Sunday, February 7, 2010
Prorogation may have been the occasion for the Conservatives’ fall in the polls; it was not, in itself, the cause. The cause, as always in the fortunes of the Tories, is Mr. Harper. He makes them or he breaks them. It is as simple as that.
Rex Murphy -- I don't always agree with him but he has a point:
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Being human
A story in scripture tells of two men. One, cool and detached, always involved in his own affairs looking for ways to accumulate wealth and power. The other, emotional and engaged, constantly involved in the actions and passions of his time. They had known each other many years. Upon meeting after a long absence the former said to the latter, "Why are you so angry? Why do you care so much?" The latter replied, "Because I am human. That is what humans do."
Thanks to Beryl P Wajsman for this.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
Thanks to Beryl P Wajsman for this.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
What were burglars looking for at Montreal rights agency?
At first I thought this was a story looking for a hook -- a petty burglary that only a conspiracy theorist would see a meaningful. But then I saw "forty dollars in petty cash was left untouched." Perhaps this was a theft for information? It could be a theft by either side of the control battle -- but it doesn't look like just another property crime.
http://tiny.cc/K9csT
Bruce Campion-Smith
Richard Brennan
OTTAWA–The 11th floor office of Rights and Democracy in central Montreal had been closed for the day to give staff time to grieve the death of their popular president, Rémy Beauregard.
That's when the burglars struck.
They bypassed an electronic swipe-card access system, apparently jimmying the door lock with a screwdriver.
A cabinet with personnel files was opened and several laptops and an iPod were stolen. Forty dollars in petty cash was left untouched.
Normally, it's not the kind of break-in that would warrant attention.
But coming in the wake of a bitter showdown between agency staff and a board of hand-picked Conservatives appointees – whom critics say hold strident pro-Israel views – the late January break-in immediately raised eyebrows.
...
The fact that cash was left behind has some thinking "this was no random, petty theft," one source familiar with the case said.
It was the latest twist in a saga that critics have described as a hostile takeover of the federally funded rights agency by the Conservative appointees.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
http://tiny.cc/K9csT
Bruce Campion-Smith
Richard Brennan
OTTAWA–The 11th floor office of Rights and Democracy in central Montreal had been closed for the day to give staff time to grieve the death of their popular president, Rémy Beauregard.
That's when the burglars struck.
They bypassed an electronic swipe-card access system, apparently jimmying the door lock with a screwdriver.
A cabinet with personnel files was opened and several laptops and an iPod were stolen. Forty dollars in petty cash was left untouched.
Normally, it's not the kind of break-in that would warrant attention.
But coming in the wake of a bitter showdown between agency staff and a board of hand-picked Conservatives appointees – whom critics say hold strident pro-Israel views – the late January break-in immediately raised eyebrows.
...
The fact that cash was left behind has some thinking "this was no random, petty theft," one source familiar with the case said.
It was the latest twist in a saga that critics have described as a hostile takeover of the federally funded rights agency by the Conservative appointees.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
Race and police stops
http://tiny.cc/sbdec
The Star analysis shows race, age and gender are big factors in who gets stopped. Looking at blacks and whites of all ages, blacks are three times more likely to be stopped.
Male blacks aged 15-24 are stopped and documented 2.5 times more than white males the same age.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
"Democracy is the process by which people choose the man who'll get the blame." -- Bertrand Russell
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
Friday, February 5, 2010
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common, they don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit the views, which can be uncomfortable, if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering."
-- Doctor Who
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common, they don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit the views, which can be uncomfortable, if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering."
-- Doctor Who
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
Jury vetting
http://tiny.cc/CeqdO
In Canada the juries are selected from Canadian citizens who have not been convicted of a serious criminal offence. Nevertheless, juries are not chosen without input by the prosecutor and the accused — a pool of potential jurors is created and from that pool jurors are chosen at random.
Once a juror is selected both the prosecutor and the accused have a right to excuse a limited number of jurors from consideration without giving a reason.
The decision to exclude a potential juror is usually based on little more than a gut reaction.
Having said that, the list of potential jurors is legally available to the prosecutor and accused a little more than a week before trial and some background about each potential juror can be obtained by searching the Internet or making local inquiries about individuals. There is nothing wrong with investigating the background of jurors. In a small town, for example, local lawyers might know who has, and who has not, had run-ins with police.
However, some Ontario prosecutors have been getting jury lists early and using otherwise confidential databases to get information on potential jurors.
Once this was disclosed in the media the attorney- general and premier made it clear the practice had to cease. The issue was not the investigation so much as the early release of information and the use of otherwise restricted data bases.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
In Canada the juries are selected from Canadian citizens who have not been convicted of a serious criminal offence. Nevertheless, juries are not chosen without input by the prosecutor and the accused — a pool of potential jurors is created and from that pool jurors are chosen at random.
Once a juror is selected both the prosecutor and the accused have a right to excuse a limited number of jurors from consideration without giving a reason.
The decision to exclude a potential juror is usually based on little more than a gut reaction.
Having said that, the list of potential jurors is legally available to the prosecutor and accused a little more than a week before trial and some background about each potential juror can be obtained by searching the Internet or making local inquiries about individuals. There is nothing wrong with investigating the background of jurors. In a small town, for example, local lawyers might know who has, and who has not, had run-ins with police.
However, some Ontario prosecutors have been getting jury lists early and using otherwise confidential databases to get information on potential jurors.
Once this was disclosed in the media the attorney- general and premier made it clear the practice had to cease. The issue was not the investigation so much as the early release of information and the use of otherwise restricted data bases.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
Termination on reasonable notice?
Sometimes framework contracts do not have an express termination provision. That does not mean the contracts are perpetual or terminable on reasonable notice. The surrounding circumstances will determine that issue.
Today's Court of Appeal decision in 1397868 Ontario Ltd. v. Nordic Gaming Corporation (Fort Erie Race Track), 2010 ONCA 101sets out some of those considerations:
[24] The agreement contemplates that the two parties would work together with 139 operating a food and beverage service and maintaining the premises, and Nordic running the OTB operation in the premises. Thus, they would have to work together closely and co-operation would be important. While the relationship created by the agreement was not one of employment, partnership or, strictly speaking, for personal services – which are the types of contracts into which courts routinely imply terms of termination on reasonable notice – it did involve many of the same components, such as the need for trust, confidence and satisfaction.
Today's Court of Appeal decision in 1397868 Ontario Ltd. v. Nordic Gaming Corporation (Fort Erie Race Track), 2010 ONCA 101sets out some of those considerations:
[24] The agreement contemplates that the two parties would work together with 139 operating a food and beverage service and maintaining the premises, and Nordic running the OTB operation in the premises. Thus, they would have to work together closely and co-operation would be important. While the relationship created by the agreement was not one of employment, partnership or, strictly speaking, for personal services – which are the types of contracts into which courts routinely imply terms of termination on reasonable notice – it did involve many of the same components, such as the need for trust, confidence and satisfaction.
