Thursday, April 7, 2011
Conservative supporter accused of fraud gets coveted seat at Harper rally
JENNIFER DITCHBURN
A
After offence conduct can be considered in determining guilt
R. v. Badhwar, 2011 ONCA 266 is a good source for the principle that, generally, after offence conduct can be properly admissible to prove guilt providing that other explanations for the conduct are explored:
[25] Specifically, the trial judge made it clear that flight was but one piece of evidence the jury could consider, along with all of the other evidence, in deciding whether the Crown had proved its case against the appellant. Moreover, in the context of that instruction, the trial judge impressed on the jury the “importance [of] evidence that offers other explanations for this conduct …”. The trial judge then reminded the jury of the appellant’s evidence that he did not think he was a part of the accident but that he stayed for 20 to 25 minutes nonetheless until people in the area began “expressing insults and threats to his group”. It was only then that he decided to leave. The trial judge followed that review with the following sharp warning:
You must not use this evidence about what [the appellant] did or said afterwards in deciding or helping you decide that [he] committed these offences unless you reject any other explanation for it. [Emphasis added.]
[26] Contrary to the appellant’s submission, I think it was proper for the trial judge to leave evidence of flight as circumstantial evidence from which the jury could infer guilt. No objection was made to the impugned instruction at trial – for good reason in my view.
Ignatieff’s appeal improving but Harper still leads, poll says
Les Whittington
Ottawa Bureau
OTTAWA—Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff appears to be winning hearts and minds on the election trail even though his party still lags the Conservatives by a wide margin, a new national poll shows.
At the same time, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper's performance has led to a slight erosion of his appeal since the election kicked off, the Toronto Star/La Presse poll by Angus Reid indicates.
The April 4-5 online survey of 2,031 Canadians has the Conservatives at 38 per cent among decided voters, down one per cent from a poll released just before the election campaign.
The Liberals stand at 27 per cent, up from 25 per cent, while the New Democrats are at 21 per cent, up two percentage points from March 24. The Bloc Québécois has 8 per cent, down from 10 per cent, and the Green Party stands at 6 per cent compared to 7 per cent when the campaign began.
Truck drivers and overtime
Under the Canada Labour Code, Division 1, Hours of Work provisions are modified by the Motor Vehicle Operators Hours of Work Regulation. Through this regulation "Highway Motor Vehicle Operators" are permitted to drive up to 60 hours in seven days. If they drive beyond these hours drivers are eligible for overtime pay.
The result of the special treatment for truckers is longer hours and less rest. The dangers for the travelling public -- and the unfairness to drivers -- are obvious.
A change to the Canada Labour Code seems appropriate.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Another student barred from Conservative Party rally -- those people who recycle are just too dangerous to come near Harper
As a young voter looking to learn more about what political parties stand for, Joanna MacDonald was thrilled to learn Conservative Party Leader Stephen Harper was coming to town for a campaign rally.
The 21-year-old environmental science student at the University of Guelph immediately went online to the local Conservative candidate's website and signed up to attend the event.
All she had to do was provide her name, address and email address. Everything looked in order.
But when she arrived Monday at the Delta Guelph Hotel and Conference Centre where Harper was scheduled to speak, her registration in hand, MacDonald was informed she was not welcome.
Why? An unidentified Conservative Party official told her that her name had been "flagged."
"I was told the RCMP had done a screening and that perhaps my name was affiliated with something on Facebook or the Internet," MacDonald told the Star. "Something that made me unfit to enter. They wouldn't say what it was."
MacDonald says she has never been affiliated with any political party. Nor has she participated in any anti-government or anti-Conservative rallies.
"I was shocked. This had never happened to me before, so I didn't really know how to deal with it."
When she pressed officials further, she was asked if she had ever been involved with any on-campus clubs. When MacDonald replied that she had been involved with various environmental groups — including one advocating for the removal of bottled water from the university grounds — she said the official responded, saying: "Well, that's probably why."
