Saturday, April 24, 2010
Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey, where wealth accumulates, and men decay
Reposted stories on blogs -- if defamatory should they be withdrawn by original source?
http://bit.ly/a0aipR
Media lawyers not warm on climate scientist's lawsuit
April 23, 2010
Tracey Tyler
Legal Affairs Reporter
Media law experts say a libel lawsuit filed by a leading Canadian climate scientist could have enormous implications for newspapers and other online publishers, forcing them to police the Internet for stories picked up by everyone from bloggers to Twitterers.
The concerns arise out of a statement of claim filed by Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria professor and Canada Research Chair in climate modelling, over a series of articles published in the National Post between Dec. 9, 2009, and Feb. 2 of this year.
Weaver alleges the pieces, including a column which accused him of joining the "left coast Suzuki-PR-industrial complex" on global warming, were designed to destroy his reputation internationally.
In his claim, he is asking the Supreme Court of British Columbia to order the Post to not only remove the articles from its own Internet site and any electronic databases where they are accessible, but to assist Weaver in obtaining their removal from any other website.
Toronto media lawyer Brian Rogers said this might be considered essential by someone who believes they have been the subject of a defamatory story that has "gone everywhere."
But it would also impose a major new responsibility on mainstream media such as newspapers, which have direct control over a very limited aspect of their publications and can't control what search engines and bloggers wish to do with a story once published, he said.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Flocke and Raspi arrive in France
Attempts to identify confidential police informant may amount to obstruct justice
R. v. Barros, 2010 ABCA 116 http://bit.ly/9RgNEW , released online this week, deals with whether a private investigator's attempts to identify a confidential police informer, and his subsequent use of the information he discovered, are criminal in nature.
Central to the decision is the role of police informers, and the protections that the system of justice offers to them. In R. v. Leipert, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 281 the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that the identity of police informers, and information which might assist in identifying them, is privileged, and that the privilege overrides the general duty of the Crown set out in R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326 to disclose all relevant information. The only recognized exception to the privilege is "innocence at stake". The trial judge ruled that the "innocence at stake" exception is not in play in this case: R. v. Barros, 2007 ABQB 546 at para. 21.
The Court concluded, somewhat to this author's surprise, that not only is there no right to try to determine who an informer was but that the effort so to do can amount to obstruct justice or extortion. There is a strong dissent by Justice Berger.
The majority held:
[41] To summarize, there is no positive right in the accused to attempt to ascertain the identity of the informer. The right to make full answer and defence does not extend that far. There is no justification for limiting the operation of the privilege to the courtroom; to be effective it must operate in the community at large. Against that legal background, the decisions presently under appeal can be examined.
Congratulations to Gary Gladstone
To be a legal scholar you must be bilingual -- nonsense
Nonsense.
There are good reasons to make appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada bilingual but legal scholarship is not of them.
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest Canadian Court and there is a good argument to say its judges ought to be able to understand the nuances of judgments in French and English. Moreover, the text of statutes in both languages can be important -- when I have trouble putting a definite meaning to a statute's text in English I often check the French text for clarity. Finally, as a statement of what Canada should be, having a bilingual Supreme Court (with judges who understand Common Law, Civil Law and First Nations Law (yes, remember them? the other founding nations...) ) is attractive.
The trouble is a truly bilingual court would exclude many leading Western jurists -- and that's not good for national unity.
Moreover, outside of Quebec and New Brunswick, French just is not the language of the law. You can have trials and appeals in French in, for example, Ontario (and that is right and proper) but it is unusual.
The deep structure of law in Quebec -- the main source of French texts in law in Canada -- differs from the rest of Canada. Outside Quebec the root texts of Canadian law come from the United Kingdom. To know the law of, say, Newfoundland, you do not need to know anything about Civil Law.
Saying you cannot be a legal scholar without being bilingual overreaches and reflects a desire for a country that doesn't exist.
Kathleen Wynne
Thursday, April 22, 2010
"Friday arrest syndrome"
The delay may allow the police greater freedom in questioning or may induce an accused to give evidence against others for release. Regardless, it is a manipulation of the system. It would be interesting to see arrest statistics to see how widespread the practice is.
