeed, the strong dissent of Armstrong JA holds that the warning ought not to be given for exculpatory evidence.
That said, in this particular case, an in part because of a lack of objection at trial, the majority found the warning for an exculpatory witness (here called by the Crown -- there was a recanted KGB statement) was not improper.
The issue, to this author's view, remains open. That said, the case is critical reading when considering an unsavory but exculpatory witness.
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
Historically the Vetrovec warning emerges from the former need for corroboration for certain witnesses or crimes. As a result, even today, when the Vetrovec warning is given the usual warning suggests the trier of fact look for some confirming evidence for the unsavory witness's testimony.
In that context it seems to make little sense to require a warning where the evidence given favors an accused.
Indeed, the strong dissent of Armstrong JA holds that the warning ought not to be given for exculpatory evidence.
That said, in this particular case, an in part because of a lack of objection at trial, the majority found the warning for an exculpatory witness (here called by the Crown -- there was a recanted KGB statement) was not improper.
The issue, to this author's view, remains open. That said, the case is critical reading when considering an unsavory but exculpatory witness.
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
Canadian sub-prime issues
A fact many are unaware of is that the large majority of people in the USA who lost their homes in the sub-prime meltdown did not miss a mortgage payment. Rather, they paid their mortgages on time and in full but, when the term of the mortgage was up, could not obtain refinancing.
The inability to re finance is partly because of a general tightening of credit. But more specifically, the people who had sub-prime mortgages were borderline (at best) and did not have sufficient credit to get a new mortgage in the current market. Moreover, because house prices fell, their houses no longer supported the financing required. (Lenders won't advance a $250k mortgage on a $200k property even if, when purchased, the property was worth $350k).
How this affects Canada is not immediately clear.
House prices have not fallen as badly as in America and, more generally, mortgages have not been extended to people with weak credit as extensively as in America.
That said, house prices have fallen and there are weak borrowers.
Lenders seek Ottawa's aid as thousands risk losing their homes
From Friday's Globe and Mail
As many as 25,000 Canadian home owners who consistently met their mortgage payments could lose their homes unless Ottawa or other financial players help supply capital to the struggling subprime lending market.
A loose network of about 12 alternative mortgage lenders began lobbying the Prime Minister's Office and the Department of Finance in January about what they say is a looming problem: An estimated $3-billion to $5-billion worth of subprime mortgages are coming up for renewal over the next four years, and the lenders say they can't renew them because capital has dried up for higher-risk borrowers.
James Morton
The inability to re finance is partly because of a general tightening of credit. But more specifically, the people who had sub-prime mortgages were borderline (at best) and did not have sufficient credit to get a new mortgage in the current market. Moreover, because house prices fell, their houses no longer supported the financing required. (Lenders won't advance a $250k mortgage on a $200k property even if, when purchased, the property was worth $350k).
How this affects Canada is not immediately clear.
House prices have not fallen as badly as in America and, more generally, mortgages have not been extended to people with weak credit as extensively as in America.
That said, house prices have fallen and there are weak borrowers.
Lenders seek Ottawa's aid as thousands risk losing their homes
From Friday's Globe and Mail
As many as 25,000 Canadian home owners who consistently met their mortgage payments could lose their homes unless Ottawa or other financial players help supply capital to the struggling subprime lending market.
A loose network of about 12 alternative mortgage lenders began lobbying the Prime Minister's Office and the Department of Finance in January about what they say is a looming problem: An estimated $3-billion to $5-billion worth of subprime mortgages are coming up for renewal over the next four years, and the lenders say they can't renew them because capital has dried up for higher-risk borrowers.
James Morton
Risky move ... .
Amalgamating the GST and the PST is a big risk politically. There is no doubt but that it will increase the overall tax burden -- that said, it will make business more efficient and will have help Ontario's long term economy.
Tax harmonize the 8-per-cent provincial sales tax with the 5-per-cent federal goods and services tax will take effect on July 1, 2010.
The government intends to soften the blow from higher taxes on everything from haircuts and newspapers to Internet access fees and home heating fuels by giving low and middle-income earners a tax credit of up to $260 a year. As well, families that earn less than $160,000 a year will receive a total of $1,000 in three instalments. Single persons will receive $300. The last instalment will be mailed out in July, 2011, three months before the next provincial election.
Tax harmonize the 8-per-cent provincial sales tax with the 5-per-cent federal goods and services tax will take effect on July 1, 2010.
The government intends to soften the blow from higher taxes on everything from haircuts and newspapers to Internet access fees and home heating fuels by giving low and middle-income earners a tax credit of up to $260 a year. As well, families that earn less than $160,000 a year will receive a total of $1,000 in three instalments. Single persons will receive $300. The last instalment will be mailed out in July, 2011, three months before the next provincial election.