Layton to take break as NDP leader to seek treatment for prostate cancer
The rumour was he was going to run for Mayor of Toronto. Well, I guess that's wrong.
Stepping aside must be hard but it is the proper thing to do. Jack Layton is and remains an Honourable Gentleman in both senses.
G-d's speed for a full recovery.
OTTAWA_ A source says Jack Layton has been diagnosed with prostate cancer and is temporarily stepping down as NDP leader.
The New Democrats sent out a news release today saying Layton will make an announcement shortly about his ``personal status and immediate future as NDP leader.''
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
Termination on reasonable notice?
Sometimes framework contracts do not have an express termination provision. That does not mean the contracts are perpetual or terminable on reasonable notice. The surrounding circumstances will determine that issue.
Today's Court of Appeal decision in 1397868 Ontario Ltd. v. Nordic Gaming Corporation (Fort Erie Race Track), 2010 ONCA 101sets out some of those considerations:
[24] The agreement contemplates that the two parties would work together with 139 operating a food and beverage service and maintaining the premises, and Nordic running the OTB operation in the premises. Thus, they would have to work together closely and co-operation would be important. While the relationship created by the agreement was not one of employment, partnership or, strictly speaking, for personal services – which are the types of contracts into which courts routinely imply terms of termination on reasonable notice – it did involve many of the same components, such as the need for trust, confidence and satisfaction.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
www.jmortonmusings.blogspot.com
Today's Court of Appeal decision in 1397868 Ontario Ltd. v. Nordic Gaming Corporation (Fort Erie Race Track), 2010 ONCA 101sets out some of those considerations:
[24] The agreement contemplates that the two parties would work together with 139 operating a food and beverage service and maintaining the premises, and Nordic running the OTB operation in the premises. Thus, they would have to work together closely and co-operation would be important. While the relationship created by the agreement was not one of employment, partnership or, strictly speaking, for personal services – which are the types of contracts into which courts routinely imply terms of termination on reasonable notice – it did involve many of the same components, such as the need for trust, confidence and satisfaction.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
www.jmortonmusings.blogspot.com
TTC coffee stops
Enough already!
Is it such a sin that a driver stops the bus briefly, goes into a donut shop to use the restroom and then gets a coffee on the way out?
Gosh, I have been known to put down my pen and get a coffee mid-day.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
The White House to use executive power to treat sectors of the Canadian economy as American
The power to define is very strong. If the President can define the US to include Canada then "buy USA" becomes a matter of "are we friends with the President?"
OTTAWA — A deal that limits the damage of Buy American provisions on Canadian companies is expected to be announced soon, and experts say it marks an "important breakthrough" in terms of stopping the spread of protectionism and acknowledging Canada's importance to the U.S. economy.
Because U.S. President Barack Obama cannot rely on Congress to pass legislation exempting Canada from Buy American provisions, sources say the agreement as structured would allow the White House to use executive power to treat sectors of the Canadian economy as American by claiming supply chains are so integrated they cannot be separated.
"There was a critical mass of support in the United States that something needed be done to get Canada back into the procurement business, and get Canada qualified to supply into U.S. projects with stimulus funding," said Lawrence Herman, a trade lawyer with Cassels Brock and Blackwell in Toronto, on why Washington finally gave in.
OTTAWA — A deal that limits the damage of Buy American provisions on Canadian companies is expected to be announced soon, and experts say it marks an "important breakthrough" in terms of stopping the spread of protectionism and acknowledging Canada's importance to the U.S. economy.
Because U.S. President Barack Obama cannot rely on Congress to pass legislation exempting Canada from Buy American provisions, sources say the agreement as structured would allow the White House to use executive power to treat sectors of the Canadian economy as American by claiming supply chains are so integrated they cannot be separated.
"There was a critical mass of support in the United States that something needed be done to get Canada back into the procurement business, and get Canada qualified to supply into U.S. projects with stimulus funding," said Lawrence Herman, a trade lawyer with Cassels Brock and Blackwell in Toronto, on why Washington finally gave in.
Rossi's Toronto
It is very hard to be a front runner -- I was a big Hillary supporter.
http://tiny.cc/8kKR4
He may be the frontrunner, but the early signs are not good for George Smitherman.
The presumed chosen one in the race for mayor may end up being the frozen one – and done in by none other than his “Liberal” friends at the Star.
Check out Thursday’s coverage: an editorial taking a shot at Smitherman for doing the “two-step” – advocating for road tolls on one hand, and promising to nix the city’s licensing fee on drivers.
While darts were being flung Smitherman’s way, the Star was creaming all over the other so-called “Liberal” in the race to be mayor, Rocco Rossi.
http://tiny.cc/8kKR4
He may be the frontrunner, but the early signs are not good for George Smitherman.
The presumed chosen one in the race for mayor may end up being the frozen one – and done in by none other than his “Liberal” friends at the Star.
Check out Thursday’s coverage: an editorial taking a shot at Smitherman for doing the “two-step” – advocating for road tolls on one hand, and promising to nix the city’s licensing fee on drivers.
While darts were being flung Smitherman’s way, the Star was creaming all over the other so-called “Liberal” in the race to be mayor, Rocco Rossi.
Seat projections
New seat projections from EKOS pollster Frank Graves:
The Liberals would win 122 seats while the New Democrats would take 31. Together, the two parties would have 153 seats – just shy of a majority government in the 308-seat House of Commons.
The Conservatives, meanwhile, would win only 109 seats compared to the 145 seats they have now. The Liberals currently have 77 seats.
As well, Mr. Graves’s projections – based on the results of his poll of 3,406 Canadians surveyed between Jan. 27 and Feb. 2 – gives the Bloc 45 seats, the Greens come up empty and there is one “other” seat, that could be won by an independent in Quebec.
The Liberals would win 122 seats while the New Democrats would take 31. Together, the two parties would have 153 seats – just shy of a majority government in the 308-seat House of Commons.
The Conservatives, meanwhile, would win only 109 seats compared to the 145 seats they have now. The Liberals currently have 77 seats.
As well, Mr. Graves’s projections – based on the results of his poll of 3,406 Canadians surveyed between Jan. 27 and Feb. 2 – gives the Bloc 45 seats, the Greens come up empty and there is one “other” seat, that could be won by an independent in Quebec.
Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing
Interesting piece in Ottawa Citizen:
http://tinyurl.com/ycmzdng
The Supreme Court of tut-tutting
By Amir Attaran, Citizen Special
It is a victory, but it is also bizarre. Last week's Supreme Court ruling in Omar Khadr's case found that Ottawa pulled off a hat trick of shocking illegality. Canada's government violated national law, international law, and the Constitution -- quite a feat.
But did the Supreme Court order the government to do anything about serially breaking the law, such as to ask for Khadr back? No: the court's punch was pulled. To do otherwise, the court said, would interfere with the prime minister's freedom of decision. The court decided only to give a judicial declaration, in effect tut-tutting at the government's illegality.
