Case of Sutton's Hospital, 10 Rep. 32
Reading some passages from Sir Edward Coke (1552–1634) -- what else does one do on a Friday evening? -- I ran across the passage above.
And found it an interesting observation.
Coke's point was that a corporation cannot form specific intent and cannot suffer a corporal or spiritual punishment. In that he is right.
Now, by way of legal fiction, modern law transfers to the corporation the mind of those directing it thus allowing a corporation to "compass the death of Her Majesty" and so commit treason. (Or, far more likely, to commit murder).
Corporate crime is generally a result of a legal fiction -- put otherwise, corporations are inanimate tools and their actions are not their own, rather their actions are those of the directing minds.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Why do mothers die?
WHO:
Women die from a wide range of complications in pregnancy, childbirth or the postpartum period. Most of these complications develop because of their pregnant status and some because pregnancy aggravated an existing disease. The four major killers are: severe bleeding (mostly bleeding postpartum), infections (also mostly soon after delivery), hypertensive disorders in pregnancy (eclampsia) and obstructed labour. Complications after unsafe abortion cause 13% of maternal deaths. Globally, about 80% of maternal deaths are due to these causes. Among the indirect causes (20%) of maternal death are diseases that complicate pregnancy or are aggravated by pregnancy, such as malaria, anaemia and HIV. Women also die because of poor health at conception and a lack of adequate care needed for the healthy outcome of the pregnancy for themselves and their babies.
The courts will respect a promise of confidentiality given to a secret source by a journalist but only to a limited degree
R. v. National Post, 2010 SCC 16 was released this morning. A summary follows:
The National Post employed M as a journalist. M investigated whether C, then Prime Minister of Canada, was improperly involved with a loan from a federally funded bank to a hotel in C's riding which allegedly owed a debt to C's family investment company. X, a secret source, provided M with relevant information in exchange for a blanket, unconditional promise of confidentiality. In 2001, M received a sealed envelope in the mail that contained a document which appeared to be the bank's authorization of its loan to the hotel. If genuine, it could show that C had a conflict of interest in relation to the loan. M faxed copies of the document to the bank, to the Prime Minister's office, and to a lawyer for the Prime Minister. All three said that the document was a forgery. Shortly thereafter, X met M. X described receiving the document anonymously in the mail, discarding the original envelope, and passing the document on to M in the belief that it was genuine. M was satisfied that X was a reliable source who did not believe that the document was a forgery when he or she forwarded it to M. X feared that fingerprint or DNA analysis might reveal his or her identity and asked M to destroy the document and the envelope. M refused but told X that his undertaking of confidentiality would remain binding as long as he believed that X had not deliberately misled him.
The bank complained to the RCMP and an officer asked the appellants to produce the document and the envelope as physical evidence of the alleged crimes i.e. the forgery itself and the "uttering" (or putting into circulation) of the doctored bank records. They refused and M declined to identify his source.
The officer applied for a search warrant and an assistance order compelling M's editor to assist the police in locating the document and the envelope. He intended to submit them for forensic testing to determine if they carried fingerprints or other identifying markings (including DNA) which might assist in identifying the source of the document. Although the Crown informed the judge that the National Post had requested notification of the application, the hearing proceeded ex parte and a search warrant and an assistance order were issued.
The warrant and the order provided the appellants with one month before the RCMP could search the National Post's premises and included other terms intended to accommodate the needs of the National Post as a media entity. The appellants applied to quash the warrant and assistance order. The reviewing judge held that there was sufficient information to conclude the document was a forgery but that there was only a remote and speculative possibility that disclosure of the document and the envelope would advance a criminal investigation. She set aside the search warrant and the assistance order. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision and reinstated the search warrant and the assistance order. In this Court, the appellants and supporting interveners argued that the warrant and the order should be quashed because they infringe s. 2(b) or s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or because the secret sources are protected by the common law of privilege.
Held (Abella J. dissenting): The appeal should be dismissed.
Per McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, Deschamps, Fish, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.: It is well established that freedom of expression protects readers and listeners as well as writers and speakers. It is in the context of the public right to information about matters of public interest that the legal position of the confidential source or whistleblower must be located. The public has an interest in effective law enforcement. The public also has an interest in being informed about matters of public importance that may only see the light of day through the cooperation of sources who will not speak except on condition of confidentiality. The role of investigative journalism has expanded over the years to help fill what has been described as a democratic deficit in the transparency and accountability of our public institutions. There is a demonstrated need, as well, to shine the light of public scrutiny on the dark corners of some private institutions. The appellants and their expert witnesses make a convincing case that unless the media can offer anonymity in situations where sources would otherwise dry‑up, freedom of expression in debate on matters of public interest would be badly compromised. Important stories will be left untold, and the transparency and accountability of our public institutions will be lessened to the public detriment.
In appropriate circumstances, accordingly, the courts will respect a promise of confidentiality given to a secret source by a journalist or an editor. The public's interest in being informed about matters that might only be revealed by secret sources, however, is not absolute. It must be balanced against other important public interests, including the investigation of crime. In some situations, the public's interest in protecting a secret source from disclosure may be outweighed by other competing public interests and a promise of confidentiality will not in such cases justify the suppression of the evidence.
This case involves an attempt by person(s) unknown to dupe the appellants into publishing a document which, on its face, implicated a former Prime Minister of Canada in a serious financial conflict of interest. The appellants were unable to confirm the document's authenticity and the police have reasonable grounds to believe that the document is a forgery. The document and envelope that came into M's possession constitute physical evidence reasonably linked to a serious crime. The police seek to subject this material to forensic analysis. A search to retrieve the physical instrumentality by which the offence was allegedly committed would likely satisfy the test in s. 487 of the Criminal Code, even if (as the reviewing judge predicted) forensic analysis of the document and the envelope do not shed light on the identity of the offender. The document and the envelope are not merely pieces of evidence tending to show that a crime has been committed. They constitute the actus
Freedom to publish the news necessarily involves a freedom to gather the news, but each of the many important news gathering techniques, including reliance on secret sources, should not itself be regarded as entrenched in the Constitution. The protection attaching to freedom of expression is not limited to the "mainstream media", but is enjoyed by "everyone" (in the words of s. 2(b) of the Charter) who chooses to exercise his or her freedom of expression on matters of public interest. To throw a constitutional immunity around the interactions of such a heterogeneous and ill‑defined group of writers and speakers and whichever "sources" they deem worthy of a promise of confidentiality and on whatever terms they may choose to offer it (or, as here, choose to amend it with the benefit of hindsight) would blow a giant hole in law enforcement and other constitutionally recognized values such as privacy. The law needs to provide solid protection against the compelled disclosure of secret sources in appropriate situations, but the history of journalism in this country shows that the purpose of s. 2(b) can be fulfilled without the necessity of implying a constitutional immunity. Accordingly, a judicial order to compel disclosure of a secret source in accordance with the principles of common law privilege would not in general violate s. 2(b).