Jurors risk post-trial trauma, study finds - Today's Globe
Jurors risk post-trial trauma, study finds
ZOSIA BIELSKI
Plucked from their day-to-day, they face distressed victims, review grisly evidence and are then tasked with agreeing on a defendant's fate. Later, thanks to contempt laws, they are barred from speaking to family, friends or even therapists about their disturbing experiences.
Jurors are primed for trauma and need more social and psychological support, says a new report from psychologists at the University of Leicester.
"We simply don't know enough about what goes on within the jury room," said Noelle Robertson, a senior lecturer in clinical psychology who co-authored the study, which was published in The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice last month.
The study revealed that for the more vulnerable candidates, jury duty can lead to severe stress or post-traumatic stress disorder - or what the researchers refer to as "vicarious traumatisation."
Most recently in the high-profile case of Josef Fritzl, jurors were shown Elisabeth Fritzl's graphic video testimony in short segments. In the Paul Bernardo case, Justice Patrick LeSage spoke openly about waking up at night in the months and years afterward - Canadian law prohibited Mr. Bernardo's jurors from sharing their experiences.
The study, which also references earlier studies from Canada, the United States and New Zealand, was conducted in 2007 on 68 British jurors.
The respondents filled out an online survey that included questions about their own personal histories of trials and trauma. It offered a "trauma symptoms checklist" about headaches, insomnia or weight loss experienced during and after the trial. Another scale asked jurors to rate 44 different aspects of jury service, including disturbing evidence and jury deliberation and decision time.
Some 23 per cent of the jurors reported dealing with traumatic events in the course of their trial; 5 per cent reported that they had responded with "intense fear, helplessness or horror." One juror was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
Jury duty proved especially damaging for women, who were also more adversely affected by dissension and questioning in the jury room. Most respondents found deliberation more stressful than visually gruesome evidence, especially when jurors felt pressure from others to change their verdict.
That finding doesn't surprise James Morton, a Toronto lawyer who teaches classes about evidence at Osgoode Hall.
"One hears rumours of nasty arguments, occasionally even leading to physical confrontations in the jury room. People take very different positions and they are mandated to come to a unanimous decision in the criminal cases. ... You can imagine there'd be intimidation, pressure and 'gosh, we all want to go home Friday and be done with it.' "
Unlike American jurors, Canadian and British jurors are sworn to secrecy both during and after the trial. And unlike jurors in the U.S., they are often not sequestered, which means they must travel home nightly with their experiences.
Although Mr. Morton believes the Canadian system works, he admits that Canadian jurors "are not treated perhaps as well as they should be."
"You're taken out of your ordinary life and put into a highly stressful difficult situation .... They get a trivial amount of money on a daily basis and they're herded into rather uncomfortable, beat-up waiting rooms. It's not a pleasant process."
The British study recommends more preparation for jurors and suggests making supporters - similar to the ones available for vulnerable witnesses - available to jurors to lessen the isolation they may experience.
"If we think about models of trauma, then the fact that you can't disclose material to [someone] who may be sympathetic and is able to engage in something that might [provide] catharsis, is difficult," Dr. Robertson said.
The study also calls for a questionnaire that would save jurors the trauma of cases that might resonate with their own past experiences.
In Canada, jurors get very little probing on their background. Mr. Morton pointed out that a juror who can't bring himself or herself themselves to look at the evidence and derails the trial is far costlier than a questionnaire.
Dr. Robertson, the study's co-author, said jury selection is "an evolving domain," but added: "There's a great deal of inertia in the system, and a resistance to change: 'Well it's worked for hundreds of years? Why should we alter it?'
"But of course we've become increasingly aware of sensitivities and we know a hell of a lot of more about human processes and behaviours."
ZOSIA BIELSKI
Plucked from their day-to-day, they face distressed victims, review grisly evidence and are then tasked with agreeing on a defendant's fate. Later, thanks to contempt laws, they are barred from speaking to family, friends or even therapists about their disturbing experiences.
Jurors are primed for trauma and need more social and psychological support, says a new report from psychologists at the University of Leicester.
"We simply don't know enough about what goes on within the jury room," said Noelle Robertson, a senior lecturer in clinical psychology who co-authored the study, which was published in The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice last month.
The study revealed that for the more vulnerable candidates, jury duty can lead to severe stress or post-traumatic stress disorder - or what the researchers refer to as "vicarious traumatisation."
Most recently in the high-profile case of Josef Fritzl, jurors were shown Elisabeth Fritzl's graphic video testimony in short segments. In the Paul Bernardo case, Justice Patrick LeSage spoke openly about waking up at night in the months and years afterward - Canadian law prohibited Mr. Bernardo's jurors from sharing their experiences.