Statement from Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff on the Liberal candidate in Manicouagan
Le 6 avril 2011
Le chef libéral, Michael Ignatieff, a fait la déclaration suivante aujourd'hui:
« Dès que j'ai été informé des propos tenus dans le passé par le candidat libéral dans Manicouagan, André Forbes, j'ai immédiatement demandé à mon personnel d'enquêter sur leur véracité. Suite à cette enquête, M. Forbes a été informé qu'il n'était plus candidat pour le Parti libéral du Canada. Les propos tenus par M. Forbes n'ont aucune place au sein du Parti libéral du Canada.
« Le Parti libéral du Canada a toujours défendu l'égalité de tous les citoyens, incluant les Premières nations, les Métis, les Inuits et les Canadiens non-autochtones. Nous condamnons de façon catégorique tout commentaire qui cherche à diviser les Canadiens en vertu de leur culture ou leur ethnicité. »
Renseignements :
Parti libéral du Canada
613 783-8888
For Immediate Release
April 6, 2011
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff made the following statement today:
"As soon as I was apprised of past comments made by the Liberal candidate in Manicouagan, André Forbes, I immediately asked my staff to inquire about their validity. As a result, Mr. Forbes has been informed that he is no longer a candidate for the Liberal Party of Canada. Mr. Forbes' comments have no place within the Liberal Party of Canada.
"The Liberal Party of Canada has always stood for equality among all citizens, including First Nations, Métis, Inuit, and non-Aboriginal Canadians. We categorically condemn any comments that seek to divide Canadians on the basis of their culture or ethnicity."
Liberals dump candidate who questioned work ethic of aboriginals
COMPTON, QUE.—A Liberal candidate who questioned the work ethic of aboriginals and called them "featherheads" has been dumped by the party.
André Forbes, the party's flag-bearer in the Quebec riding of Manicouagan, is no longer running for the party, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said.
Conservative Candidate Chris Alexander announces that Poverty has been eliminated in Canada
I guess he sees a wealthier part of the country than I do.
Seriously, he should come to south Oshawa -- the foodbank I visited yesterday -- there's poverty here. I see malnutrition in Nunavut -- people there remember mass starvation in the 1960s. Go to Church in Cape Dorset -- the prayers focus on having enough food for the winter. And those prayers are not pro forma.
Canada is a wealthy country but we still have poverty.
Poverty amongst plenty.
The Dollar -- a sleeper issue?
Now at first blush that sounds great - winter trips to Florida will be cheap.
The trouble is summer trips to Ottawa will be expensive for Americans.
Strong leaders don’t hide from young voters
"It's absurd to suggest that the same man who needs protection from reporters and politically curious young women is fit to handle further economic crises, wars in Libya and Afghanistan and the ever-present risk of natural disaster, major accident or terrorist attack on Canadian soil. "
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Harper under fire for tossing youth out of Conservative rally
Gosh -- we wouldn't want to engage anyone who wasn't a supporter!
Seriously, I spent the day talking to Conservatives, NDP supporters and Greens and I learned some very useful information.
We have to stop the "us and them" stuff and remember we are all Canadians. We are all in this together.
Definition of hearsay
Statements adduced, not for their truth, but for some other reason, are not hearsay:
[11] After argument about the admissibility of the utterances, the trial judge accepted the trial Crown's submissions that they were inadmissible on the basis that they were "pure" hearsay to which no exception applied.
[12] This was an error. The statements were not hearsay. The appellant was not trying to adduce the utterances for the truth of their contents, but simply to prove that Mr. Soares made the statements. See Wildman v. The Queen (1984), 14 C.C.C. (3d) 321 (S.C.C.).
Ottawa’s fighter-jet estimate ‘all hogwash,’ watchdog warns
The plan to buy F-35 Joint Strike Fighters will cost billions more than the $29-billion estimated by Canada's budget watchdog, a U.S. defence spending analyst says.
"It's going to be significantly more. It's not going to be $1-billion more, it's going to be significantly more," said Winslow Wheeler, a defence-spending watchdog with the Washington-based Center for Defense Information.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Furtwangler rehearsals Brahms Symphony No.4 in 1948
Harper on ex-PMO adviser’s rap sheet: ‘I wouldn’t have hired him’
If Harper decided to hire someone who has a record but has been rehabilitated that's fine -- maybe it didn't work out but that sort of things happen.