Although the common law does not recognize a class privilege protecting journalists from compelled disclosure of secret sources, a journalist's claim for protection of secret sources can be assessed properly using the case‑by‑case model of privilege. The Wigmore criteria provide a workable structure within which to assess, in light of society's evolving values, the sometimes‑competing interests of free expression and the administration of justice and other values that promote the public interest. This will provide the necessary flexibility and an opportunity for growth that is essential to the proper function of the common law.
The scope of the privilege will depend, as does its very existence, on a case‑by‑case analysis, and may be total or partial. It is capable, in a proper case, of being asserted against the issuance or execution of a search warrant. A promise of confidentiality will be respected if: the communication originates in a confidence that the identity of the informant will not be disclosed; the confidence is essential to the relationship in which the communication arises; the relationship is one which should be sedulously fostered in the public good; and the public interest in protecting the identity of the informant from disclosure outweighs the public interest in getting at the truth. This approach properly reflects Charter values and balances the competing public interests in a context‑specific manner.
The media party asking the court to uphold a promise of confidentiality must prove all four criteria and no burden of proof shifts to the Crown. This includes, under the fourth criterion, proving that the public interest in protecting a secret source outweighs the public interest in a criminal investigation. The weighing up under this criterion will also include the nature and seriousness of the offence under investigation, and the probative value of the evidence sought to be obtained measured against the public interest in respecting the journalist's promise of confidentiality. The underlying purpose of the investigation is relevant as well. Until the media have met all four criteria, no privilege arises and the evidence is presumptively compellable and admissible. Therefore, no journalist can give a secret source an absolute assurance of confidentiality.
In this case, the first three of the four criteria are met. The communication originated in confidence and neither the journalist‑source relationship nor the communication would have occurred without confidentiality. This type of journalist‑source relationship ought to be sedulously fostered given the importance of investigative journalism exploring potential conflicts of interest at the highest levels of government. The appellants, however, have failed to establish the fourth criterion. The alleged offences are of sufficient seriousness to justify the decision of the police to investigate the criminal allegations. The physical evidence is essential to the police investigation and likely essential as well to any future prosecution. While it is appropriate under this criterion to assess the likely probative value of the evidence sought, the reviewing judge ought not to have pre‑empted the forensic investigation by seemingly prejudging the outcome without first considering all the relevant factors in her assessment. DNA analysis is capable of producing results even under exceptionally unpromising circumstances. The police should not be prevented from pursuing well‑established modes of forensic analysis of relevant physical evidence on the basis that in the end such analysis may prove to be unsuccessful.
The argument that there is a "fatal disconnect between the envelope, the document, the identity of X and the alleged forgery" hinges on the credibility of X's story that he or she was not the perpetrator of the forgery, but an innocent recipient, who passed it on to M in good faith. However a denial of criminal involvement is not a sufficient ground to put an end to a serious criminal investigation, even where the intermediate (though not the ultimate) intended victim of the alleged crime happens to be a media organization. The police need not accept X's anonymous, uncorroborated and self‑exculpatory statements to a third party (M) as a reason to terminate their investigation of the physical evidence any more than they need accept the disclaimers of any other potential witness to a crime, especially when the witness may also be the perpetrator.
The media's ss. 2(b) and 8 Charter interests are clearly implicated when the police seek to seize documents in their possession. Even where no privilege is found to exist, warrants and assistance orders against the media must take into account their "special position" and be reasonable in the "totality of circumstances". It is not sufficient for the Crown merely to establish that the requirements set out in ss. 487.01 and 487.02 of the Criminal Code were met. In this case the conditions governing the search ensured that the media organization would not be unduly impeded by a physical search in the publishing or dissemination of the news. The order contained the usual clause directing that any documents seized be sealed on request. The police had reasonable grounds to believe that criminal offences had been committed and that relevant information would be obtained. The search warrant was reasonable within the meaning of s. 8 of the Charter.
On the facts of this case, the ex parte nature of the issuing judge's order is not a ground for setting the warrant aside. There is no jurisdictional requirement to give notice to a media entity of an application for a warrant to search its premises. The media should have an opportunity to argue against a warrant at the earliest reasonable opportunity, but whether and when to provide prior notice remain matters of judicial discretion. Where, as here, a court proceeds ex parte, adequate terms must be inserted in the warrant to protect the special position of the media, and to permit the media ample time and opportunity to challenge the warrant.
In this case, the issuing judge was aware that the secret source issue lay at the heart of the controversy, and the appellants' position was fully protected by the terms of the warrant. They have not demonstrated any prejudice on that account. The assistance order also was reasonable. Given the concerted action between M and his editor, it was appropriate to enlist the editor's assistance in locating and producing the concealed documents.
Accordingly, the warrant and assistance order were properly issued and must be complied with even if the result is to disclose the identity of the secret source who, the police have reasonable cause to believe, uttered (and may indeed have created) a forged document.
Per LeBel J.: Claims of journalist‑source privilege should be resolved on a case‑by‑case basis applying the Wigmore criteria, and there is agreement with the majority's weighing of the relevant rights and interests under the fourth criterion of the analysis.
There is agreement with Abella J. that when an application for a search warrant is made against a media organization, there is a presumptive requirement to give notice of the application to the affected organization. The media play a key role in disseminating information and triggering debate on public issues. The process of applying for search warrants should be sensitive to the need to prevent undue or overly intrusive interference in media operations and affected media organizations should be able to raise their concerns at the first opportunity. The requirement to give notice may be waived in urgent situations, in which case the issuing judge should craft conditions to limit interference with the media organization's operations. In this case, since the lack of notice did not make the search unreasonable and the issuing judge proceeded on the basis of established law, the search warrant should not be quashed.
Per Abella J. (dissenting): Journalist‑source privilege should be assessed on a case‑by‑case basis. The balancing of the interests of the press against other societal interests, such as crime prevention, prosecution and investigation, should be done in accordance with the four Wigmore criteria, infused with Charter values. In this case, the search warrant and assistance order should be quashed. The criteria are met, including the fourth criterion, which requires the claimant to demonstrate that the injury that would inure to the relationship by the disclosure of the communications is greater than the benefit thereby gained for the correct disposal of the litigation. The harm caused by the disclosure of the identity of the confidential source in this case is far weightier on the scales than any benefit to the investigation of the crime.
The media's role in disseminating information is pivotal in its contribution to public debate, and the use of confidential sources can be an integral part of the responsible gathering of the news and the communication of matters of public interest. Several jurisdictions have already recognized the importance of confidential sources by granting, legislatively or judicially, some form of qualified privilege to journalists. The chilling effect that could result from the compelled exposure of confidential journalistic sources also cannot be ignored. In the case before us, X's confidentiality was crucial to M's ability to write on a subject of public interest. M had prior positive experiences with X where he had been able to confirm the authenticity of information provided by X via an intermediary. He also took steps to assure himself of X's credibility and integrity in connection with the latest document by asking for a confidential affidavit and telling X that his/her confidentiality would only be protected if M were satisfied that he was not being misled. Where a journalist has taken credible and reasonable steps to determine the authenticity and reliability of a source, one should respect his or her professional judgment and pause before trespassing on the confidentiality which is the source of the relationship. In this case, demonstrable and profound injury to the journalist/source relationship will result from disclosure of the documents and potentially of the identity of the source.