The study, which also references earlier studies from Canada, the United States and New Zealand, was conducted in 2007 on 68 British jurors.
The respondents filled out an online survey that included questions about their own personal histories of trials and trauma. It offered a "trauma symptoms checklist" about headaches, insomnia or weight loss experienced during and after the trial. Another scale asked jurors to rate 44 different aspects of jury service, including disturbing evidence and jury deliberation and decision time.
Some 23 per cent of the jurors reported dealing with traumatic events in the course of their trial; 5 per cent reported that they had responded with "intense fear, helplessness or horror." One juror was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
Jury duty proved especially damaging for women, who were also more adversely affected by dissension and questioning in the jury room. Most respondents found deliberation more stressful than visually gruesome evidence, especially when jurors felt pressure from others to change their verdict.
That finding doesn't surprise James Morton, a Toronto lawyer who teaches classes about evidence at Osgoode Hall.
"One hears rumours of nasty arguments, occasionally even leading to physical confrontations in the jury room. People take very different positions and they are mandated to come to a unanimous decision in the criminal cases. ... You can imagine there'd be intimidation, pressure and 'gosh, we all want to go home Friday and be done with it.' "
Unlike American jurors, Canadian and British jurors are sworn to secrecy both during and after the trial. And unlike jurors in the U.S., they are often not sequestered, which means they must travel home nightly with their experiences.
Although Mr. Morton believes the Canadian system works, he admits that Canadian jurors "are not treated perhaps as well as they should be."
"You're taken out of your ordinary life and put into a highly stressful difficult situation .... They get a trivial amount of money on a daily basis and they're herded into rather uncomfortable, beat-up waiting rooms. It's not a pleasant process."
The British study recommends more preparation for jurors and suggests making supporters - similar to the ones available for vulnerable witnesses - available to jurors to lessen the isolation they may experience.
"If we think about models of trauma, then the fact that you can't disclose material to [someone] who may be sympathetic and is able to engage in something that might [provide] catharsis, is difficult," Dr. Robertson said.
The study also calls for a questionnaire that would save jurors the trauma of cases that might resonate with their own past experiences.
In Canada, jurors get very little probing on their background. Mr. Morton pointed out that a juror who can't bring himself or herself themselves to look at the evidence and derails the trial is far costlier than a questionnaire.
Dr. Robertson, the study's co-author, said jury selection is "an evolving domain," but added: "There's a great deal of inertia in the system, and a resistance to change: 'Well it's worked for hundreds of years? Why should we alter it?'
"But of course we've become increasingly aware of sensitivities and we know a hell of a lot of more about human processes and behaviours."
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Supreme Court denies paralyzed Tory MP's appeal
The Supreme Court refuses to hear most of the cases brought to it -- the refusal is often motivated more by time constraints than anything else. That said, if leave is granted the case takes on tremendous importance.
Supreme Court denies paralyzed Tory MP's appeal
The Supreme Court refused Thursday to hear an appeal in the case of a paralyzed Tory MP who was suing Manitoba's public insurer.
Manitoba MP Stephen Fletcher — who was paralyzed from the neck down in a 1996 accident when his car hit a moose — was suing the Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. for more compensation.
The public insurer provides $3,000 a month in such cases but Fletcher's lawyer said his client's 24-hour care requires $100,000 a year.
The Manitoba courts had refused to hear his appeal.
The ruling by the Supreme Court, which did not provide reasons for its decision, ends the case.
Supreme Court denies paralyzed Tory MP's appeal
The Supreme Court refused Thursday to hear an appeal in the case of a paralyzed Tory MP who was suing Manitoba's public insurer.
Manitoba MP Stephen Fletcher — who was paralyzed from the neck down in a 1996 accident when his car hit a moose — was suing the Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. for more compensation.
The public insurer provides $3,000 a month in such cases but Fletcher's lawyer said his client's 24-hour care requires $100,000 a year.
The Manitoba courts had refused to hear his appeal.
The ruling by the Supreme Court, which did not provide reasons for its decision, ends the case.
Mindless Crimes
Somehow a crime without sensible motivation seems worse than a crime with a 'good' explanation -- greed, passion, anger, whatever. There is some basis for this sense.
A crime with a reason seems to be more likely to be avoidable. Hide your wallet, try not to anger neighbors and the like, and you will not be a victim of crime.
The recent story, below, of rock throwing is the just the type of mindless offence that scares and baffles.
-------------------------
Rocks tossed off overpass, hiting minivan's windshield
By: 680News staff
Toronto - Police searched for suspects after someone threw rocks off an overpass in North York.