But now it seems a senior advisor to the Prime Minister, after disclosing a criminal history, was hired and the Prime Minister says he knew nothing about it.
That suggests a failure of oversight or at least avoiding "the buck stops here":
Stephen Harper says he wouldn't have installed former adviser Bruce Carson in his Prime Minister's Office if he had been aware of his past.
The Conservative Leader says he was never told of Mr. Carson's full criminal record.
"Had I known these things, obviously I wouldn't have hired him," the Conservative Leader said after a campaign stop in Ontario's Niagara region.
A Canadian Brain Health Strategy
In 2008, a new dementia case was diagnosed every 5 minutes in Canada. In 2039, this will occur every 2 minutes. Alzheimer’s disease alone affects 500,000 Canadians and costs us $15 billion per year, in addition to incalculable emotional strain on caregivers and loved ones.
This “rising tide” is impacting Canadian families of every walk of life and the trend will continue to grow. The toll is already considerable, both on families and on the Canadian economy, in terms of lost productivity.
A Liberal government will consult with provinces, stakeholders and experts, and put in place a Canadian Brain Health Strategy in its first year in office. Its main objective will be helping Canadian families cope and it will encompass such diseases as Alzheimer’s Disease, Multiple Sclerosis, and Parkinson’s Disease. The Strategy will include the following elements:
Awareness, Education and Prevention.We will develop a public education campaign to encourage good brain health throughout life, including better understanding of how proper diet, physical and mental exercise slow down the decline of brain health. Public education efforts will also combat the social stigma attached to brain disease, and mental health problems.
Research. $100 million over the first two years of a Liberal government will be invested in the Canadian Brain Health Strategy, targeting research into new treatments and therapies for neurological disorders, and accelerating progress in understanding, treating and preventing brain diseases. This investment of new federal funds will be channelled through leading national research bodies.
Income security. We will conduct a review to identify potential measures needed to prevent brain disorders from forcing families and individuals into poverty. The Liberal plan for Family Care will make a significant difference, but more may be needed in the longer term to help the growing numbers of affected Canadian families cope.
Integrated Treatment and Support. We will disseminate knowledge and best practices to foster improvements in the quality of treatment and support for patients and families coping with brain disorders.
Preventing Genetic Discrimination. Today, even people without symptoms can be denied life, mortgage and disability insurance and even rejected for employment based on genetic testing that shows risk of future illness. A Liberal government will introduce measures, including possible legislative change, to prevent this discrimination.
Gun registry facts:
- Rifles and shotguns are responsible for half the police officers killed in the line of duty over the last few years.
- Over 11,000 times a day, police use the gun registry to protect frontline officers and prevent domestic violence and suicide.
Secret cabinet records lost in Ottawa parking lot for a month
OTTAWA—Secret cabinet records and sensitive legal briefs were lost for more than a month in a downtown parking arcade, newly disclosed documents show.
The confidential material from Immigration Minister Jason Kenney's briefing book was stolen from the locked car of a senior government official after a “breach of standard procedure.”
The incident, never made public, occurred soon after 2008 election, when Kenney was appointed to the post.
An immigration official left the secret material unattended in his car on Nov. 28 after parking at a street meter and heading to a meeting.
Someone smashed the rear window and pulled a black nylon bag containing the sensitive briefing binder from the back seat.
The bag contained other department material, including an internal personnel assessment of the official. Also missing were two security passcards.
“There is no doubt that if that book falls into wrong hands, there is possibility of harm to the department,” says one internal email, written soon after the official reported the incident to police.
Informant privilege
[1] Informer privilege provides an all but absolute bar against revealing any information that might tend to identify a confidential informer. Courts have no discretion once the existence of the privilege is established. A judge is under a duty to protect the informer's identity. Informer privilege accords no place to judicial balancing of benefits enuring from the privilege against any countervailing considerations.
[2] The Crown has an obligation similar to that of the court. Since the privilege is jointly "owned" by the Crown and the informer, the Crown has no right to disclose the informer's identity without the informer's consent. The principle does not permit the Crown to reveal any information that might tend to identify an informer as part of the Crown's disclosure obligations.