"Friday arrest syndrome" is mentioned in a few B.C. cases (thanks to Yossi Schochet for these cases), examples being:
Uppal, [2002] B.C.J. No. 3205:
239 Again issue is taken by Mr. Soomel to what counsel calls the "Friday arrest syndrome" and it is urged that the effect of the Friday night gambit ensures that an accused in Delta will be remanded by the Justice of the Peace on Saturday morning to the Delta Police lock-up until, at the earliest, his or her Monday morning court appearance.
240 It is argued that apart from the accused person's right to initially consult counsel, this unfairly isolates an accused and makes him easily accessible over the weekend for police questioning.
241 By itself the Friday night arrest scenario in Delta is not fatal, but, of course, it and what flows from it in any particular case are facts which must be considered in examining the entire context of any confession.
Ertmoed, [2002] B.C.J. No. 3253:
12 Much has been said about the Friday arrest. According to Corporal Cross the arrest was "well-scripted". I take it from that that it was carefully planned. The police admitted that they could have arrested the accused as early as Wednesday, November 1st. However, for "strategic reasons," they arrested him on Friday evening. The defence strongly argued that the reason for the Friday evening arrest was to deprive the accused of access to counsel. Sergeant Fordy denied that the timing of the arrest was orchestrated in order to deprive the accused of his right to counsel. He said he thought that a criminal lawyer would be more difficult to contact during the day because he or she would be in court. However, it is not in dispute that the arrest was made on a Friday evening so as to comply with the police plan to place the accused with a cell plant and to conduct a weekend interview which would essentially be uninterrupted. The police admitted that the arrest was made in order to control the whole process.
Sad, improper, but not very important
This is a very confused story. My guess is that Jaffer, looking for a job, tried to dig up some money and went to all his contacts. That's pretty well what everyone does -- I don't see that he got any preferential treatment from the Feds -- if anything I suspect he got a bum's rush. Now, his spouse, being a sitting member and in cabinet (sort of) might well have had a better chance of getting listened to, and seems to have tried, but it seems that failed too. Sad, improper (if actually true), but ultimately not very important. One of the proposals signed by Jaffer's business partner Patrick Glémaud names Green Rite Solutions Inc., the marketing arm of Wright Tech Systems Inc., as the stakeholder in a proposed $480-million "shovel-ready" electricity generation and waste-disposal infrastructure project to be considered for the federal Green Infrastructure Fund.
Under the proposal, the total share of federal funding was to be about $100 million.
Last September, Guergis wrote a letter to local officials in her Ontario riding encouraging them to consider a presentation about alternative waste management technology from Jim Wright, owner of Richmond Hill, Ont.-based Wright Tech.
The documents were tabled by Transport and Infrastructure Minister John Baird on Wednesday night after a parliamentary committee ordered Jaffer and Glémaud — co-founders of Green Power Generation — to reveal the names of companies listed in the proposals within 24 hours.
The government has said the pitches were rejected and Jaffer's firm received no federal funding.
Baird has acknowledged Jaffer and Glémaud met with his parliamentary secretary, Brian Jean, but has stated in the House that "at no time did Mr. Jaffer ever raise any particular grant applications with me with respect to the green fund or any other fund for that matter."
Audio recording of defence medical examinations to remain rare
Adams v. Cook, 2010 ONCA 293 is a (rare) judgment of the Court of Appeal where five judges sat. They sat to reconsider the court's judgment in Bellamy v. Johnson (1992), 8 O.R. (3d) 591(
The Court declined to reconsider the earlier decision. Accordingly, audio recording of defence medical examinations will remain rare and be based on case by case factors. The Court held:
[28] That said, I recognize that this court constituted as a panel of five judges is in a position to broaden the application of Bellamy and, in effect, make the recording of defence medicals a more or less routine practice. No doubt a case can be made for doing so. Arguably, the litigation landscape has changed in the 18 years since Bellamy was decided. Legitimate concerns have been expressed by the Honourable Coulter Osborne and others in respect of the role of experts in the civil litigation process. The findings and recommendations of my colleague, Justice Goudge in his report, Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario: Report (
[29] However, in my view, the record in this case is insufficient to broaden and set new parameters for the making of orders requiring the recording of defence medical examinations, which would take into account all of the complexities and nuances that go with the conduct of such examinations.