It happened on Don Mills Road, just north of Eglinton Avenue, as a minivan went under a train overpass, Tuesday night.
The rocks nearly shattered the windshield, but no one was hurt.
Police searched the area, but didn't locate any suspects.
A crime with a reason seems to be more likely to be avoidable. Hide your wallet, try not to anger neighbors and the like, and you will not be a victim of crime.
The recent story, below, of rock throwing is the just the type of mindless offence that scares and baffles.
-------------------------
Rocks tossed off overpass, hiting minivan's windshield
By: 680News staff
Toronto - Police searched for suspects after someone threw rocks off an overpass in North York.
It happened on Don Mills Road, just north of Eglinton Avenue, as a minivan went under a train overpass, Tuesday night.
The rocks nearly shattered the windshield, but no one was hurt.
Police searched the area, but didn't locate any suspects.
Corbett rulings entitled to 'great deference'
In general any witness, including an accused, may be cross-examined on their criminal record for the purpose of showing the witness is not credible. That said, where the risk exists that a trier of fact will misuse such evidence and convict based on propensity the cross must be limited -- a 'Corbett' ruling
Such ruling must balance probative value and prejudicial effect. But such ruling is discretionary and will not lightly be overturned. See today's decision in R. v. Hamilton, 2009 ONCA 267:
[6] The trial judge's discretionary ruling on this issue attracts great deference from this court. The trial judge was uniquely positioned to assess the tenor of the defence cross-examination of the complainant and to determine whether the nature of that cross-examination warranted the admission of the evidence of the appellant's prior convictions and cross-examination on the appellant's record.
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
Such ruling must balance probative value and prejudicial effect. But such ruling is discretionary and will not lightly be overturned. See today's decision in R. v. Hamilton, 2009 ONCA 267:
[6] The trial judge's discretionary ruling on this issue attracts great deference from this court. The trial judge was uniquely positioned to assess the tenor of the defence cross-examination of the complainant and to determine whether the nature of that cross-examination warranted the admission of the evidence of the appellant's prior convictions and cross-examination on the appellant's record.
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
Why civil courts are slow?
I get to court and glance at the list -- I have a new case and I am taking over midway through.
There are 81 defendants.
81!!!!!
There were less defendants at Nuremberg (they had 21).
And this is just an everyday mortgage fraud claim.
No wonder things are slow.
James Morton
Livent Judgment
In case anyone wants it -- frankly the decision was hardly a surprise based on the evidence heard -- here are the reasons:
http://www.nationalpost.com/documents/090325-drabinsky-gottlieb-verdict.pdf
http://www.nationalpost.com/documents/090325-drabinsky-gottlieb-verdict.pdf
Maple Leaf sales still suffer
The story below is hardly a surprise -- however, as the Tylenol case showed, consumers do eventually come back if the product remains available.
Consumers slow to return to Maple Leaf food products after recall: study
A study by researchers at the University of Regina suggests consumers remain reluctant to consume Maple Leaf foods products six months after the company issued a major recall of products contaminated with listeria.
The survey asked 971 consumers across Canada a number of questions about Maple Leaf products, said Sylvain Charlebois, an associate professor in the business administration faculty who was involved in the study. Most respondents were aware of the recall, Charlebois said, noting that 90 per cent had heard of the listeria problems.
However, the study suggested that fewer than one-third could say they knew any specifics of the recall, such as which products were affected, and often responded that they had thrown out any products they had. "Many respondents threw out all their Maple Leaf products, irrespective of whether or not they were part of the recall," an abstract of the survey noted.
Charlebois also asked questions about consumer attitudes to Maple Leaf food products after the recall. The study found that of households that had bought Maple Leaf food items before the recall, a quarter have not done so since. It also reported, with a caution, that 40 per cent of people who knew about the recall have not eaten Maple Leaf products post-recall.
James Morton
Consumers slow to return to Maple Leaf food products after recall: study
A study by researchers at the University of Regina suggests consumers remain reluctant to consume Maple Leaf foods products six months after the company issued a major recall of products contaminated with listeria.
The survey asked 971 consumers across Canada a number of questions about Maple Leaf products, said Sylvain Charlebois, an associate professor in the business administration faculty who was involved in the study. Most respondents were aware of the recall, Charlebois said, noting that 90 per cent had heard of the listeria problems.
However, the study suggested that fewer than one-third could say they knew any specifics of the recall, such as which products were affected, and often responded that they had thrown out any products they had. "Many respondents threw out all their Maple Leaf products, irrespective of whether or not they were part of the recall," an abstract of the survey noted.
Charlebois also asked questions about consumer attitudes to Maple Leaf food products after the recall. The study found that of households that had bought Maple Leaf food items before the recall, a quarter have not done so since. It also reported, with a caution, that 40 per cent of people who knew about the recall have not eaten Maple Leaf products post-recall.