On the other side of the balancing exercise, the benefits of disclosure range from speculative to negligible. While it is undisputed that the investigation of crime is an important public objective, the evidence sought by the state is of only questionable assistance in this case. The police hoped to find DNA and fingerprint evidence on the envelope and the document which they thought might reveal the identity of the source of the alleged forgery. However, there is a fatal disconnect between the envelope, the document, the identity of X and the alleged forgery. X received the document anonymously and discarded the original envelope in which he/she received the document. Since X does not know the identity of the sender, learning X's identity will yield virtually no evidence that could assist in determining who was responsible for the alleged forgery. Moreover, the more documents are manipulated, the less likely the chances of obtaining fingerprints. Both the document and the envelope had been extensively handled. X is therefore in no position to provide any information of assistance to the investigation and is, in any event, under no legal obligation to speak to the police. The benefit to the forgery investigation of getting the documents is, therefore, at best marginal. The only remaining purpose for learning the confidential source's identity is to discover who created this public controversy. This by itself is not an acceptable basis for interfering with freedom of the press. Lastly, the remote possibility of resolving the debt forgery — a crime of moderate seriousness — is far from sufficiently significant to outweigh the public benefit in protecting a rigorously thorough and responsible press.
A search warrant of media premises is a particularly serious intrusion, and a decision should not be made about its propriety without submissions from the party most affected. The operating presumption should be that the media's unique institutional character entitles it to notice when a search warrant is sought against it unless there are urgent circumstances justifying an ex parte hearing. No such notice was given to the National Post and there was no such urgency. It therefore lost the opportunity to make timely submissions on the confidential nature of the source and the serious informational gaps in the Information to Obtain. Had the fuller record and their arguments been known, the outcome of the hearing might have been different.
Tough on Crime but on the Provincial Dime
The cost of new Federal crime legislation is high, much higher that previously announced. Bill C-25, limiting the credit offenders receive for pre-trial custody was supposed to cost around $90 million. The actual cost, the government now admits, is in the $2 billion range.
Legislation that increases Canada’s inmate population is, inevitably, costly.
Among various criminal law reforms, the Federal government is bringing back a bill that would impose mandatory minimum sentences on people convicted of growing small numbers of marihuana plants. Justice Minister Rob Nicholson suggested that the new legislation will include a mandatory six month sentence for people convicted of growing as few as five marijuana plants.
Last year I testified before the Senate on an earlier version on this legislation. I argued that mandatory jail should not apply to drug offenders who grow marihuana for personal, as opposed to commercial, use. I also pointed out that a serious issue raised by this proposal relates to who would pay for the increase in prisons and their inmates.
Canada’s federal system provides for both federal and provincial prisons. Surprisingly, perhaps, the division between the federal and provincial system is not based on who breached what laws (say provincial offenders going to provincial jails) but rather on the length of sentence. Anyone held pending a trial or sentenced to less than two years in custody goes to a provincial jail; longer sentences are served in a federal institution.
Another aspect of Canada’s federal system is that all criminal law is set by the federal government. Hence, a federal legislative change that increases the number of offenders sentenced to six month custody – as with the proposed marihuana law – sends offenders to jails paid for by the provinces.
As mentioned above, changes to the bail system have limited the credit to be given for pretrial custody. The result of this change will be to expand the number of people sentenced to jail following conviction and to lengthen the time they serve once convicted. This increase Federal costs somewhat but since most accused ultimately serve less than two years the changes serve mainly to increase the number of people in provincial custody.
More generally, “tough on crime” policies have had the effect of increasing pretrial custody – bail is more difficult to obtain. Correctional facilities in the provinces are experiencing ever-increasing numbers of accused being held in pretrial custody, to the point where the population in awaiting trial now exceeds the population in sentenced custody. Ignoring the fact that those awaiting trial are still presumed innocent and so the increase in numbers in problematic, all those awaiting trial are doing so in provincial institutions paid for by the provinces.
We know the cost of crime bills is high – several American states have started releasing low level drug offenders (the sort the federal government proposes to put in jail in Canada) to save money. What is less often realized is that the bulk of these new costs come out of Provincial coffers. Federal changes impose costs on cash strapped Provinces who will have to find cuts in education, healthcare or somewhere in order to put potheads in prison.
My own view is that much of the recent “tough on crime” legislation is wrongheaded There are more effective and cheaper ways to deal with crime than a reflexive imposition of prison. Regardless, the true costs of crime legislation, who will pay and how such payment will affect other programs must be acknowledged.
Crime doesn’t pay – but the taxpayer will.
Legislation that increases Canada’s inmate population is, inevitably, costly.
Among various criminal law reforms, the Federal government is bringing back a bill that would impose mandatory minimum sentences on people convicted of growing small numbers of marihuana plants. Justice Minister Rob Nicholson suggested that the new legislation will include a mandatory six month sentence for people convicted of growing as few as five marijuana plants.
Last year I testified before the Senate on an earlier version on this legislation. I argued that mandatory jail should not apply to drug offenders who grow marihuana for personal, as opposed to commercial, use. I also pointed out that a serious issue raised by this proposal relates to who would pay for the increase in prisons and their inmates.
Canada’s federal system provides for both federal and provincial prisons. Surprisingly, perhaps, the division between the federal and provincial system is not based on who breached what laws (say provincial offenders going to provincial jails) but rather on the length of sentence. Anyone held pending a trial or sentenced to less than two years in custody goes to a provincial jail; longer sentences are served in a federal institution.
Another aspect of Canada’s federal system is that all criminal law is set by the federal government. Hence, a federal legislative change that increases the number of offenders sentenced to six month custody – as with the proposed marihuana law – sends offenders to jails paid for by the provinces.
As mentioned above, changes to the bail system have limited the credit to be given for pretrial custody. The result of this change will be to expand the number of people sentenced to jail following conviction and to lengthen the time they serve once convicted. This increase Federal costs somewhat but since most accused ultimately serve less than two years the changes serve mainly to increase the number of people in provincial custody.
More generally, “tough on crime” policies have had the effect of increasing pretrial custody – bail is more difficult to obtain. Correctional facilities in the provinces are experiencing ever-increasing numbers of accused being held in pretrial custody, to the point where the population in awaiting trial now exceeds the population in sentenced custody. Ignoring the fact that those awaiting trial are still presumed innocent and so the increase in numbers in problematic, all those awaiting trial are doing so in provincial institutions paid for by the provinces.
We know the cost of crime bills is high – several American states have started releasing low level drug offenders (the sort the federal government proposes to put in jail in Canada) to save money. What is less often realized is that the bulk of these new costs come out of Provincial coffers. Federal changes impose costs on cash strapped Provinces who will have to find cuts in education, healthcare or somewhere in order to put potheads in prison.