If this sounds curious, it is. But it is also increasingly normal for the Supreme Court, which is drifting toward becoming the country's leading Supreme Court of Advice.
...
No matter what you think of Omar Khadr, the judgment makes unsettling reading. It advertises the fact that even when Canada's highest court heartily agrees illegality exists, it may refuse to remedy it. In the past, the justices rarely turned away litigants seeking a mandatory remedy with a mere advisory opinion. Under Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin's increasingly timorous leadership, however, they are doing so with unusual frequency.
It is an unwise and unwelcome trend.
...
When courts, by their own admission, advise there is an illegality but in the same breath let it persist, that is not the rule of law. At best, it is rule by law -- something quite different. In treading into this unsatisfactory terrain, the court's judgments increasingly bring to mind Macbeth's lament: "it is a tale ..." Shakespeare wrote, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
One wonders if the Supreme Court has reflected on the risks of advisory declarations, for its own sake.
Given the government's decision, announced yesterday, that it would not seek to repatriate Khadr, despite the court finding that Canada's illegal conduct "continues to contribute to (his) current detention," it is now very likely that the court will find itself faced with Khadr's case to solve for a third time -- a self-evidently pathetic fact which makes the court look effete, and which damages the institution.
...
Orders of that kind give abundant room for the exercise of executive discretion or the accommodation of practical realities, but without sacrificing the rule of law.
Amir Attaran is a professor in the faculties of law and medicine at the University of Ottawa.
http://tinyurl.com/ycmzdng
The Supreme Court of tut-tutting
By Amir Attaran, Citizen Special
It is a victory, but it is also bizarre. Last week's Supreme Court ruling in Omar Khadr's case found that Ottawa pulled off a hat trick of shocking illegality. Canada's government violated national law, international law, and the Constitution -- quite a feat.
But did the Supreme Court order the government to do anything about serially breaking the law, such as to ask for Khadr back? No: the court's punch was pulled. To do otherwise, the court said, would interfere with the prime minister's freedom of decision. The court decided only to give a judicial declaration, in effect tut-tutting at the government's illegality.
If this sounds curious, it is. But it is also increasingly normal for the Supreme Court, which is drifting toward becoming the country's leading Supreme Court of Advice.
...
No matter what you think of Omar Khadr, the judgment makes unsettling reading. It advertises the fact that even when Canada's highest court heartily agrees illegality exists, it may refuse to remedy it. In the past, the justices rarely turned away litigants seeking a mandatory remedy with a mere advisory opinion. Under Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin's increasingly timorous leadership, however, they are doing so with unusual frequency.
It is an unwise and unwelcome trend.
...
When courts, by their own admission, advise there is an illegality but in the same breath let it persist, that is not the rule of law. At best, it is rule by law -- something quite different. In treading into this unsatisfactory terrain, the court's judgments increasingly bring to mind Macbeth's lament: "it is a tale ..." Shakespeare wrote, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
One wonders if the Supreme Court has reflected on the risks of advisory declarations, for its own sake.
Given the government's decision, announced yesterday, that it would not seek to repatriate Khadr, despite the court finding that Canada's illegal conduct "continues to contribute to (his) current detention," it is now very likely that the court will find itself faced with Khadr's case to solve for a third time -- a self-evidently pathetic fact which makes the court look effete, and which damages the institution.
...
Orders of that kind give abundant room for the exercise of executive discretion or the accommodation of practical realities, but without sacrificing the rule of law.
Amir Attaran is a professor in the faculties of law and medicine at the University of Ottawa.
Charges against Fantino dropped
This result is hardly surprising.
Regardless of what happened, and who behaved rightly or wrongly, the conduct alleged really doesn’t fit within the scope of the charge. (It would have been easier politically for the Crown to proceed and lose -- it took some political backbone to withdraw).
That said, the complainant’s suggestion he will seek judicial review is likely to lead nowhere – the Crown has an absolute right to proceed or not and there isn’t any scope to review that discretion.
Crown drops charge against OPP's Julian Fantino
CTV.ca News Staff
The Crown has withdrawn a criminal charge against OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino after deciding that it had no reasonable prospect of conviction.
Fantino had been accused of trying to influence municipal officials in Caledonia, Ont., by allegedly sending an e-mail counseling the mayor and councillors not to attend rallies led by activist Gary McHale.
…
McHale is an activist who has publicly opposed the aboriginal land occupation in the Caledonia area that began nearly four years ago.
He first attempted to bring a charge against Fantino last year, but a justice of the peace who heard his complaint refused to issue a summons or warrant against the commissioner.
However, Superior Court Justice David Crane reviewed the case and later ordered the justice of the peace to issue such an order.
Following the Crown's decision to drop the charge, McHale vowed to press his case forward with the Superior Court.
…
"It means I have to file another judicial review. There's no doubt in my mind the Superior Court will overturn what the (justice of the peace) just did today."
Regardless of what happened, and who behaved rightly or wrongly, the conduct alleged really doesn’t fit within the scope of the charge. (It would have been easier politically for the Crown to proceed and lose -- it took some political backbone to withdraw).
That said, the complainant’s suggestion he will seek judicial review is likely to lead nowhere – the Crown has an absolute right to proceed or not and there isn’t any scope to review that discretion.
Crown drops charge against OPP's Julian Fantino
CTV.ca News Staff
The Crown has withdrawn a criminal charge against OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino after deciding that it had no reasonable prospect of conviction.
Fantino had been accused of trying to influence municipal officials in Caledonia, Ont., by allegedly sending an e-mail counseling the mayor and councillors not to attend rallies led by activist Gary McHale.
…
McHale is an activist who has publicly opposed the aboriginal land occupation in the Caledonia area that began nearly four years ago.
He first attempted to bring a charge against Fantino last year, but a justice of the peace who heard his complaint refused to issue a summons or warrant against the commissioner.
However, Superior Court Justice David Crane reviewed the case and later ordered the justice of the peace to issue such an order.
Following the Crown's decision to drop the charge, McHale vowed to press his case forward with the Superior Court.
…
"It means I have to file another judicial review. There's no doubt in my mind the Superior Court will overturn what the (justice of the peace) just did today."
Conservatives, Liberals remain deadlocked: poll
The Conservatives and Liberals remain in a virtual tie for support for a third week in a row, a new EKOS poll suggests.
The poll, released exclusively to CBC News on Thursday, asked Canadians which party they would vote for if an election were held tomorrow. It found 31.9 per cent would support the Liberals, compared with 31 per cent who would back the Conservatives.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Heather Mallick on Stephen Harper in Chatelaine
Interesting piece in Chatelaine. Sometimes the anti-Harper pieces are a little over the top -- but regardless, this is a good read even if a bit salty.