James Morton
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
GritGirl on Youtube
One of Harper's Conservative senators recently said that Canada Geese, once an endangered species, should be shot and killed and used to feed the poor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej-_4dle8tI <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej-_4dle8tI>
James Morton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej-_4dle8tI <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej-_4dle8tI>
James Morton
Reflections on Anti-Semitism: From this week's Canadian Jewish News
James Morton
In Jerusalem a few years ago, I re-read Theodor Herzl’s The Jewish State (1896).
Herzl was not a religious man and his early views were that Jews would simply integrate into modern societies as another religious group. But the experience of the anti-Semitic Dreyfus trial in France convinced Herzl that Jews would never be accepted unless they had a state of their own. Once there was a state, Jews would be just another group and accepted in the same way as, say, the Portuguese.
Herzl’s solution was dramatic and simple:
"let the sovereignty be granted us over a portion of the globe large enough to satisfy the rightful requirements of a nation. The rest we shall manage for ourselves."
And so, after two world wars and years of struggle, modern Israel was formed. The foundation has been a success – there is a Jewish state. Overt anti-Semitism is not widely accepted in western countries today (other parts of the world are not so tolerant), but attacks on the legitimacy or very existence of Herzl’s state are common enough, and indeed are getting more common day by day. And, if we’re being honest, we can admit that such attacks are usually just thinly veiled anti-Semitism.
If I mention to colleagues that I’m taking a trip to, say, Greece, they make polite noises about sunshine and food. But mentioning a trip to Israel – a similar country in a similar part of the world – and there is a pause, followed by anything from a quick change of subject to assurances that the listener believes in peace and one God for all people, to open hostility and anger.
Israel is not a nation like any other.
So how should we describe this phenomenon? Is it nothing more than anti-Semitism in disguise? In fairness, one must admit that not all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. It’s fair to disagree with Israeli policy on, say, the integration of its Druze citizens without being anti-Semitic. As Thomas Friedman of the New York Times has written, “Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction – out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East – is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest.” As columnist and TV host Michael Coren has cleverly put it, not all criticism of Israel indicates anti-Semitism, but all anti-Semites criticize Israel. The sad truth is that attacks on Israel have become little more than a smokescreen for attacks on Jews.
Because modern western countries have social and legal obstacles that prevent the expression of anti-Semitism in its traditional form, prejudice toward Jews is now likely to be expressed through attacks on Israel. As a result, some bigots have embraced the anti-Israel cause as a way of making a statement about their attitude toward Jews. Suggestions that Israel’s foundation was a tragedy or that Israel is merely colonialism in action mirror earlier attempts to call Zionism racist.
Canadian parliamentarians have recognized this.
Federal Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has said that criticism of Israel is legitimate, but attempting to describe Israel’s very existence as a crime against humanity is not. Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Jason Kenney notes that Canadians are free to express different views about the policies of a foreign government, but the annual campus event called Israeli Apartheid Week is not about that. It’s about a systematic effort to delegitimize the democratic homeland of the Jewish people, a country born out of the Holocaust. He says he finds the resurgence of the old slander that Zionism is racism to be very troubling.
Much criticism of Israel is merely thinly disguised anti-Semitism. Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz has set out some factors that indicate when a a particular criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic.
Some of them include:
• Characterizing Israel as “the worst,” when it’s clear that this is not an accurate comparative assessment.
• Discriminating against individuals only because they are Jewish Israelis, without regard to their
individual views or actions.
• Physically or verbally attacking Jewish institutions, such as synagogues or cemeteries, as a
means of protesting against Israel.
• Discriminating only against Israel in its attempts to qualify for certain positions or status internationally, such as obtaining a seat on the United Nations Security Council or the International Court of Justice, or joining the International Red Cross.
In the United Kingdom, a place where Jews have long been safe and welcome, anti-Israel attacks have been expressly directed at Jews, making the anti-Semitic nature of the attacks clear. Jewish-owned businesses are subject to harassment. In London, Starbucks – whose chairman, Howard Schultz, is Jewish – has been firebombed in allegedly anti-Israel attacks that are in fact merely anti-Semitic. A grocery delivery van owned by a Jewish firm was attacked by a gang of youths claiming to be protesting Israeli policy. The driver – surely no agent of Israel – was hospitalized with head injuries. Similarly, a Tesco supermarket was targeted, its windows smashed and “Kill Jews” daubed on the walls in paint. (The Tesco supermarket chain was founded by a Jewish immigrant to Britain.)
Here in Canada, recent incidents on university campuses, while not as violent, have shown the same tendency to attack Jews as Jews under the guise of attacking Israel. The conflation of anti- Israel with anti-Semitic is very clear.