Proof of prejudice required for a stay under s. 11(b) Charter
Section 11(b) of the Charter guarantees that "any person charged with an offence has the right ... to be tried within a reasonable time". The relevant period for consideration of a claim of unreasonable delay is between the date of the charge (by information or indictment) and the completion of the trial.
The test for determining if delay is unreasonable comes from R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771 and provides the following considerations:
1. the length of the delay;
2. waiver of time periods;
3. the reasons for the delay;
(a) the inherent time requirements of the case;
(b) the actions of the accused;
(c) the actions of the Crown;
(d) the limits on institutional resources;
(e) other reasons for delay; and
4. prejudice to the accused.
.
Morin set out the legal framework in which to consider a s. 11(b) application. Justice Sopinka summarized the general approach to be applied at page 787:
The general approach to a determination as to whether the right has been denied is not by the application of a mathematical or administrative formula but rather by a judicial determination balancing the interests which the section is designed to protect against factors which either inevitably lead to delay or are otherwise the cause of delay.
This approach to a s. 11(b) issue was reiterated in R. v. Godin, 2009 SCC 26 (CanLII), 2009 SCC 26:
[18] The legal framework for the appeal was set out by the Court in Morin, at pp. 786-89. Whether delay has been unreasonable is assessed by looking at the length of the delay, less any periods that have been waived by the defence, and then by taking into account the reasons for the delay, the prejudice to the accused, and the interests that s. 11(b) seeks to protect. This often and inevitably leads to minute examination of particular time periods and a host of factual questions concerning why certain delays occurred. It is important, however, not to lose sight of the forest for the trees while engaging in this detailed analysis.
The decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in R. v. Bains, 2010 BCCA 178 (CanLII), released online this week, emphasizes that prejudice must be considered – In Bains the other factors favored a stay but the stay was denied because prejudice was not established. The Court wrote:
4. Prejudice
[60] The Court in Morin stated that prejudice can be inferred from a prolonged delay. This statement was confirmed in Godin where the Court held that a 30-month delay, in the circumstances of that case, was unreasonable. In Godin, the Court summarized its earlier analysis of prejudice within the Morin framework as follows:
[30] Prejudice in this context is concerned with the three interests of the accused that s. 11(b) protects: liberty, as regards to pre-trial custody or bail conditions; security of the person, in the sense of being free from the stress and cloud of suspicion that accompanies a criminal charge; and the right to make full answer and defence, insofar as delay can prejudice the ability of the defendant to lead evidence, cross-examine witnesses, or otherwise to raise a defence. See Morin, at pp. 801-3.
[31] The question of prejudice cannot be considered separately from the length of the delay. As Sopinka J. wrote in Morin, at p. 801, even in the absence of specific evidence of prejudice, "prejudice may be inferred from the length of the delay. The longer the delay the more likely that such an inference will be drawn". Here, the delay exceeding the ordinary guidelines by a year or more, even though the case was straightforward. Furthermore, there was some evidence of actual prejudice and a reasonable inference of a risk of prejudice.
[61] While in this case it would have been better for the trial judge to have begun his analysis by recognizing that prejudice could be inferred from the length of the delay, that oversight could not, in my view, have changed the result. As was noted in Morin at 802, "[a]part ... from inferred prejudice, either party may rely on evidence to either show prejudice or dispel such a finding." Therefore, even where prejudice may be inferred, a court is not obliged to find that it existed if the inference would be inconsistent with the other evidence. Moreover, as part of the final balancing of interests, the court must examine the extent to which any prejudice, inferred or actual, has impacted the three interests protected by s. 11(b).
[62] Here, the appellant did not point to any evidence that might have demonstrated how the delay in fact prejudiced his ability to make full answer and defence. The appellant's liberty interest was impacted by the strict daily reporting provision for the first month of his judicial interim release and some prejudice can be inferred from that restriction. However, that prejudice was minimized when the term of his release was substantially relaxed to a monthly reporting provision for the remaining 44 months of the delay period. The appellant's security of the person interest was also affected by the delay. However, the prejudice from having a criminal charge outstanding is, in the absence of evidence, no more than the stress and cloud of suspicion that accompanies the laying of a criminal charge against any accused. It is the third interest, namely the risk of prejudice to the appellant's right to make full answer and defence that, in my view, distinguishes this case from the circumstances in Godin.