Harper's no ladies man
http://tiny.cc/84jGC
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
Politics as a mechanic
"In taking stock of a politician, the first question is not whether he was a good man who used righteous means, but whether he was successful in gaining power, in keeping it, and in governing; whether, in short, he was skilful at his particular craft or a bungler."
- Frederick Scott Oliver
Oliver is widely quoted but there is precious little information about him on the web.
The most I found was “(1864-1934) Businessman and Publicist” and then a brief Wikipedia piece saying
“British political writer and businessman who advocated tariff reform and imperial union for the British Empire. He played an important role in the Round Table movement, collaborated in the downfall of Prime Minister H.H. Asquith’s wartime government and its replacement by David Lloyd George in 1916, and pressed for “home rule all round” to resolve the political conflict between Britain and Irish nationalists.”
He seems to have been a proud imperialist and not someone we might want to hold up as a model for the 21st Century. That said, here he makes a good point – politics is a mechanic and a good politician is someone who knows how to get and keep power.
Now, that is in theory independent of whether the policies of the politician are good, bad or indifferent. The trouble is that theory is not always practice and someone who is unscrupulous in the mechanic of politics is likely to have policies that run roughshod over the liberties of a nation. So, while we want politicians who know how to get elected (tin ears need not apply) we don’t want someone who will seize power through a coup.
- Frederick Scott Oliver
Oliver is widely quoted but there is precious little information about him on the web.
The most I found was “(1864-1934) Businessman and Publicist” and then a brief Wikipedia piece saying
“British political writer and businessman who advocated tariff reform and imperial union for the British Empire. He played an important role in the Round Table movement, collaborated in the downfall of Prime Minister H.H. Asquith’s wartime government and its replacement by David Lloyd George in 1916, and pressed for “home rule all round” to resolve the political conflict between Britain and Irish nationalists.”
He seems to have been a proud imperialist and not someone we might want to hold up as a model for the 21st Century. That said, here he makes a good point – politics is a mechanic and a good politician is someone who knows how to get and keep power.
Now, that is in theory independent of whether the policies of the politician are good, bad or indifferent. The trouble is that theory is not always practice and someone who is unscrupulous in the mechanic of politics is likely to have policies that run roughshod over the liberties of a nation. So, while we want politicians who know how to get elected (tin ears need not apply) we don’t want someone who will seize power through a coup.
Ooops, never mind -- the cars are safe to drive ... really!
http://tinyurl.com/yjscoja
U.S. transport secretary reverses comments on Toyota
U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is back-peddling from comments he made earlier Wednesday that owners of recalled Toyotas should not be driving their cars until they're fixed.
LaHood now says he misspoke and meant only that people should take them to dealerships to get them repaired.
LaHood told reporters it was "obviously a misstatement" when he said, "Stop driving it. Take it to a Toyota dealer because they believe they have a fix for it."
U.S. transport secretary reverses comments on Toyota
U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is back-peddling from comments he made earlier Wednesday that owners of recalled Toyotas should not be driving their cars until they're fixed.
LaHood now says he misspoke and meant only that people should take them to dealerships to get them repaired.
LaHood told reporters it was "obviously a misstatement" when he said, "Stop driving it. Take it to a Toyota dealer because they believe they have a fix for it."
Appeals from the Family Court branch of the Superior Court under the Hague Convention lie to Divisional Court
Christodoulou v. Christodoulou, 2010 ONCA 93, released today, raises a jurisdictional issue – do appeals from the Family Court branch of the Superior Court of Justice (the “Family Court”) in cases involving the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the “Hague Convention”) properly lie to the Divisional Court or to the Court of Appeal for Ontario?
The short answer is “
Part III of the CLRA provides for applications to “a court”, which is defined in Part III as follows:
18.(1) In this Part,
“court” means the Ontario Court of Justice, the Family Court or the Superior Court of Justice; (“tribunal”) ....
Part III also provides for an appeal route:
73. An appeal from an order of the Ontario Court of Justice under this Part lies to the Superior Court of Justice.
Section 21.9.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 (the “CJA”) provides:
21.9.1 A statutory provision referred to in the Schedule to section 21.8 or in section 21.12 that provides for appeals from decisions of the Ontario Court of Justice to the Superior Court of Justice shall be deemed to provide for appeals from decisions of the Family Court to the
The Schedule to s. 21.8 of the CJA lists “Children’s Law Reform Act, except sections 59 and 60”.
Finally, s. 6(1) of the CJA provides:
6.(1) An appeal lies to the Court of Appeal from,
...
(b) a final order of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice, except an order referred to in clause 19(1)(a) or an order from which an appeal lies to the Divisional Court under another Act.
After considerable analysis the Court holds:
DISPOSITION
[37] On a straightforward reading of s. 21.9.1 of the CJA together with s. 73 of the CLRA, the first appeal of an order under Part III of the CLRA made at a Family Court lies to the Divisional Court. Accordingly, the motion is granted and the appeal is transferred to the
US Transport Secretary LaHood says owners of recalled Toyota models should stop driving
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood on Wednesday advised drivers of Toyota vehicles recalled because of sudden acceleration problems to stop driving them and take them to a dealer for repairs.
But the dealers can't (won't?) take em!!!
Fantino charges withdrawn
Hardly a surprise.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
Death penalty redux
http://tiny.cc/qB2V9
Can it be that in just four years, Stephen Harper's government has managed to change the views of Canadians toward crime and punishment? This is the frightening possibility raised by an Angus Reid poll that has found that Canadians, who have always prided themselves for being more compassionate than the Americans, are more and more favourable to the hard-line approach of the Conservatives. Sixty-two per cent support the death penalty for murderers, and nearly one in three for convicted rapists.
This represents a huge increase compared to a survey by the same polling firm in 2004, when supporters of the death penalty for murderers remained a minority, at 48 per cent.
Another astonishing finding is that Quebeckers, who have traditionally favoured rehabilitation over repression, might have become even more hawkish than other Canadians – 69 per cent want capital punishment for murderers. If true, this would be a spectacular reversal. Just 23 years ago, Brian Mulroney relied on his large Quebec caucus to block an attempt by the Western wing of the Conservative caucus to bring back the death penalty. There's an important caveat: The provincial results of the poll have a 6.1-per-cent margin of error because they are based on a small sample. So, Quebeckers could simply be on the same wave length of the country as a whole – still, however, a distressing evolution
Can it be that in just four years, Stephen Harper's government has managed to change the views of Canadians toward crime and punishment? This is the frightening possibility raised by an Angus Reid poll that has found that Canadians, who have always prided themselves for being more compassionate than the Americans, are more and more favourable to the hard-line approach of the Conservatives. Sixty-two per cent support the death penalty for murderers, and nearly one in three for convicted rapists.
This represents a huge increase compared to a survey by the same polling firm in 2004, when supporters of the death penalty for murderers remained a minority, at 48 per cent.