There can be little room for doubt: the truth is that most attacks on Israel, and all attacks on
Israel’s existence, are anti-Semitic.
James Morton is a lawyer in Toronto.
In Jerusalem a few years ago, I re-read Theodor Herzl’s The Jewish State (1896).
Herzl was not a religious man and his early views were that Jews would simply integrate into modern societies as another religious group. But the experience of the anti-Semitic Dreyfus trial in France convinced Herzl that Jews would never be accepted unless they had a state of their own. Once there was a state, Jews would be just another group and accepted in the same way as, say, the Portuguese.
Herzl’s solution was dramatic and simple:
"let the sovereignty be granted us over a portion of the globe large enough to satisfy the rightful requirements of a nation. The rest we shall manage for ourselves."
And so, after two world wars and years of struggle, modern Israel was formed. The foundation has been a success – there is a Jewish state. Overt anti-Semitism is not widely accepted in western countries today (other parts of the world are not so tolerant), but attacks on the legitimacy or very existence of Herzl’s state are common enough, and indeed are getting more common day by day. And, if we’re being honest, we can admit that such attacks are usually just thinly veiled anti-Semitism.
If I mention to colleagues that I’m taking a trip to, say, Greece, they make polite noises about sunshine and food. But mentioning a trip to Israel – a similar country in a similar part of the world – and there is a pause, followed by anything from a quick change of subject to assurances that the listener believes in peace and one God for all people, to open hostility and anger.
Israel is not a nation like any other.
So how should we describe this phenomenon? Is it nothing more than anti-Semitism in disguise? In fairness, one must admit that not all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. It’s fair to disagree with Israeli policy on, say, the integration of its Druze citizens without being anti-Semitic. As Thomas Friedman of the New York Times has written, “Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction – out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East – is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest.” As columnist and TV host Michael Coren has cleverly put it, not all criticism of Israel indicates anti-Semitism, but all anti-Semites criticize Israel. The sad truth is that attacks on Israel have become little more than a smokescreen for attacks on Jews.
Because modern western countries have social and legal obstacles that prevent the expression of anti-Semitism in its traditional form, prejudice toward Jews is now likely to be expressed through attacks on Israel. As a result, some bigots have embraced the anti-Israel cause as a way of making a statement about their attitude toward Jews. Suggestions that Israel’s foundation was a tragedy or that Israel is merely colonialism in action mirror earlier attempts to call Zionism racist.
Canadian parliamentarians have recognized this.
Federal Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has said that criticism of Israel is legitimate, but attempting to describe Israel’s very existence as a crime against humanity is not. Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Jason Kenney notes that Canadians are free to express different views about the policies of a foreign government, but the annual campus event called Israeli Apartheid Week is not about that. It’s about a systematic effort to delegitimize the democratic homeland of the Jewish people, a country born out of the Holocaust. He says he finds the resurgence of the old slander that Zionism is racism to be very troubling.
Much criticism of Israel is merely thinly disguised anti-Semitism. Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz has set out some factors that indicate when a a particular criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic.
Some of them include:
• Characterizing Israel as “the worst,” when it’s clear that this is not an accurate comparative assessment.
• Discriminating against individuals only because they are Jewish Israelis, without regard to their
individual views or actions.
• Physically or verbally attacking Jewish institutions, such as synagogues or cemeteries, as a
means of protesting against Israel.
• Discriminating only against Israel in its attempts to qualify for certain positions or status internationally, such as obtaining a seat on the United Nations Security Council or the International Court of Justice, or joining the International Red Cross.
In the United Kingdom, a place where Jews have long been safe and welcome, anti-Israel attacks have been expressly directed at Jews, making the anti-Semitic nature of the attacks clear. Jewish-owned businesses are subject to harassment. In London, Starbucks – whose chairman, Howard Schultz, is Jewish – has been firebombed in allegedly anti-Israel attacks that are in fact merely anti-Semitic. A grocery delivery van owned by a Jewish firm was attacked by a gang of youths claiming to be protesting Israeli policy. The driver – surely no agent of Israel – was hospitalized with head injuries. Similarly, a Tesco supermarket was targeted, its windows smashed and “Kill Jews” daubed on the walls in paint. (The Tesco supermarket chain was founded by a Jewish immigrant to Britain.)
Here in Canada, recent incidents on university campuses, while not as violent, have shown the same tendency to attack Jews as Jews under the guise of attacking Israel. The conflation of anti- Israel with anti-Semitic is very clear.
There can be little room for doubt: the truth is that most attacks on Israel, and all attacks on
Israel’s existence, are anti-Semitic.
James Morton is a lawyer in Toronto.