[63] Godin involved a 30-month delay between the date the accused was charged and the date set for trial. The accused was charged with sexual assault and the credibility of the complainant was the central issue. The Crown initially proceeded summarily and a trial date was set in provincial court to commence nine months after the accused was charged. Four days before the start of the trial, the Crown disclosed to the accused a forensic report that indicated the DNA sample taken from the complainant did not match that of the accused. No explanation was given for the late disclosure of the report. The Crown and defence agreed to have the Crown proceed with the charge by indictment to give the accused the opportunity to explore the complainant's evidence. A preliminary hearing date was set for a year later. No explanation was provided for the delay in setting that date. The trial occurred nine months after the preliminary inquiry. Five months before the trial, the accused brought a s. 11(b) application.
[64] The circumstances of this case were significantly different in terms of prejudice. Godin involved prejudice from the nature of the evidence which would likely deteriorate over time and from the late disclosure of exculpatory evidence. The nature of the evidence in this case was from authorized wiretap and search warrants that were in an enduring form. The passage of time would not have affected the reliability of the evidence, and if admissible, would likely result in a conviction.
[65] In short, the risk of prejudice to the appellant's right to make full answer and defence was minimal. While some prejudice can be inferred from the prolonged delay, it did not extend beyond what most accused individuals experience when faced with criminal proceedings. When examined in the context of the interests that s. 11(b) is meant to protect, there was minimal risk of prejudice to the appellant from the delay and the trial judge's finding of no actual prejudice has not been challenged in this appeal. That lack of actual prejudice, in these circumstances, undermines the appellant's claim of prejudice in support his alleged s. 11(b) Charter infringement.
[66] In balancing the interests of the appellant for a trial within a reasonable time and the interests of society to have a serious charge such as this one proceed to trial, I am not persuaded the trial judge erred in concluding that the interests of the latter outweighed the delay to the former. At the end of the day, it was actions of the co-accused that were the primary contributors to the delay before January 7, 2007. Thereafter, the delay was explained by the appellant's counsel's inability to schedule an earlier trial date.
[67] For the same reasons, I am not persuaded that the pre-charge delay of nine months prejudiced the appellant's ability to mount a defence or receive a fair trial, and therefore is not a relevant consideration in the s. 11(b) analysis. See R. v. Fagan (1999), 115 B.C.A.C. 106 at para. 32.
[68] In the result, I am not persuaded that the trial judge erred in finding that the delay was not unreasonable and that a judicial stay of proceedings was not warranted.
Attorney General's annual breakfast
Chris Bentley's annual breakfast at the National Club was a success. During his speech to the attendees the Attorney General spoke of the civil remedy of seizing proceeds of crime. He described the effect of the remedy on crime and allowing the seized assets to be used for other purposes.
Anti-Canadian jury bias
In Canada such checking is rare and normally limited only to cases involving visible minorities.
The concern is that the US system leads to cherry picked, as opposed to impartial, juries. It's the same issue as was raised with the Crown getting confidential records prior to trial in some cases here in Ontario. That said, if a juror really doesn't like, say, French, isn't it more fair to keep that juror out of a trial dealing with someone from Paris?
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Saskatchewan reaps the profits from Thatcher opus; killer turns over $5K
April 21, 2010 THE CANADIAN PRESS
REGINA - Convicted killer Colin Thatcher has turned over the money from his book about the murder of his former wife, ending a struggle that set the legal benchmark for laws preventing criminals from profiting from their crimes.
Justice Minister Don Morgan said the province has been given the $5,000 advance the former cabinet minister received, as well as a copy of a letter instructing his publisher to direct any further payments to the government.
"From a legal point of view it's over," Morgan said. "Now it's a matter of verifying the sales and the money."
The provincial government rushed last year to pass a law forbidding criminals from profiting from the retelling of their crimes after word surfaced that Thatcher had written a book, "Final Appeal: Anatomy of a Frame," in which he argued he was not guilty of murdering JoAnn Wilson in 1983.