My own view is that much of the recent “tough on crime” legislation is wrongheaded There are more effective and cheaper ways to deal with crime than a reflexive imposition of prison. Regardless, the true costs of crime legislation, who will pay and how such payment will affect other programs must be acknowledged.
Crime doesn’t pay – but the taxpayer will.
Employment increased in April
Good news -- I'd like to see the breakdown between full-time and part-time work but no question this shows the economy moving the right way:
Latest release from the Labour Force Survey
Employment increased by 109,000 in April, the largest monthly gain in percentage terms since August 2002. The unemployment rate edged down 0.1 percentage points in April to 8.1%, as more people participated in the labour market.
Latest release from the Labour Force Survey
Employment increased by 109,000 in April, the largest monthly gain in percentage terms since August 2002. The unemployment rate edged down 0.1 percentage points in April to 8.1%, as more people participated in the labour market.
Ekos Poll - Conservatives doing well
The Conservatives 33.1 percent, up from 31.9 percent last week; Liberals fell to 26.1 percent from 26.6 percent.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Serious issues voting in UK elections: from BBC blogsite
002: BBC News website readers have been telling us about their problems voting. Graham Williams writes: "When I finally got inside the building to vote I along with at least 50 other people where informed that we would not be able to vote as the poll would close at 10pm" and custardpowder, who lives in Nick Clegg's constituency writes: "As I eventually got to the table a student was almost in tears as she thought I was going to take her place and she told me she had queued for two and a half hours!"
0000: In Chester, a marginal seat, Labour is claiming that more than 600 people were turned away when they tried to vote because the list of voters hadn't been updated, so their names weren't there.
Helena Guergis decries Conservative 'retaliation'
Independent MP Helena Guergis is accusing the Conservative establishment of overriding grassroots democracy by preventing her from running under the party’s banner in the next election.
In a statement to the media Thursday, Ms. Guergis denounced the fact she has not had an opportunity to clear her name before losing the CPC nomination in her
Meaningful decision for review on appeal
Sometimes Supreme Court of Canada majority decisions are not very helpful. Today’s majority reasons in R. v. Szczerbaniwicz, 2010 SCC 15 say very little but the dissent has an interesting discussion of when reasons are sufficient for appeal purposes. The majority’s brief comment, on this issue, in dismissing the appeal is:
In the absence of any palpable and overriding error in his appreciation of them, it is not open to an appellate court to sift selectively through the record and substitute its own narrative and outcome: R. v. R.E.M., 2008 SCC 51, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3, at para. 56. Seeing no error either in the trial judge’s appreciation of the facts or in his application of the relevant law, a majority in the appeal court dismissed the husband’s appeal. Based on the record and the trial judge’s reasons, I agree with this disposition.
The dissent is far more detailed and while it is of limited use (being the dissent) it is worth taking a moment to read:
[32] If “the deficiencies in the reasons prevent meaningful appellate review of the correctness of the decision” then reversible error may result (R. v. Sheppard, 2002 SCC 26, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869, at para. 28). This is precisely the difficulty here identified by the appellant’s counsel:
. . . my friend [the Crown] has said that there were alternatives and that the trial judge had these in mind, that a person could be moved with greater or lesser levels of force and he should not have pushed her that hard. The problem is that the trial judge didn’t say anything about this. This is an area that is not covered at all in the judgment and that Justice Lutfy [dissenting in the court below] focussed on; that he [the military judge] didn’t address the circumstances of the encounter on the stairs, that’s the problem, and that’s why the alternatives were not canvassed at all.
(Transcript, at p. 43 (emphasis added))
[33] Section 39(1) is intended to protect individuals who act in defence of their personal property provided they use no more force than is reasonably “necessary”. What is necessary must not be disproportionate to the injury or harm it is intended to prevent. The accused must have a subjective belief of the necessity, and the belief must be based on reasonable grounds: R. v. Weare (1983), 56 N.S.R. (2d) 411 (C.A.), at paras. 16-18, and R. v. Little (1998), 122 C.C.C. (3d) 364 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 14.
[34] Of course, the appellant’s use of force against Mrs. Szczerbaniwicz was both morally objectionable and deeply unfortunate, as was fully recognized in retrospect by the appellant himself, but the issue here is one of criminality. The law says that the appellant was entitled to go to the defence of his property. The legal question before the military judge was whether the appellant was justified under s. 39(1) in using the measure of force that he did.
[35] The prosecution accepts that the appellant was acting in defence of property that was of considerable sentimental importance to him, as Mrs. Szczerbaniwicz fully appreciated at the time. The cases are clear that in these sort of “quick response” situations an accused is not expected to “weigh to a nicety” the exact measure of a defensive action or to stop and reflect upon the precise risk of consequences from such action: R. v. Baxter (1975), 27 C.C.C. 2d 96 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 111; R. v. Kandola (1993), 80 C.C.C. (3d) 481 (B.C.C.A.), at pp. 489-90, citing Palmer v. The Queen (1971), 55 Cr. App. R. 223 (P.C.), at p. 242. The principle is of long standing: R. v. Ogal (1928), 50 C.C.C. 71 (Alta. S.C., App. Div.); R. v. Preston (1953), 106 C.C.C. 135 (B.C.C.A.), at p. 140, and R. v. Antley, [1964] 2 C.C.C. 142 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 147.
…
[37] In his reasons, the military judge did cover what R.E.M. labels the “what” of the case, i.e. the finding that the use of force was excessive, but he was required by the jurisprudence to go further and describe the “why” he reached the conclusion that he did:
These purposes are fulfilled if the reasons, read in context, show why the judge decided as he or she did. The object is not to show how the judge arrived at his or her conclusion, in a “watch me think” fashion. It is rather to show why the judge made that decision. . . . Doherty J.A. in Morrissey, at p. 525, puts it this way: “In giving reasons for judgment, the trial judge is attempting to tell the parties what he or she has decided and why he or she made that decision” (emphasis added). What is required is a logical connection between the “what” — the verdict — and the “why” — the basis for the verdict. [Underlining in original; italics deleted.]
(R.E.M., at para. 17)
In my view the military jud
ge’s reasons do not disclose to the appellant or to the appellate court the “logical connection” between the “what” and the “why”. As earlier stated in Sheppard:
At the trial level, the reasons justify and explain the result. The losing party knows why he or she has lost. Informed consideration can be given to grounds for appeal. Interested members of the public can satisfy themselves that justice has been done, or not, as the case may be. [para. 25]
We do not know, and the appellant cannot know, why the military judge found the intervention disproportionate to what was reasonably required in all circumstances.
In the absence of any palpable and overriding error in his appreciation of them, it is not open to an appellate court to sift selectively through the record and substitute its own narrative and outcome: R. v. R.E.M., 2008 SCC 51, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3, at para. 56. Seeing no error either in the trial judge’s appreciation of the facts or in his application of the relevant law, a majority in the appeal court dismissed the husband’s appeal. Based on the record and the trial judge’s reasons, I agree with this disposition.