After a nice steak at the Outback I like to stop at Krispy Kreme for a donut
To the right is the notice in the Richmond Hill, Ontario Outback
Livent bosses guilty of fraud
Garth Drabinsky (photo right) and Myron Gottlieb have been found guilty of fraud and forgery at Livent Inc., the award-winning live theatre company they co-founded.
Ontario Superior Court Justice Mary Lou Benotto delivered her judgment in a
"The creative success that you achieved due to your company was spectacular," said Benotto.
But her tone quickly changed as she cited a "deliberate misrepresentation" in Livent's public offering and "widespread and long-standing" fraud thereafter.
"I have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you knew what was happening . . . That's a guilty verdict."
Gottlieb's posture barely shifted and Drabinsky dropped his head after the verdict was announced.
About 120 spectators, more than there were seats, packed the courtroom. Among them were members of both defendants' families, some of whom broke into tears at the news.
Benotto did not elaborate on her decision, instead, releasing an 86-page document recapping the trial and the reasons for her decision.
"The financial statements were manipulated. The object was to keep income as close to budget as possible," she wrote. "This was done by moving expenses from one period to another, by amortization roles, by applying the expenses of one show to another and by allocating operating costs to fixed asset accounts."
Livent founders guilty of fraud
"Livent founders guilty of fraud"
Drabinsky and Gottlieb convicted for misstating entertainment company's financial statements
<http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090325.wlivent0325/GIStory/Email <http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090325.wlivent0325/GIStory/Email> >
James Morton
Drabinsky and Gottlieb convicted for misstating entertainment company's financial statements
<http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090325.wlivent0325/GIStory/Email <http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090325.wlivent0325/GIStory/Email> >
James Morton
Police probe cyber attack on Liberals
This is a nasty business but I am confident it was an isolated act -- every Party (even ours!) has people who will act badly. All that said, it does reflect a lack of Party discipline which is hardly surprising in light of the recent failure to get their Leader into the House. Perhaps they will have a revival with a new Leader. While I am a strong Liberal, provincial and federal, we need a viable opposition.
Police probe cyber attack on Liberals
TheStar.com - Ontario - Police probe cyber attack on Liberals
PC staffer resigns after alleged hacking of party's website
QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU CHIEF
Toronto police are investigating an alleged attempt by a Progressive Conservative to hack into the Ontario Liberal party's website.
Interim Tory Leader Bob Runciman said a PC staffer, who was initially suspended, has resigned after the alleged tampering was traced to two computers located in the Conservative offices in the north wing of the Legislature.
"I'm absolutely not happy with this," Runciman, a former solicitor general, said last night.
"We're co-operating fully with the police on this. There's no reason to keep this behind the curtain," he said, declining to name the former staffer as criminal charges could be laid.
The Liberals first learned their website, www.ontarioliberal.ca, had been compromised on Feb. 19.
A subsequent check found that computers located at Queen's Park were apparently used to do the hacking and, following an internal probe by the Legislative Assembly, police were called in.
Christine McMillan, the Liberal party's vice-president of communications, said there were "a series of deliberate attacks on the security of our website."
In a statement, McMillan said there was concern over the safety of "personal information stored in our servers."
"As we undertook an internal investigation of the breach of our website, we discovered that the breach appeared to originate from within the Ontario Legislature," she said.
Police probe cyber attack on Liberals
TheStar.com - Ontario - Police probe cyber attack on Liberals
PC staffer resigns after alleged hacking of party's website
QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU CHIEF
Toronto police are investigating an alleged attempt by a Progressive Conservative to hack into the Ontario Liberal party's website.
Interim Tory Leader Bob Runciman said a PC staffer, who was initially suspended, has resigned after the alleged tampering was traced to two computers located in the Conservative offices in the north wing of the Legislature.
"I'm absolutely not happy with this," Runciman, a former solicitor general, said last night.
"We're co-operating fully with the police on this. There's no reason to keep this behind the curtain," he said, declining to name the former staffer as criminal charges could be laid.
The Liberals first learned their website, www.ontarioliberal.ca, had been compromised on Feb. 19.
A subsequent check found that computers located at Queen's Park were apparently used to do the hacking and, following an internal probe by the Legislative Assembly, police were called in.
Christine McMillan, the Liberal party's vice-president of communications, said there were "a series of deliberate attacks on the security of our website."
In a statement, McMillan said there was concern over the safety of "personal information stored in our servers."