Thatcher, son of former Saskatchewan premier Ross Thatcher, took the government to court, arguing the law didn't apply because his book is about his dealings with the justice system, not the murder itself. He also argued that the law was unconstitutional because it violated his freedom of expression.
Forum non conveniens
Collingwood Ethanol LLP v. Humblet Inc., 2010 ONSC 2132, released online today, gives a useful outline of the test for forum non conveniens:
[16] The applicable law is not in dispute. The existence of a more appropriate forum must be clearly established to displace the forum selected by the plaintiff.[ Unless the other forum is clearly more appropriate, a stay should not be granted.
[17] Like the decision to assume jurisdiction, the court's exercise of its discretion to decline jurisdiction on the basis of forum non conveniens must also be guided by the requirements of order and fairness, not a mechanical counting of contacts or connections.
[18] The following factors have traditionally been considered by the courts when determining convenient or appropriate forum:
(a) The location of the majority of the parties: Here the plaintiff is in
(b) The location of key witnesses and evidence: CE has seven key witnesses who either live in
(c) The applicable law and its weight in comparison to the factual questions to be decided: The applicable law is not Swiss law as set out in the agreement between Humblet and SG. The plaintiff is not privy to this agreement. The plaintiff's primary claim, or at least the one that clearly provides for
(d) The avoidance of a multiplicity of proceedings: I agree with CE's submission that a multiplicity of proceedings would only result if the Sulzer defendants were successful on this motion. There are no presently no other proceedings pending between the parties. The best way to avoid having one action in Ontario against the Humblet defendants and then another in Switzerland and perhaps a third in Germany to deal with CE's claim and Humblet's cross-claim against SG and the latter's possible cross-claim back against Humblet, is to conclude on the basis of overall order and fairness that all of these matters should be resolved at one time and in one place. Advantage:
(e) Geographical factors suggesting the natural forum: Both sides agree that the natural forum is
(f) Whether declining jurisdiction would deprive the plaintiff of a legitimate juridical advantage available in the domestic court: There is no evidence that the plaintiff would be deprived of a juridical advantage if it had to proceed in
[19] As I have already noted, the forum non conveniens analysis does not depend on a mechanical counting of the factors for and against. The overarching concern is overall order and fairness. Nonetheless, the six factors discussed above provide some guidance about which forum on balance is more appropriate.
Bike lanes on University - potential for legal liability for City of Toronto?
Consider this, University Avenue is "hospital row" for Toronto. The new bike lanes will, inevitably, slow traffic. What about someone who was in an ambulance that was delayed and suffered injury because of the delay? Could the City be liable for the damages?
The City knew their decision would slow traffic. The City could easily see that decision would cause delay. The plethora of hospitals with emergency rooms make it obvious that extra delay could cause injury.
Now, maybe the damages are too remote (doubt that) or that the policy choice is a justification (legally possible) but there is an argument -- I just hope no one ever needs make it!
Wilful blindness is no defence
James Morton, National Post
Wednesday, Apr. 21, 2010
Five years ago, 13-year-old Nina Courtepatte's body was found on a golf course just outside Edmonton. She had been gang raped and bludgeoned with a hammer, and had her throat slit. Five people, three men and two women, were involved in the killing; three of those were juveniles. The killing was planned, deliberate and committed for sport -- it is hard to imagine a more dreadful crime.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
MP Garry Breitkreuz is a Liberal Party sleeper -- he just has to be...
OTTAWA - A Conservative MP has issued a news release comparing Canadian police chiefs to a cult and suggesting Liberals should physically assault their leader, Michael Ignatieff.
“The documents will be given to your counsel when they are good and ready,” Justice Department lawyer Alain Prefontaine told the complaint commission
If the story is reported correctly it is shocking -- to tell a quasi-judicial officer to pound sand (to use the polite form) is not something you expect in a mature democratic state.