Another astonishing finding is that Quebeckers, who have traditionally favoured rehabilitation over repression, might have become even more hawkish than other Canadians – 69 per cent want capital punishment for murderers. If true, this would be a spectacular reversal. Just 23 years ago, Brian Mulroney relied on his large Quebec caucus to block an attempt by the Western wing of the Conservative caucus to bring back the death penalty. There's an important caveat: The provincial results of the poll have a 6.1-per-cent margin of error because they are based on a small sample. So, Quebeckers could simply be on the same wave length of the country as a whole – still, however, a distressing evolution
Brutal divorce leads to death?
I have seen sane people behave in totally crazy ways during a divorce -- it's always very sad.
Dead kids' dad in bitter divorce
http://tinyurl.com/yccr9vl
EDMONTON - The father of two young children found dead in the bathtub of their Millet home was so worried his estranged wife would take them to her hometown in Australia that he took their passports, according to court documents.
Curtis McConnell, 31, and Allyson McConnell, 31, were going through a bitter divorce that revolved around custody of their two sons, two-year-old Connor and 10-month-old Jayden.
Dead kids' dad in bitter divorce
http://tinyurl.com/yccr9vl
EDMONTON - The father of two young children found dead in the bathtub of their Millet home was so worried his estranged wife would take them to her hometown in Australia that he took their passports, according to court documents.
Curtis McConnell, 31, and Allyson McConnell, 31, were going through a bitter divorce that revolved around custody of their two sons, two-year-old Connor and 10-month-old Jayden.
"Whichever party is in office, the Treasury is in power." -- Harold Wilson
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
Nothing is more conducive to peace of mind than not having any opinions at all.
Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1742 - 1799)
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
...a community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime
"As one reads history, not in the expurgated editions written for schoolboys and passmen, but in the original authorities of each time, one is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed, but by the punishments that the good have inflicted; and a community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime."
-- Oscar Wilde
I am not completely convinced by Wilde here -- often his turn of phrase is better than his substance -- but the quotation certainly makes one stop and think.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
www.jmortonmusings.blogspot.com
-- Oscar Wilde
I am not completely convinced by Wilde here -- often his turn of phrase is better than his substance -- but the quotation certainly makes one stop and think.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
www.jmortonmusings.blogspot.com
"A memorandum is written not to inform the reader, but to protect the writer." -- Dean Acheson
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
Waiting between takes
Filming even a very brief show takes a lot of time -- mostly waiting between takes!!!
Giambrone greeted by cheers as protesters gather outside
Giambrone will be a credible candidate from the left. His position as TTC chair will, however, prove a major challenge as the weekend media interviews show -- that said, it is early days... .
http://tinyurl.com/y9lmzjn
Giambrone greeted by cheers as protesters gather outside
TTC chair 'very ready' to become Mayor of Toronto
Bouyed by drums, cheers and his wife Sarah McQuarrie, TTC chair Adam Giambrone stepped into the mayor's race Monday night.
"My name is Adam Giambrone and I'm running for mayor!" Giambrone told the crowd of supporters at the Revival club on College Street. "As most of you have heard and read this last week - I'm also very ready!"
...
The party was also dogged by detractors - notably, about 20 protesters from his Ward 18 home turf, who waved signs outside and accused him of being out of touch with his own constituents.
http://tinyurl.com/y9lmzjn
Giambrone greeted by cheers as protesters gather outside
TTC chair 'very ready' to become Mayor of Toronto
Bouyed by drums, cheers and his wife Sarah McQuarrie, TTC chair Adam Giambrone stepped into the mayor's race Monday night.
"My name is Adam Giambrone and I'm running for mayor!" Giambrone told the crowd of supporters at the Revival club on College Street. "As most of you have heard and read this last week - I'm also very ready!"
...
The party was also dogged by detractors - notably, about 20 protesters from his Ward 18 home turf, who waved signs outside and accused him of being out of touch with his own constituents.
Muscat quintet revised
Van Breda v. Village Resorts Limited, 2010 ONCA 84 has just been released.
This important decision deals with the issue of when
The case redefines the test for assumed jurisdiction laid down by the Court of Appeal in the “Muscat quintet”: Muscutt v. Courcelles (2002), 60 O.R. (3d) 20 (C.A.); Leufkens v. Alba Tours International Inc. (2002), 60 O.R. (3d) 84 (C.A.); Lemmex v. Bernard (2002), 60 O.R. (3d) 54 (C.A.); Sinclair v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Inc. (2002), 60 O.R. (3d) 76 (C.A.); Gajraj v. DeBernardo (2002), 60 O.R. (3d) 68 (C.A.). The Court described the Muscutt test as follows:
[47] We then laid down the now familiar eight factors to be used to determine whether there was a real and substantial connection sufficient to support the assumption of jurisdiction in such cases:
1) The connection between the forum and plaintiff’s claim;
2) The connection between the forum and defendant;
3) Unfairness to the defendant in assuming jurisdiction;
4) Unfairness to the plaintiff in not assuming jurisdiction;
5) The involvement of other parties to the suit;
6) The court’s willingness to recognize and enforce an extra-provincial judgment rendered on the same jurisdictional basis;
7) Whether the case is interprovincial or international in nature; and
8) Comity and the standards of jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement prevailing elsewhere.
This test has now been reformulated as follows:
V. Reformulating Muscutt: Summary
[109] To summarize the preceding discussion, in my view, the Muscutt test should be clarified and reformulated as follows:
· First, the court should determine whether the claim falls under rule 17.02 (excepting subrules (h) and (o)) to determine whether a real and substantial connection with
· At the second stage, the core of the analysis rests upon the connection between
· The remaining considerations should not be treated as independent factors having more or less equal weight when determining whether there is a real and substantial connection but as general legal principles that bear upon the analysis.
· Consideration of the fairness of assuming or refusing jurisdiction is a necessary tool in assessing the strengths of the connections between the forum and the plaintiff’s claim and the defendant. However, fairness is not a free-standing factor capable of trumping weak connections, subject only to the forum of necessity exception.
· Consideration of jurisdiction simpliciter and the real and substantial connection test should not anticipate, incorporate or replicate consideration of the matters that pertain to forum non conveniens test.
· The involvement of other parties to the suit is only relevant in cases where that is asserted as a possible connecting factor and in relation to avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings under forum non conveniens.
· The willingness to recognize and enforce an extra-provincial judgment rendered on the same jurisdictional basis is as an overarching principle that disciplines the exercise of jurisdiction against extra-provincial defendants. This principle provides perspective and is intended to prevent a judicial tendency to overreach to assume jurisdiction when the plaintiff is an
· Whether the case is interprovincial or international in nature, and comity and the standards of jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement prevailing elsewhere are relevant considerations, not as independent factors having more or less equal weight with the others, but as general principles of private international law that bear upon the interpretation and application of the real and substantial connection test.
· The factors to be considered for jurisdiction simpliciter are different and distinct from those to be considered for forum non conveniens. The forum non conveniens factors have no bearing on real and substantial connection and, therefore, should only be considered after it has been determined that there is a real and substantial connection and that jurisdiction simpliciter has been established.