"As we undertook an internal investigation of the breach of our website, we discovered that the breach appeared to originate from within the Ontario Legislature," she said.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Piercing the corporate veil
Today’s Court of Appeal decision in Parkland Plumbing & Heating Ltd. v. Minaki Lodge Resort 2002 Inc., 2009 ONCA 256 provides a clear restatement of the law of piecing the corporate veil:
[49] While a corporation is a legal entity distinct from its shareholders, this principle may be disregarded by ‘lifting the corporate veil’ and regarding the company as the agent or vehicle of its controlling shareholder or parent corporation where enforcing the ‘separate entities’ principle would yield a result “too flagrantly opposed to justice”: Kosmopoulos v. Constitution Ins. Co. of Canada, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 2, at para. 12, citing L.C.B. Gower, Modern Company Law 4th ed. (London: Stevens, 1979), at p. 112.
[50] But this does not mean that the courts enjoy ‘carte blanche’ to lift the corporate veil absent fraudulent or improper conduct whenever it appears ‘just and equitable’ to do so. In Transamerica Life Insurance Co. of Canada v. Canada Life Assurance Co. (1996), 28 O.R. (3d) 423 (Ont. Gen. Div.), aff’d, [1997] O.J. No. 3754 (C.A.), Sharpe J. (as he then was) indicated at pp. 433-34:
[T]he courts will disregard the separate legal personality of a corporate entity where it is completely dominated and controlled and being used as a shield for fraudulent or improper conduct. The first element, “complete control”, requires more than ownership. It must be shown that there is complete domination and that the subsidiary company does not, in fact, function independently… .
The second element relates to the nature of the conduct: is there “conduct akin to fraud that would otherwise unjustly deprive claimants of their rights”? [Citations omitted.]
[51] Earlier in Transamerica, at pp. 432-33, Sharpe J. accepted the following formulation of the test for lifting the corporate veil, set out in Gower, Modern Company Law, 5th ed. (1992) at pp. 132-33:
There seem to be three circumstances only in which the courts can [lift the corporate veil]. These are:
(1) When the court is construing a statute, contract or other document.
(2) When the court is satisfied that a company is a “mere facade” concealing the true facts.
(3) When it can be established that the company is an authorized agent of its controllers or its members, corporate or human.
See also, Gregorio v. Intrans-Corp. (1994), 18 O.R. (3d) 527 (
Monday, March 23, 2009
A question about Galloway
The barring of George Galloway wasn't something I paid a lot of attention to. But then Iveson, in the Post, raised an interesting question:
"First off, how did the Canada Border Services Agency know about Mr. Galloway's visit and what persuaded them to conduct a preliminary assessment of his admissability? Mr. Kenney glowed red yesterday when asked if he'd been behind the whole scheme. "I cannot give direction to the CBSA, who are not even in my ministry," he said."
I wonder, now it's been raised, how the issue came up at all? Someone must have raised it with someone -- but who with whom?
James Morton
"First off, how did the Canada Border Services Agency know about Mr. Galloway's visit and what persuaded them to conduct a preliminary assessment of his admissability? Mr. Kenney glowed red yesterday when asked if he'd been behind the whole scheme. "I cannot give direction to the CBSA, who are not even in my ministry," he said."
I wonder, now it's been raised, how the issue came up at all? Someone must have raised it with someone -- but who with whom?
James Morton
Proud Quebecers and proud Canadians!
Winnipeg Sun:
Quebecers need not swallow their pride in Quebec to be proud Canadians and the Liberal Party is their best ticket to federal power, party leader Michael Ignatieff said yesterday in a campaign-style pitch to the province.
Speaking to party faithful in Laval, Ignatieff billed himself as a "uniter" of Canadians, in sharp contrast to the "politics of division" practised by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Saying it's not a contradiction to be a proud Quebecer and a proud Canadian, he urged Quebecers to abandon the belief the Bloc Quebecois is best to represent their interests on the national stage.
"We want Quebec to stop thinking the only thing in Ottawa it can do is oppose, oppose, oppose," he said. "We want Quebecers to be back in government where they belong and we think the Liberal Party is the best ticket back into government."
Quebecers need not swallow their pride in Quebec to be proud Canadians and the Liberal Party is their best ticket to federal power, party leader Michael Ignatieff said yesterday in a campaign-style pitch to the province.
Speaking to party faithful in Laval, Ignatieff billed himself as a "uniter" of Canadians, in sharp contrast to the "politics of division" practised by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Saying it's not a contradiction to be a proud Quebecer and a proud Canadian, he urged Quebecers to abandon the belief the Bloc Quebecois is best to represent their interests on the national stage.
"We want Quebec to stop thinking the only thing in Ottawa it can do is oppose, oppose, oppose," he said. "We want Quebecers to be back in government where they belong and we think the Liberal Party is the best ticket back into government."
A musical Das Kapital
There is a musical production of Das Kapital being prepared in China. All singing all dancing all workers revolt!!!!!
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)