Reasonable and probable grounds defined
R. v. Lapensee, 2010 ONSC 2171, released this week, has a good summary of the law regarding reasonable and probable grounds. This case deals with a drinking and driving matter but the definition is broad enough to use in other areas:
39. Reasonable and probable grounds has been described as "credibly based probability-reasonable probability": The Queen v. Baron et al 1993 CanLII 154 (S.C.C.), (1993), 78 C.C.C. (3rd) 510 (S.C.C.) at 531-2 per Sopinka J. It has also been stated that reasonable and probable grounds "does not amount to proof beyond a reasonable doubt": Proulx v. Quebec (A.G.), [2001] S.C.J. No.65 at para, 151,206 per L'Heureux-Dube J. In Regina v. Simpson 1993 CanLII 3379 (ON C.A.), (1993), 79 C.C.C. (3rd) 482 (Ont.
40. In determining whether certain facts can properly be considered in forming a belief that reasonable and probable grounds exist, the courts have provided some guidance. In R. v. Stellato (1993), O.J. no. 18 (Ont.C.A.), confirmed 1994 CanLII 94 (S.C.C.), (1994) 90 C.C.C. (3rd) 160 (S.C.C.), the court held that Impaired driving does not require marked impairment but simply requires impairment, even of a slight degree. (para.14) A fortiari, a police officer need only have a subjective belief of a slight degree of impairment to make a demand under section 254 (3) of the Criminal Code. In R. v. Hall, supra at para. 20-21 the court held that information leading the officer to believe the subject is lying is a factor which can be taken into consideration in determining whether or not reasonable and probable grounds exist. Also, in R. v. Hall, supra (at para. 18) and at R v. Censoni, supra (at para. 36-42) the court held that an officer can draw on his knowledge and experience in forming his subjective belief.
41. The test for determining whether an arresting officer has reasonable and probable grounds has both a subjective and an objective component.
42. I must determine firstly whether Constable MacKnight was acting in good faith, and in so doing subjectively believed that Mr. Lapensee was driving while impaired.
43. Secondly, I must also determine whether a reasonable person in the situation of the officer would, on an objective analysis, also reach that conclusion; R.v. Storrey, 1990 CanLII 125 (S.C.C.), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241 at para. 17.
Mental health/criminal justice and man shot to death
http://tinyurl.com/y5zqrvj
Man shot dead in police confrontation
April 19, 2010
Henry Stance and Katie Daubs
Staff Reporters
A Mississauga father of two, who was shot to death by police in Toronto's Port Lands area early Monday, was coping with a mental illness and struggling to get his family life in order, according to people who knew him.
Wieslaw Duda died in a hail of bullets on Commissioners St. near Cherry St. when police tried to stop a compact car that had sped away from other officers following a brief chase at 1 a.m. Monday. The Special Investigations Unit, the provincial police watchdog, is investigating because the victim was shot to death during a confrontation with police.
Monday, April 19, 2010
TTC drivers and patrons -- like scorpions in a bottle
Here's the real problem. The TTC is a system built for a city of a million and it is dealing with a city of double or triple that. TTC workers become disheartened because they face an impossible task -- riders become unhappy because the system doesn't move them reliably with a modicum of comfort. So everyone snaps at each other like scorpions in a bottle.
What we need it to increase the density of subway lines so that using the subway is practical everywhere in Toronto. But that's not feasible financially (it was possible in the 1960s but that's history). So what is to be done? Bike lanes isn't the answer. More buses won't work -- the streets are too crowded anyway. Streetcars are problematic -- look at the mess on St Clair.
The best I can think of is to try to move, long term, towards residential/business hubs. In North York, for example, the burst of condominiums on Yonge coincide with office towers and employment -- many workers can walk to work.
Over a twenty year period this can help but for now all we can do is suffer the harm caused by a lack of foresight and urban planning 40 years ago.
TTC complaints reveal a culture of disdain
April 19, 2010
Robyn Doolittle
Urban Affairs Bureau
A driver who refuses to move the bus because a baby is crying on board. A streetcar operator referred to by at least one rider as the "Blonde Dragon." A toll collector who calls a customer "brain dead" when asked for change.
On Monday, the TTC released hundreds of customer complaints to the Star through a freedom of information request.
Page after page, the stories are similar: Drivers throwing tantrums when people don't shuffle to the back fast enough. Collectors doing crosswords while ignoring customer questions. Drivers shouting at riders and swearing at passing cars.
It seems poor people skills, not delays or fare disputes, are the main concern for transit customers.