· Where there is no other forum in which the plaintiff can reasonably seek relief, there is a residual discretion to assume jurisdiction.
Restitution Orders
Today’s decision in R. v. Popert, 2010 ONCA 89 raises an interesting albeit technical issue with regard to a restitution order made at the end of a criminal trial.
Such orders are designed to give some compensation to the victims of crime.
In the immediate case, homeowners arranged to have their home burned so as to make an insurance claim. The fire occurred and insurance money was paid out to the homeowners.
A restitution order was made (the order was set aside by the Court of Appeal on other grounds). The accused against whom the restitution order was made argued that restitution should be available to an insurer that paid out monies on a claim on the basis of subrogation only. And since the people who were paid – the homeowners – had no right to payment (the homeowners having arranged the fire) the accused argued no restitution was payable as there was no right to subrogate.
The Court of Appeal made short work of that argument finding that the insurer was entitled to restitution as a direct victim of crime. The Court writes:
… on a plain reading of s. 738(1)(a), its scope is not restricted to persons whose property has been directly damaged, lost or destroyed as a result of an offence. Section 738(1) empowers the court to order restitution to “another person” in the case of damage, loss or destruction of the property of “any person”.
Jury Vetting
About 1100 years ago Ethelred the Unready established a legal system where twelve landholders of each district were directed to investigate crimes without a bias. A key aspect of Ethelred’s juries was that they be impartial and render only an unbiased and fair verdict.
The jury system that evolved over the last millennium no longer has juries doing investigations of their own. Indeed, for a jury to consider anything beyond what they are told in open court is considered to be serious misconduct. That said, juries still have great value in serious criminal cases for two main reasons:
1. a panel of ordinary people, chosen at random, is seen as the best way to ensure a fair trial in very important criminal cases. The consensus of 12 ordinary people will result in a correct and common sense decision;
2 in important criminal cases the participation of a jury ensures public involvement in the system. By having juries comprised on ordinary citizens the decisions are seen to be those of the community as a whole.
Both reasons for having juries require a strict impartiality by the jurors. A jury must be able to decide without bias and evaluate the evidence with an open mind. Moreover, a jury must not only be impartial but must seen to be impartial.
In Canada the juries are selected from Canadian citizens who have not been convicted of a serious criminal offence. Nevertheless, juries are not chosen without input by the Crown and the accused – a pool of potential jurors is created and from that pool jurors are chosen at random. Once a juror is selected both the Crown and the accused have a right to excuse a limited number of jurors from consideration without giving a reason.
The decision to exclude a potential juror is usually based on little more than a gut reaction. The only information a lawyer normally has is the occupation and appearance of the juror. Having said that, the list of potential jurors is available to the Crown and accused a little more than a week before trial and, in theory, some background about each potential juror could be obtained by searching the internet or making local inquiries about individuals.
However, as has been widely reported, Crowns in the past had some special advantage.
Secret background checks of jurors in the Barrie Crown office took place in dozens of cases, dating back at least until 1996. Under the Juries Act neither the Crown nor the defence is permitted access to a jury list until 10 days before jury selection. But in the trial of Ibrahim Yumnu and his co-defendants, the Barrie Crown office got the jury list nearly seven weeks before any juror was supposed to attend court.
Once the Crown's office had the lists, they were sent to police. Hundreds of potential jurors were investigated using more than one database. Otherwise confidential databases that contain a wide range of information were used in the probe.
The results were turned over to the Crown's office and a colour coded list was constructed to help decide on the acceptability of a potential juror. One of the police officers involved in the vetting admitted that even addresses were analyzed to see if someone lived in a "nice area" which might make them more Crown friendly. People who had been charged with a crime, even if it was later dismissed, received a "thumbs down," because they might be critical of police, the officer admitted.
Now it is important to remember that Crown counsel are entitled to use whatever knowledge they have and there is nothing wrong with investigating the background of jurors. In a small town, for example, the local Crown would know who has, and who has not, had run-ins with police. The issue is not the investigation so much as the early release of information and the use of otherwise restricted data bases.
That said, there is a sense of unfairness. Twenty years ago the Supreme Court of Canada made it clear that “an accused [does not have] the right to a favourable jury”. More generally, the Supreme Court held:
The modern jury was not meant to be a tool in the hands of either the Crown or the accused and indoctrinated as such through the challenge procedure, but rather was envisioned as a representative cross-section of society, honestly and fairly chosen
The matter is now before the Court of Appeal and may well end up in the Supreme Court of Canada.
The jury system that evolved over the last millennium no longer has juries doing investigations of their own. Indeed, for a jury to consider anything beyond what they are told in open court is considered to be serious misconduct. That said, juries still have great value in serious criminal cases for two main reasons:
1. a panel of ordinary people, chosen at random, is seen as the best way to ensure a fair trial in very important criminal cases. The consensus of 12 ordinary people will result in a correct and common sense decision;
2 in important criminal cases the participation of a jury ensures public involvement in the system. By having juries comprised on ordinary citizens the decisions are seen to be those of the community as a whole.
Both reasons for having juries require a strict impartiality by the jurors. A jury must be able to decide without bias and evaluate the evidence with an open mind. Moreover, a jury must not only be impartial but must seen to be impartial.
In Canada the juries are selected from Canadian citizens who have not been convicted of a serious criminal offence. Nevertheless, juries are not chosen without input by the Crown and the accused – a pool of potential jurors is created and from that pool jurors are chosen at random. Once a juror is selected both the Crown and the accused have a right to excuse a limited number of jurors from consideration without giving a reason.
The decision to exclude a potential juror is usually based on little more than a gut reaction. The only information a lawyer normally has is the occupation and appearance of the juror. Having said that, the list of potential jurors is available to the Crown and accused a little more than a week before trial and, in theory, some background about each potential juror could be obtained by searching the internet or making local inquiries about individuals.
However, as has been widely reported, Crowns in the past had some special advantage.
Secret background checks of jurors in the Barrie Crown office took place in dozens of cases, dating back at least until 1996. Under the Juries Act neither the Crown nor the defence is permitted access to a jury list until 10 days before jury selection. But in the trial of Ibrahim Yumnu and his co-defendants, the Barrie Crown office got the jury list nearly seven weeks before any juror was supposed to attend court.
Once the Crown's office had the lists, they were sent to police. Hundreds of potential jurors were investigated using more than one database. Otherwise confidential databases that contain a wide range of information were used in the probe.
The results were turned over to the Crown's office and a colour coded list was constructed to help decide on the acceptability of a potential juror. One of the police officers involved in the vetting admitted that even addresses were analyzed to see if someone lived in a "nice area" which might make them more Crown friendly. People who had been charged with a crime, even if it was later dismissed, received a "thumbs down," because they might be critical of police, the officer admitted.