The dissent is far more detailed and while it is of limited use (being the dissent) it is worth taking a moment to read:
[32] If “the deficiencies in the reasons prevent meaningful appellate review of the correctness of the decision” then reversible error may result (R. v. Sheppard, 2002 SCC 26, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869, at para. 28). This is precisely the difficulty here identified by the appellant’s counsel:
. . . my friend [the Crown] has said that there were alternatives and that the trial judge had these in mind, that a person could be moved with greater or lesser levels of force and he should not have pushed her that hard. The problem is that the trial judge didn’t say anything about this. This is an area that is not covered at all in the judgment and that Justice Lutfy [dissenting in the court below] focussed on; that he [the military judge] didn’t address the circumstances of the encounter on the stairs, that’s the problem, and that’s why the alternatives were not canvassed at all.
(Transcript, at p. 43 (emphasis added))
[33] Section 39(1) is intended to protect individuals who act in defence of their personal property provided they use no more force than is reasonably “necessary”. What is necessary must not be disproportionate to the injury or harm it is intended to prevent. The accused must have a subjective belief of the necessity, and the belief must be based on reasonable grounds: R. v. Weare (1983), 56 N.S.R. (2d) 411 (C.A.), at paras. 16-18, and R. v. Little (1998), 122 C.C.C. (3d) 364 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 14.
[34] Of course, the appellant’s use of force against Mrs. Szczerbaniwicz was both morally objectionable and deeply unfortunate, as was fully recognized in retrospect by the appellant himself, but the issue here is one of criminality. The law says that the appellant was entitled to go to the defence of his property. The legal question before the military judge was whether the appellant was justified under s. 39(1) in using the measure of force that he did.
[35] The prosecution accepts that the appellant was acting in defence of property that was of considerable sentimental importance to him, as Mrs. Szczerbaniwicz fully appreciated at the time. The cases are clear that in these sort of “quick response” situations an accused is not expected to “weigh to a nicety” the exact measure of a defensive action or to stop and reflect upon the precise risk of consequences from such action: R. v. Baxter (1975), 27 C.C.C. 2d 96 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 111; R. v. Kandola (1993), 80 C.C.C. (3d) 481 (B.C.C.A.), at pp. 489-90, citing Palmer v. The Queen (1971), 55 Cr. App. R. 223 (P.C.), at p. 242. The principle is of long standing: R. v. Ogal (1928), 50 C.C.C. 71 (Alta. S.C., App. Div.); R. v. Preston (1953), 106 C.C.C. 135 (B.C.C.A.), at p. 140, and R. v. Antley, [1964] 2 C.C.C. 142 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 147.
…
[37] In his reasons, the military judge did cover what R.E.M. labels the “what” of the case, i.e. the finding that the use of force was excessive, but he was required by the jurisprudence to go further and describe the “why” he reached the conclusion that he did:
These purposes are fulfilled if the reasons, read in context, show why the judge decided as he or she did. The object is not to show how the judge arrived at his or her conclusion, in a “watch me think” fashion. It is rather to show why the judge made that decision. . . . Doherty J.A. in Morrissey, at p. 525, puts it this way: “In giving reasons for judgment, the trial judge is attempting to tell the parties what he or she has decided and why he or she made that decision” (emphasis added). What is required is a logical connection between the “what” — the verdict — and the “why” — the basis for the verdict. [Underlining in original; italics deleted.]
(R.E.M., at para. 17)
In my view the military jud
ge’s reasons do not disclose to the appellant or to the appellate court the “logical connection” between the “what” and the “why”. As earlier stated in Sheppard:
At the trial level, the reasons justify and explain the result. The losing party knows why he or she has lost. Informed consideration can be given to grounds for appeal. Interested members of the public can satisfy themselves that justice has been done, or not, as the case may be. [para. 25]
We do not know, and the appellant cannot know, why the military judge found the intervention disproportionate to what was reasonably required in all circumstances.
Fear of trial delays civil cases
http://tinyurl.com/2f2q7n5
Forty-four years ago, Fritz Briel, a skilled welder, was injured in a car crash. He suffered brain trauma and was severely disabled. The subsequent case, Briel vs. Darch, was complex but not untypical of motor vehicle accident litigation.
There was expert evidence as to the condition of the cars, independent witnesses to the accident testified and the court learned of the traumatic brain injuries suffered by Briel. One sees similar cases across the province in every courthouse today.
In North America Toronto is second only to New York City in the number of buildings over twelve storeys
Toronto is a vertical city -- that has all sort of implications for how the city should be managed. The vast condo tower developments in the broader GTHA will only increase the concentration of tower dwellers.
Toronto City Hall Square
Toronto City Hall Square, as built, has a certain brutal grandeur.
But in the years since building the square has been "prettied-up". Trees, gardens and a bandstand -- all manner of things the net effect of which is to make the building look like a 1950's modernist building dropped from the sky into a 1930's city park.
There is a proposal to tear down City Hall. I say not -- it's a significant building -- but take down the un needed stuff that hides it.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Conservative MP in mortgage scam? Don't believe it
This story has been working the rounds online.
On the surface it looks awful but in reality these claims always include every lawyer and accountant who went near a suspicious transaction.
Almost all the lawyers and accountants were entirely free of any wrongdoing (some aren't and crooked lawyers are a very bad thing).
My bet?
Devinder Shory is entirely innocent of any wrongdoing and he's been pulled in as a bystander.
Conservative MP implicated in alleged mortgage scam worth millions
Calgary— The Canadian Press

A backbench MP for Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative Party is among those named in a lawsuit alleging a $70-million mortgage scam at the Bank of Montreal.
Devinder Shory, MP for Calgary Northeast, is one of more than 100 people — including other lawyers, mortgage brokers and even staff at the bank itself — targeted in the suit, filed in Calgary by the bank.
Mr. Shory, 51, said in a statement late Wednesday that he's "done nothing wrong."
He was elected to Parliament in 2008 after failing to gain a provincial Tory nomination seven years earlier. He currently serves on the Joint Security and Regulations Committee and the Natural Resources Committee.
The bank says it has been scammed in several schemes in Western Canada that were first flagged in a security check four years ago. It alleges the defendants found undervalued houses in upscale neighbourhoods, then paid someone a few thousand dollars to put his or her name on a mortgage application.
Documents were then forged to inflate the value of the property and to fool the bank into believing the buyer had the ability to pay. Once the mortgage was approved, the fraudsters pocketed the profit and the money was sent overseas, the bank alleges.
It says the mortgages were worth $69.5-million. After foreclosures, it expects the gross loss to be $30-million and hopes through the lawsuit and other means to reduce the loss even further.