Riders say they are verbally abused and harassed by TTC staff on a daily basis. In the most extreme of allegations, some claim to have been victims of sexual advances and racism.
Extramarital sex causes more earthquakes, Iranian cleric claims
http://tinyurl.com/y5cfb6d
Attractive women who wear makeup, snub traditional Islamic attire and dress "inappropriately" incite extramarital sex, which causes more earthquakes, a hard-line Iranian cleric has claimed.
Ayatollah Kazem Sedighitold was reported by an Iranian newspaper saying recently that these women are to blame for the country's calamities, the U.K.'s Daily Telegraph reports:
"Many women who dress inappropriately ... cause youths to go astray, taint their chastity and incite extramarital sex in society, which increases earthquakes ... We have no way but conform to Islam to ward off dangers."
The Islamic dress code is mandatory in Iran, which is prone to quakes because it is bounded by several faultlines. The dress code says post-pubescent women, regardless of religion or nationality, must cover their hair and bodily contours in public.
The last serious earthquake in Iran happened in 2003 and killed more than 31,000 people. Experts have warned that a strong quake in Tehran could kill hundreds of thousands of people.
Plea negotiations are generally privileged
[28] We pause to note that plea negotiations are generally privileged in the sense that the information disclosed will not be used against the accused, although there may be exceptions: R. v. Bernardo, [1994] O.J. No. 1718 (S.C.). It may be that an exception applies where the negotiations are adduced to rebut an allegation of prejudice at the hands of the Crown. However, we make no further comment as this issue was not addressed by either party.
Tighter rules for sex-offender pardons coming
Let's see what the legislation says -- I'd lay odds it will be broader than just sex offences.
OTTAWA — A new bill to crack down on sex-offender pardons will be tabled in Parliament sometime this year and possibly before next fall, says Public Safety Minister Vic Toews.
Ash forces St John's to cancel flights
Denise Balkissoon
Staff Reporter
Falling ash that may be headed for Newfoundland from an erupting Icelandic volcano has resulted in the cancellation of many Monday morning flights out of St John's, after Transport Canada and Nav Canada determined there's a good chance the plume is beginning to touch Canadian skies
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Text of pastoral letter on sexual abuse scandal as read in Toronto
Full text of letter here:
http://tinyurl.com/yylzm3t
Penal statutes and their interpretation
The traditional view that penal statutes are to be strictly construed has slowly been eroded. It is fair to say that the principle is now not so much law as recognition that where jail is possible, there should be an inclination where there is ambiguity to the less penal interpretation. Friday's Court of Appeal decision in
R. v. Sansalone, 2010 ONCA 281 (http://tinyurl.com/y3ceq6y) is consistent with this view:
[22] In my view, the question on this appeal turns on an exercise of statutory interpretation.
[23] The traditional rule for interpreting penal statutes requires strict construction, wherein any ambiguity is resolved in favour of the defendant. However, as Cory J. noted at para. 30 of R v. Hasselwander, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 398, "even with penal statutes, the real intention of the legislature must be sought, and the meaning compatible with its goals applied."
Whither Vatican leadership?
VATICAN CITY - When countries are threatened or institutions are in trouble, they look to their leaders to show the way out of the crisis.
The Vatican is in trouble, its moral authority sapped by mounting allegations of sexual abuse of children by priests in the past and cover ups by bishops supervising them.
But strong leadership from the headquarters of the Roman Catholic Church is hard to discern. Pope Benedict rarely mentions the crisis and some aides have made things worse with comments that are mostly defensive and sometimes offend.
Catholic leaders argue the Church is not like secular bodies such as governments or companies, which is true. But it does live in the world and is judged by its legal standards when clergy commit crimes or the hierarchy covers them up.
http://tinyurl.com/y5lqz3l
Guergis scandal gives Tories reason to worry
Guergis scandal gives Tories reason to worry
http://tinyurl.com/y2r8c58
April 18, 2010
Bruce Campion-Smith
Ottawa Bureau chief
OTTAWA–Stephen Harper knows well the damage a scandal can do to a political party – one could argue he's in power because of it.
Having seen the Liberals dragged down by their sponsorship scandal, the Prime Minister understands how the toxic brew of a political furor and a disenchanted electorate can chase a party from power.