Now it is important to remember that Crown counsel are entitled to use whatever knowledge they have and there is nothing wrong with investigating the background of jurors. In a small town, for example, the local Crown would know who has, and who has not, had run-ins with police. The issue is not the investigation so much as the early release of information and the use of otherwise restricted data bases.
That said, there is a sense of unfairness. Twenty years ago the Supreme Court of Canada made it clear that “an accused [does not have] the right to a favourable jury”. More generally, the Supreme Court held:
The modern jury was not meant to be a tool in the hands of either the Crown or the accused and indoctrinated as such through the challenge procedure, but rather was envisioned as a representative cross-section of society, honestly and fairly chosen
The matter is now before the Court of Appeal and may well end up in the Supreme Court of Canada.
If it's not good enough for Danny Williams...
Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams is scheduled for heart surgery in the United States.
It's not fair to criticise -- you do what you have to do when your health is involved -- but going to the States rather than staying in Canada throws into question the Newfoundland and Canadian health-care system.
If it's not good enough for the Premier ... .
Monday, February 1, 2010
Justice minister changes tune on mandatory sentences
The story is a bit unfair as it implies the change is purely political -- it may be genuine. My own thinking on sentencing has changed, and continues to change.
Nevertheless, I remain unconvinced that mandatory sentences work for many crimes but for some, largely economic enterprise crimes (frauds, environmental spoliation, counterfeit drugs etc), they might work. Study is needed to see what is effective.
All that said, an interesting story:
http://tiny.cc/ugoB6
Janice Tibbetts,
Canwest News Service
Monday, Feb. 1, 2010
OTTAWA -- Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, one of Canada's most vocal champions of fixed minimum prison sentences, once opposed the idea of removing discretion for judges to sentence as they see fit.
As a Tory backbencher in 1988, Mr. Nicholson was vice-chairman of a parliamentary committee that rejected the expansion of automatic incarceration, asserting that it doesn't work, overcrowds jails and takes too hefty of a social and financial toll.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
www.jmortonmusings.blogspot.com
Nevertheless, I remain unconvinced that mandatory sentences work for many crimes but for some, largely economic enterprise crimes (frauds, environmental spoliation, counterfeit drugs etc), they might work. Study is needed to see what is effective.
All that said, an interesting story:
http://tiny.cc/ugoB6
Janice Tibbetts,
Canwest News Service
Monday, Feb. 1, 2010
OTTAWA -- Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, one of Canada's most vocal champions of fixed minimum prison sentences, once opposed the idea of removing discretion for judges to sentence as they see fit.
As a Tory backbencher in 1988, Mr. Nicholson was vice-chairman of a parliamentary committee that rejected the expansion of automatic incarceration, asserting that it doesn't work, overcrowds jails and takes too hefty of a social and financial toll.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
www.jmortonmusings.blogspot.com
Titus Andronicus (1594)
Come, take away. Lavinia, go with me:
I'll to thy closet; and go read with thee
Sad stories chanced in the times of old.
Come, boy, and go with me: thy sight is young,
And thou shalt read when mine begin to dazzle.
I'll to thy closet; and go read with thee
Sad stories chanced in the times of old.
Come, boy, and go with me: thy sight is young,
And thou shalt read when mine begin to dazzle.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
Ghost-writing lawyer
As legal costs increase and individuals more commonly attempt to represent themselves in Court the concept of the ghost-writer counsel becomes common. People have a lawyer help them with materials which they then file under their own name.
In such a circumstance the lawyer, while owing a duty to the party using their services, does not have any official connection to the case. On occasion judges hearing motions find this problematic and inquire as to who the lawyer is – today’s decision in Domi v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2010 ONCA 76 suggests that is not appropriate:
[1] [The motions judge] was generous to the appellant in that she effectively allowed her to proceed with almost all of her causes of action, provided they were properly pleaded. Unfortunately, the appellant has not taken up this opportunity and has instead brought an appeal that with one exception, is, in our view, without merit.
[2] The one exception relates to paragraph 4 of the order, in which the motion judge required the appellant to provide the respondent with the name of counsel from whom she was receiving legal advice.
[3] We see no reason for this order.
Liberals in dead heat with Tories, leading in key battlegrounds: poll
CP [The Canadian Press]
OTTAWA_ A new poll suggests a seismic political shift is underway, with the Conservatives off balance and the Liberals gaining traction in important areas.
On the surface, The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey suggests a dead heat between the two parties, at 32 per cent each. The NDP was at 15 per cent, the Bloc Quebecois at 10, and the Greens at nine.
But Harris-Decima chairman Allan Gregg says the real story lies below the headline numbers.
''What you have on the surface is a dead heat, but if you dig a little deeper, what you see is that the Liberals are clearly making some inroads into key, battleground constituencies.``
''They are emerging as the federalist default option to the BQ in the province of Quebec, they are ahead in Ontario for the first time since September.''
The Quebec data, over two weeks, show the Bloc with 38 per cent, the Liberals with 28, the Tories well behind at 13, the NDP at 11 and the Greens at eight.
For Ontario, the Liberals were at 40 per cent, with the Tories at 35, the NDP at 14 and the Greens at 10.
Gregg said the Liberals were also making headway in the important
905 area code ridings around Toronto.
''The ridings in the 905 that looked to be clearly in the Conservative win column are once again now competitive... And the Liberals are regaining their historic dominance with female voters_ a kind of bedrock of the constituency they have got to bolt together if they are going to have any chance to win.''
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
www.jmortonmusings.blogspot.com
OTTAWA_ A new poll suggests a seismic political shift is underway, with the Conservatives off balance and the Liberals gaining traction in important areas.
On the surface, The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey suggests a dead heat between the two parties, at 32 per cent each. The NDP was at 15 per cent, the Bloc Quebecois at 10, and the Greens at nine.
But Harris-Decima chairman Allan Gregg says the real story lies below the headline numbers.
''What you have on the surface is a dead heat, but if you dig a little deeper, what you see is that the Liberals are clearly making some inroads into key, battleground constituencies.``
''They are emerging as the federalist default option to the BQ in the province of Quebec, they are ahead in Ontario for the first time since September.''
The Quebec data, over two weeks, show the Bloc with 38 per cent, the Liberals with 28, the Tories well behind at 13, the NDP at 11 and the Greens at eight.
For Ontario, the Liberals were at 40 per cent, with the Tories at 35, the NDP at 14 and the Greens at 10.
Gregg said the Liberals were also making headway in the important
905 area code ridings around Toronto.
''The ridings in the 905 that looked to be clearly in the Conservative win column are once again now competitive... And the Liberals are regaining their historic dominance with female voters_ a kind of bedrock of the constituency they have got to bolt together if they are going to have any chance to win.''