According to the statement of claim, Mr. Shory was among a number of lawyers associated with a group of defendants that were allegedly identifiying property to be used in the fraudulent schemes. The group would then find and pay so-called "strawbuyers" to apply for the mortgage, the sums ranging between $3,000 and $8,000. Mr. Shory and the lawyers, says the statement of claim, also modified the strawbuyers' assets and income totals to make them more appealing candidates for the mortgage money from BMO
Smitherman rips into Ford over gay comments
I guess Smitherman's people did some archive research: http://tinyurl.com/2f9w7on
CSIS Interrogation of Omar Khadr may be used against Khadr at trial
Trials are not held in isolation. Omar Khadr's trial will inevitably be affected by the attempted bombing at Times Square -- and I would be surprised if there was an exclusion of any relevant evidence no matter how obtained:
http://bit.ly/bVHESo
U.S. rejects Ottawa’s plea to suppress Khadr interrogation by CSIS agents
Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Station, Cuba — Globe and Mail
Information extracted by Canadian spies who interrogated Omar Khadr in Guantanamo Bay may be used against him at his war crimes trial, despite Ottawa’s efforts to have it suppressed.
The Obama administration has rejected a belated plea from Ottawa not to use information that Canadian Security and Intelligence Service agents and Foreign Affairs officials elicited from Mr. Khadr in 2003 and 2004 interrogations. Mr. Khadr, the only Canadian held in Guantanamo is also the only citizen of an allied nation whose government has refused to demand his repatriation.
http://bit.ly/bVHESo
U.S. rejects Ottawa’s plea to suppress Khadr interrogation by CSIS agents
Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Station, Cuba — Globe and Mail
Information extracted by Canadian spies who interrogated Omar Khadr in Guantanamo Bay may be used against him at his war crimes trial, despite Ottawa’s efforts to have it suppressed.
The Obama administration has rejected a belated plea from Ottawa not to use information that Canadian Security and Intelligence Service agents and Foreign Affairs officials elicited from Mr. Khadr in 2003 and 2004 interrogations. Mr. Khadr, the only Canadian held in Guantanamo is also the only citizen of an allied nation whose government has refused to demand his repatriation.
Parity in sentencing
R. v. Choquette, 2010 ONCA 327 released today has a useful comment regarding parity in sentencing:
The issue of parity
[11] The parity principle does not require that the sentences given to persons who commit the same crime be the same; the parity principle requires that the differences be understandable.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Cuts to women's groups?
The story below is short on details -- that's always a credibility concern.
I just find it odd that the Federal government would have such a tin ear as to cut funding in a major way now.
On the other hand, they have done some really bone headed things before.
All in all I'd like more details and both sides of the story -- less spin more facts:
A women's rights group is charging that the Harper government has cut funding for 11 women's groups in the last two weeks, just prior to June's G8 summit at which maternal health to a key part of the agenda.
Jamaican Shower Posse connected to Toronto gangs
These are just names.
The large-scale sale of illegal drugs can only be carried out by a sophisticated and organised commercial operation. That's not because of the nature of the drugs but rather the nature of the trade -- the large-scale sale of shoes would require the same.
But selling shoes is legal and business relations are governed by law and, ultimately, law suits for breach of contract and tort.
That doesn't apply in the illegal drug trade and so contracts are enforced, if at all, with fear and, ultimately, violence. Hence the names of the gangs are mysterious and faintly threatening -- a street gang called "Payless" would not be taken seriously -- accordingly, the Crips and the Bloods.
________________
Pre-dawn raids in Toronto and Ottawa lead to arrests as police tie notorious Jamaican gang to drug trade in Toronto and as far north as Sault Ste. Marie
Globe and Mail
Toronto police say 71 people have been arrested in a crackdown on two street gangs, the Falstaff Crips and the Five Point Generalz.
At a news conference Tuesday afternoon police revealed that the investigation not only identified members of the Toronto-based gangs but members of the notorious Jamaican gang, the Shower Posse, as allegedly controlling these gangs in the city.
The large-scale sale of illegal drugs can only be carried out by a sophisticated and organised commercial operation. That's not because of the nature of the drugs but rather the nature of the trade -- the large-scale sale of shoes would require the same.
But selling shoes is legal and business relations are governed by law and, ultimately, law suits for breach of contract and tort.
That doesn't apply in the illegal drug trade and so contracts are enforced, if at all, with fear and, ultimately, violence. Hence the names of the gangs are mysterious and faintly threatening -- a street gang called "Payless" would not be taken seriously -- accordingly, the Crips and the Bloods.
________________
Pre-dawn raids in Toronto and Ottawa lead to arrests as police tie notorious Jamaican gang to drug trade in Toronto and as far north as Sault Ste. Marie
Globe and Mail
Toronto police say 71 people have been arrested in a crackdown on two street gangs, the Falstaff Crips and the Five Point Generalz.
At a news conference Tuesday afternoon police revealed that the investigation not only identified members of the Toronto-based gangs but members of the notorious Jamaican gang, the Shower Posse, as allegedly controlling these gangs in the city.
Charter applies to foreign governments acting overseas?
R. v. Mathur, 2010 ONCA 311, released online today, deals with a situation where documents used in a Canadian criminal case are obtained in breach of a foreign constitution.
Canadian officials were not involved in the seizure of the documents or the foreign wrongdoing.
Specifically, Antiguan police seized records, in breach of Antigua's constitution, which requires a search warrant for such actions. The accused sought to have the records excluded.
In order to answer the question of whether the admission of the evidence would violate Mr. Mathur's right to a fair trial guaranteed under ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter, the application judge considered a number of relevant factors. In the end the trial judge allowed the records and the Court of Appeal agreed -- but in so doing appear to have applied the Charter to actions of a foreign state acting overseas. An interesting decision:
[36] The trial judge considered the fact that the records had been unlawfully obtained weighed in favour of exclusion, but that it was not the only factor. As was his duty, he weighed all the factors - those which favoured the admission of the records and those which favoured exclusion of the records. He concluded, on balance, that the evidence favoured the admission of the records and dismissed the appellant's motion to exclude. His decision was a discretionary one - he weighed all of the relevant factors both for and against admission of the records and made his decision accordingly. We see no basis on which to interfere with his exercise of discretion.
The Kent State shooting took place forty years ago today
I remember it clearly. It's hard to believe 40 years have passed.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Mental Disorder Law update
From Anita Szigeti
R v. Stanley
The OCA released this Judgment today. I'm a pretty happy camper as I have been flogging this particular horse for years.......the idea is to rescue our seemingly indefinitely detained ORB clients from forensic psychiatry and put them into the civil stream via a Community Treatment Order (CTO).
No doubt over time the implications of this Judgment will find a way to prejudice our clients' rights in some venue or other, but for today let's celebrate, shall we? OK, I will.
There are a few things of note here, one of which is the Court refused to return the matter to the Board and instead substituted an absolute discharge for this client, 30 years in the system when this arrived in the Court.
Also the hitherto relatively golden rule of only admitting fresh evidence unhelpful to the accused appears to have been broken and fresh evidence intended to assist the accused on appeal was admitted and ultimately dispositive.
If you represent long-term detainees under the ORB and the sole remaining concern appears to be how to ensure medication compliance in the event of an absolute discharge (perhaps coupled with a need to link the accused to community mental health services), this could be your guy's ticket out.
Here is the link.
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2010/may/2010ONCA0324.htm
R v. Stanley
The OCA released this Judgment today. I'm a pretty happy camper as I have been flogging this particular horse for years.......the idea is to rescue our seemingly indefinitely detained ORB clients from forensic psychiatry and put them into the civil stream via a Community Treatment Order (CTO).
No doubt over time the implications of this Judgment will find a way to prejudice our clients' rights in some venue or other, but for today let's celebrate, shall we? OK, I will.
There are a few things of note here, one of which is the Court refused to return the matter to the Board and instead substituted an absolute discharge for this client, 30 years in the system when this arrived in the Court.
Also the hitherto relatively golden rule of only admitting fresh evidence unhelpful to the accused appears to have been broken and fresh evidence intended to assist the accused on appeal was admitted and ultimately dispositive.
If you represent long-term detainees under the ORB and the sole remaining concern appears to be how to ensure medication compliance in the event of an absolute discharge (perhaps coupled with a need to link the accused to community mental health services), this could be your guy's ticket out.
Here is the link.
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2010/may/2010ONCA0324.htm
Lawyers, paralegals mobilize for skirmish at law society AGM
http://tinyurl.com/2bwcwkj
What's behind it is the future of the law society and the future of the legal profession,' says James Morton.
And you thought the gun registry was expensive?
You ain't seen nuthin yet!
"This past week, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said the federal price tag for legislation that would end two-for-one credit for time served in pre-custody would be at least $2 billion over five years. That was up from his earlier estimate of $90 million over two years."
When can a student properly sue a university
Today's Court of Appeal decision in Gauthier c. Saint-Germain, 2010 ONCA 309 holds that a claim by a student against a university is not barred merely because of the academic relationship. That said, if the claim is merely an indirect attempt to appeal against an academic decision when the internal path is appropriate for judicial review (eg, the decision to award a certain result, to require some work, to refuse admission to a program or not to grant a diploma), the claim may be dismissed as being a claim not known to law :
[50] Ainsi, même si la cour s'avère compétente, les arrêts Dawson et Zabo démontrent néanmoins que celle-ci est disposée à radier la cause d'action en vertu de la règle 21.01 (1) ou, dans des circonstances exceptionnelles, la règle 25.11 quand il appert que la cause d'action est intenable ou ne saurait réussir. Les circonstances dans lesquelles la cour exercera sa discrétion pour radier une cause d'action tombent sous deux catégories. Premièrement, si la poursuite en délit ou en rupture de contrat n'est qu'une tentative indirecte d'interjeter appel à l'encontre d'une décision académique interne lorsque la voie appropriée est le contrôle judiciaire (par exemple, la décision de décerner un certain résultat, d'exiger un certain travail, de refuser l'admission à un programme ou de ne pas octroyer un diplôme), la radiation s'offrira à la cour. Deuxièmement, si la plaidoirie ne fournit pas les précisions nécessaires pour démonter que l'université ou ses employés ont outrepassé la discrétion étendue dont ils jouissent, la cour pourra radier la cause d'action.
A party cannot use its own breach or default in satisfying a condition precedent as a basis for being relieved of its contractual obligations
Today's decision in Southcott Estates Inc. v. Toronto Catholic School Board, 2010 ONCA 310 has a useful aside:
[13] It is a well-established principle of contract law that a party cannot use its own breach or default in satisfying a condition precedent as a basis for being relieved of its contractual obligations, while a party in breach of its obligation to do what is required to complete a transaction cannot terminate the agreement by relying on a time of the essence clause: see e.g. Paul M. Perell & Bruce H. Engell, Remedies and the Sale of Land, 2d ed. (Toronto: Butterworths, 1998) at 44-5; St. Thomas Subdividers Ltd. v. 639373 Ontario Ltd. (1996), 91 O.A.C. 193 (C.A.), at paras. 36-7; Shapiro (c.o.b. ISR Ent. in Trust) v. 1086891 Ontario Inc. (2006), 39 R.P.R. (4th) 246 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 107; McCallum v. Zivojinovic (1977), 16 O.R. (2d) 721 (C.A.), at p. 726, quoting New Zealand Shipping Co. v. Société des Ateliers et Chantiers de France, [1919] A.C. 1 (H.L.), at p. 6, for the following proposition: "It is a principle of law that no one can in such a case take advantage of the existence of a state of things which he himself produced."
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
www.jmortonmusings.blogspot.com
[13] It is a well-established principle of contract law that a party cannot use its own breach or default in satisfying a condition precedent as a basis for being relieved of its contractual obligations, while a party in breach of its obligation to do what is required to complete a transaction cannot terminate the agreement by relying on a time of the essence clause: see e.g. Paul M. Perell & Bruce H. Engell, Remedies and the Sale of Land, 2d ed. (Toronto: Butterworths, 1998) at 44-5; St. Thomas Subdividers Ltd. v. 639373 Ontario Ltd. (1996), 91 O.A.C. 193 (C.A.), at paras. 36-7; Shapiro (c.o.b. ISR Ent. in Trust) v. 1086891 Ontario Inc. (2006), 39 R.P.R. (4th) 246 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 107; McCallum v. Zivojinovic (1977), 16 O.R. (2d) 721 (C.A.), at p. 726, quoting New Zealand Shipping Co. v. Société des Ateliers et Chantiers de France, [1919] A.C. 1 (H.L.), at p. 6, for the following proposition: "It is a principle of law that no one can in such a case take advantage of the existence of a state of things which he himself produced."
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
www.jmortonmusings.blogspot.com
Sunday, May 2, 2010
5 marijuana plants = 6 months mandatory prison? Tough on crime on the provincial dime ...
Leave aside the obvious point -- five plants is more likely a kid in college than a small grow op -- note the sentence will send the hapless marijuana cultivator to Provincial custody.
Tough on crime but on the provincial dime.
So long as Canadian law keeps marijuana illegal, grow ops will continue and they are dangerous. But grow ops have at least 60 plants -- usually far more. The cut-off of five plants is absurd.
Tories may revive minimum pot sentences as part of tough-on-crime agenda
By Mike Blanchfield, The Canadian Press
OTTAWA - The Tories are poised to revive a bill that would impose mandatory-minimum sentences on people convicted of growing small numbers of pot plants.
The Conservative government will re-introduce its drug bill this week in the Senate, as part of its continued re-tabling of tough-on-crime legislation that died when the last Parliament was prorogued.
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson dropped broad hints Sunday that the new legislation would revive a controversial provision — a mandatory six-month sentence for people convicted of growing as few as five pot plants.
Tough on crime but on the provincial dime.
So long as Canadian law keeps marijuana illegal, grow ops will continue and they are dangerous. But grow ops have at least 60 plants -- usually far more. The cut-off of five plants is absurd.