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
www.jmortonmusings.blogspot.com
Re jury vetting
Here's a relevant SCC passage:
R. v. Find, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 863, 2001 SCC 32
25 One ground for challenge for cause is that a prospective juror is “not indifferent between the Queen and the accused”: Criminal Code, s. 638(1)(b). If the judge is satisfied that a realistic potential for juror partiality exists, he or she may permit the requested challenges for cause. If challenged for cause, the impartiality of the candidate is tried by two triers of fact, usually two previously sworn jurors: Criminal Code, s. 640(2). Absent elimination, the juror is sworn and takes his or her place in the jury box. After the full complement of 12 jurors is empanelled, the accused is placed in their charge, and the trial commences.
26 The Canadian system of selecting jurors may be contrasted with procedures prevalent in the United States. In both countries the aim is to select a jury that will decide the case impartially. The Canadian system, however, starts from the presumption that jurors are capable of setting aside their views and prejudices and acting impartially between the prosecution and the accused upon proper instruction by the trial judge on their duties. This presumption is displaced only where potential bias is either clear and obvious (addressed by judicial pre-screening), or where the accused or prosecution shows reason to suspect that members of the jury array may possess biases that cannot be set aside (addressed by the challenge for cause process). The American system, by contrast, treats all members of the jury pool as presumptively suspect, and hence includes a preliminary voir dire process, whereby prospective jurors are frequently subjected to extensive questioning, often of a highly personal nature, to guide the respective parties in exercising their peremptory challenges and challenges for cause.
27 The respective benefits and costs of the different approaches may be debated. With respect to benefits, it is unclear that the American system produces better juries than the Canadian system. As Cory J. observed in R. v. G. (R.M.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 362, at para. 13, we possess “a centuries-old tradition of juries reaching fair and courageous verdicts”. With respect to costs, jury selection under the American system takes longer and intrudes more markedly into the privacy of prospective jurors. It has also been suggested that the extensive questioning permitted by this process, while aimed at providing an impartial jury, is open to abuse by counsel seeking to secure a favourable jury, or to indoctrinate jurors to their views of the case (see Schulman and Myers, supra, at p. 429).
28 The ultimate requirement of a system of jury selection is that it results in a fair trial. A fair trial, however, should not be confused with a perfect trial, or the most advantageous trial possible from the accused’s perspective. As I stated in R. v. O’Connor, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411, at para. 193, “[w]hat constitutes a fair trial takes into account not only the perspective of the accused, but the practical limits of the system of justice and the lawful interests of others involved in the process. . . . What the law demands is not perfect justice, but fundamentally fair justice”. See also R. v. Carosella, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 80, at para. 72; R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309, at p. 362; R. v. Harrer, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 562, at para. 14. At the same time, occasional injustice cannot be accepted as the price of efficiency: M. (A.) v. Ryan, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 157, at para. 32; R. v. Leipert, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 281.
R. v. Find, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 863, 2001 SCC 32
25 One ground for challenge for cause is that a prospective juror is “not indifferent between the Queen and the accused”: Criminal Code, s. 638(1)(b). If the judge is satisfied that a realistic potential for juror partiality exists, he or she may permit the requested challenges for cause. If challenged for cause, the impartiality of the candidate is tried by two triers of fact, usually two previously sworn jurors: Criminal Code, s. 640(2). Absent elimination, the juror is sworn and takes his or her place in the jury box. After the full complement of 12 jurors is empanelled, the accused is placed in their charge, and the trial commences.
26 The Canadian system of selecting jurors may be contrasted with procedures prevalent in the United States. In both countries the aim is to select a jury that will decide the case impartially. The Canadian system, however, starts from the presumption that jurors are capable of setting aside their views and prejudices and acting impartially between the prosecution and the accused upon proper instruction by the trial judge on their duties. This presumption is displaced only where potential bias is either clear and obvious (addressed by judicial pre-screening), or where the accused or prosecution shows reason to suspect that members of the jury array may possess biases that cannot be set aside (addressed by the challenge for cause process). The American system, by contrast, treats all members of the jury pool as presumptively suspect, and hence includes a preliminary voir dire process, whereby prospective jurors are frequently subjected to extensive questioning, often of a highly personal nature, to guide the respective parties in exercising their peremptory challenges and challenges for cause.
27 The respective benefits and costs of the different approaches may be debated. With respect to benefits, it is unclear that the American system produces better juries than the Canadian system. As Cory J. observed in R. v. G. (R.M.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 362, at para. 13, we possess “a centuries-old tradition of juries reaching fair and courageous verdicts”. With respect to costs, jury selection under the American system takes longer and intrudes more markedly into the privacy of prospective jurors. It has also been suggested that the extensive questioning permitted by this process, while aimed at providing an impartial jury, is open to abuse by counsel seeking to secure a favourable jury, or to indoctrinate jurors to their views of the case (see Schulman and Myers, supra, at p. 429).
28 The ultimate requirement of a system of jury selection is that it results in a fair trial. A fair trial, however, should not be confused with a perfect trial, or the most advantageous trial possible from the accused’s perspective. As I stated in R. v. O’Connor, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411, at para. 193, “[w]hat constitutes a fair trial takes into account not only the perspective of the accused, but the practical limits of the system of justice and the lawful interests of others involved in the process. . . . What the law demands is not perfect justice, but fundamentally fair justice”. See also R. v. Carosella, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 80, at para. 72; R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309, at p. 362; R. v. Harrer, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 562, at para. 14. At the same time, occasional injustice cannot be accepted as the price of efficiency: M. (A.) v. Ryan, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 157, at para. 32; R. v. Leipert, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 281.
Sometimes prison is the only answer
http://tiny.cc/B80ae
Sometimes prison is the only answer
James Morton, National Post
Published: Monday, February 01, 2010
Holly Ann Peters and a woman, whose name we don't know, were acquaintances. They had had a fight in the past, but seemed to have reconciled their differences until they ran across each other, along with the unnamed woman's boyfriend, at a bar on Mar. 8, 2008. Holly Ann had been drinking and took offence at something the unnamed woman said. Holly Ann pushed her. The scuffle escalated and the boyfriend intervened to attempt to separate the pair. While he was doing so, Holly Ann lunged past him and swung the beer bottle she was holding at the woman's head, breaking the bottle with the blow. She then followed through on her swing in a downward motion with the broken bottle, causing lacerations to the woman's face that required 21 stitches.
Sometimes prison is the only answer
James Morton, National Post
Published: Monday, February 01, 2010
Holly Ann Peters and a woman, whose name we don't know, were acquaintances. They had had a fight in the past, but seemed to have reconciled their differences until they ran across each other, along with the unnamed woman's boyfriend, at a bar on Mar. 8, 2008. Holly Ann had been drinking and took offence at something the unnamed woman said. Holly Ann pushed her. The scuffle escalated and the boyfriend intervened to attempt to separate the pair. While he was doing so, Holly Ann lunged past him and swung the beer bottle she was holding at the woman's head, breaking the bottle with the blow. She then followed through on her swing in a downward motion with the broken bottle, causing lacerations to the woman's face that required 21 stitches.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)