Tories may revive minimum pot sentences as part of tough-on-crime agenda
By Mike Blanchfield, The Canadian Press
OTTAWA - The Tories are poised to revive a bill that would impose mandatory-minimum sentences on people convicted of growing small numbers of pot plants.
The Conservative government will re-introduce its drug bill this week in the Senate, as part of its continued re-tabling of tough-on-crime legislation that died when the last Parliament was prorogued.
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson dropped broad hints Sunday that the new legislation would revive a controversial provision — a mandatory six-month sentence for people convicted of growing as few as five pot plants.
'No evidence' to support claim Pakistani Taliban claim: NYPD
On the other hand, if they said they did it maybe they did.
Michelle Nichols, Reuters
Sunday, May 2, 2010

NEW YORK -- New York police have "no evidence" to support a claim of responsibility by the Pakistani Taliban for a failed car bomb attempt in Times Square, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said on Sunday.
Mr. Kelly said a white man in his 40s had been identified on video footage of the area and was seen removing a dark shirt to reveal a red shirt about half a block from the vehicle.
Michelle Nichols, Reuters
Sunday, May 2, 2010

NEW YORK -- New York police have "no evidence" to support a claim of responsibility by the Pakistani Taliban for a failed car bomb attempt in Times Square, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said on Sunday.
Mr. Kelly said a white man in his 40s had been identified on video footage of the area and was seen removing a dark shirt to reveal a red shirt about half a block from the vehicle.
Appeal Court to hear appeal of Conrad Black libel lawsuits tomorrow
My sense is the appeal will be dismissed but regardless it is most unlikely that the Court will rule right away:
http://bit.ly/bBmDdB
The Canadian Press
TORONTO — The Internet is not a "no man's land" when it comes to libel, lawyers for Conrad Black say in arguing that six libel lawsuits should proceed in Ontario, where he established his reputation and should be vindicated from statements about his use of Hollinger shareholder money.
Lawyers for the media baron turned convicted felon will be in the Ontario Appeal Court on Monday for a hearing on an appeal from the libel action's defendants.
http://bit.ly/bBmDdB
The Canadian Press
TORONTO — The Internet is not a "no man's land" when it comes to libel, lawyers for Conrad Black say in arguing that six libel lawsuits should proceed in Ontario, where he established his reputation and should be vindicated from statements about his use of Hollinger shareholder money.
Lawyers for the media baron turned convicted felon will be in the Ontario Appeal Court on Monday for a hearing on an appeal from the libel action's defendants.
Times Square car bomb fails to detonate
This seems like a rather amateurish attempt but it could well have led to dozens if not hundreds of deaths. If you go online you can find approximately 88,000 matches to a search for "how to make a bomb with household items". The directions are clear and direct -- even if the sites tend to suggest the bomb is merely "for fun" -- how much fun is a bomb? The point here is that restricting the technology is impossible -- the focus has to be on the people who want to make the bombs -- to steal and amend a phrase, "bombs don't kill people, people kill people":
Times Square car bomb fails to detonate
Mayor says city lucky to avoid potentially 'deadly event'
Heavily armed police evacuated the area Saturday after a T-shirt vendor reported smoke coming from a Nissan Pathfinder on 45th Street around 6:30 p.m. ET. The vehicle had its engine running and hazard lights flashing.
Officers cleared the streets as investigators removed three propane tanks, fireworks, two full 19-litre gasoline containers and two clocks with batteries, electrical wire and other components from the vehicle, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said.
Times Square car bomb fails to detonate
Mayor says city lucky to avoid potentially 'deadly event'
Heavily armed police evacuated the area Saturday after a T-shirt vendor reported smoke coming from a Nissan Pathfinder on 45th Street around 6:30 p.m. ET. The vehicle had its engine running and hazard lights flashing.
Officers cleared the streets as investigators removed three propane tanks, fireworks, two full 19-litre gasoline containers and two clocks with batteries, electrical wire and other components from the vehicle, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Scores dead after blasts rip through Somalian mosque
Somalia is a country largely abandoned by the rest of the world. The reason for running away is fear -- remember the catastrophic American intervention under President Clinton. But looking away is not a sensible approach. Violence has a tendency to spill over -- now, I should declare a bias -- I am involved in the Canadian Somali Congress but I don't think my ideas are wrong just because of that.
Mogadishu— The Associated Press
Two explosions at a mosque in Somalia's capital Mogadishu on Saturday killed 39 worshippers, wounded scores more and hurt a senior member of the al Qaeda-linked al Shabaab rebels.
Mogadishu— The Associated Press
Two explosions at a mosque in Somalia's capital Mogadishu on Saturday killed 39 worshippers, wounded scores more and hurt a senior member of the al Qaeda-linked al Shabaab rebels.
Paralegals - Law Society of Upper Canada AGM May 5th - Motion to expand paralegal areas of practice
http://www.lsuc.on.ca/media/apr0710_agm_motion.pdf
The above linked motion is to be heard at the LSUC AGM on May 5th. It seeks to expand the areas in which paralegals may practice independently. The meeting is expected to have a huge turnout from both paralegals and lawyers. Since the motion will carry or fail by show of hands anyone in the legal services business who wants to express their views should attend.
The proposed additional practice areas are:
preparing family law documents
representing before the family court for certain matters
drafting incorporations
drafting uncontested divorces
If passed it will permit paralegals to practice in a number of practice areas without lawyer supervision. In all likelihood it will be followed in time with a motion to add real estate, wills and estates and other areas to paralegal practice.
The above linked motion is to be heard at the LSUC AGM on May 5th. It seeks to expand the areas in which paralegals may practice independently. The meeting is expected to have a huge turnout from both paralegals and lawyers. Since the motion will carry or fail by show of hands anyone in the legal services business who wants to express their views should attend.
The proposed additional practice areas are:
preparing family law documents
representing before the family court for certain matters
drafting incorporations
drafting uncontested divorces
If passed it will permit paralegals to practice in a number of practice areas without lawyer supervision. In all likelihood it will be followed in time with a motion to add real estate, wills and estates and other areas to paralegal practice.
Senate reform
In today's Globe and Mail William Thorsell makes some cogent points of the dangers of electing Senators in Canada. He says that Stephen Harper's proposal to have the Provinces elect Senators who would then be appointed is an "end run" to an American Senate.
In that, he is wrong; the evolution from appointment to election of Senators does not involve an "end run" to an American Senate -- it is precisely how the American Senate evolved.
Originally, American Senators were appointed by the state legislatures without elections. However, by 1910, most States made that appointment following a popular election (basically what Stephen Harper now proposes). Popular election to the Senate was standardised nationally in 1913 by formal amendment to the US Constitution.
Having Provinces elect Senators who would then be appointed Federally is almost identical to the American experience, albeit a hundred years later. Good or bad, what is proposed is not an "end run".
I decided to take my blood pressure and check email at the same time
Multi-tasking isn't always so smart ... .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)