[3] The appellant invoked informer privilege, more accurately a breach of informer privilege, as the basis upon which to stay a conviction entered at the end of trial. The trial judge rejected the appellant's claim. The appellant seeks the same remedy on appeal. For the reasons that follow, the appellant succeeds.
...
[15] It is a well-settled principle of our law that, setting to one side an exception that has no application in this case, informer privilege is absolute. It is so sacrosanct that even the right to make full answer and defence, of which the right to disclosure is an essential feature, does not alone trigger an exception to informer privilege: R. v. Leipert, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 281, at paras. 23-25; R. v. Basi, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 389, at para. 43. Informer privilege is not a rule of evidence, confined to the courtroom, rather it is an amalgam of an evidentiary rule and a principle of immunity and secrecy at work not only in, but also outside judicial proceedings: R. v. Barros (2010), 254 C.C.C. (3d) (Alta. C.A.), at paras. 49-52.
[16] Equally well-established is the principle that the duty imposed to keep an informer's identity confidential applies to the police and to the prosecutor: Re Application to Proceed In Camera, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 253, at para. 26.
A sound fiscal base for government is essential
From 2006 to 2008, the Harper government increased spending at three times the rate of inflation, eliminated the contingency reserves included in previous budgets, and went from surplus to deficit before the recession hit.
That last point is important -- the poor fiscal position of the government began before the recession. The huge deficit started when the economy was good.
Brian Mulroney left Canada in a terrible fiscal mess. It took years for Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin to put the federal government back into good economic shape. Unfortunately it seems the same story has repeated itself and Conservative mishandling needs to be fixed again.
A fiscally sound base for government is essential regardless of spending priorities. Whether, as with Stephen Harper, you want to build mega-prisons, or, with the Liberals you want to provide for family caregivers looking after ageing parents, you need a solvent government. The Liberal platform will ensure that fiscal base is available.
A Liberal government will commit to reducing the deficit to one percent of GDP within two years, down from 3.6 percent in 2009-10. We will set subsequent, rolling targets to continue decreasing the deficit every year after that until the country is returned to surplus. All fiscal planning will be consistent with this anchor.
We will restore a two-year budgeting framework to increase transparency and make steady, measurable progress in deficit reduction. That progress will be driven by rolling, near-term targets that are firm and achievable.
In addition, Liberals will restore prudent budget planning, starting with this platform. By its second year, our plan frees up $7 billion through better choices. We will put some of that money aside in a $3 billion Prudence Reserve, to manage any unforeseen events without missing our targets. If the reserve isn't needed, it will go toward the deficit.
These unshakable commitments – rolling deficit reduction targets, a realistic budgeting timeframe, and a tangible commitment to prudence – worked the last time a Liberal government had to clean up a fiscal mess left by Conservatives. It will work again.
When should specific Code provisions regarding self-defence be put to the jury?
The self-defence provisions of the Criminal Code are notoriously complex. Whether or not a specific Code section should be put to a jury is a difficult question indeed. The Court of Appeal, in R. v. Scotney, 2011 ONCA 251, just released online, did what it could to clarify when a provision should be put to the jury saying:
[18] In Pintar, this court set out a functional structure for trial courts to use to determine which of the self-defence provisions should be left with the jury in any particular case in order to avoid the confusion that consistently arose when all the sections were left, while at the same time giving the accused the maximum benefit of the available provisions. In articulating this approach, Moldaver J.A. carefully explained the latter point at p. 496:
Let me be clear about the underlying purpose of the functional approach in the context of self-defence. The functional approach is not designed to remove legitimate cases of self-defence from the jury
[19] I set out again the four part test from Pintar:
(1) Consider the evidence carefully with a view to determining the essence of the claim to self-defence and the Code provision(s) realistically available to that claim.
(2) To the extent that the evidence fails the air of reality test in respect of one or more of the constituent elements of a particular provision, that provision should not be left with the jury.
(3) To the extent that the evidence clearly establishes one or more of the constituent elements of a particular provision, Crown counsel should be encouraged to admit the underlying facts and thereby avoid unnecessary legal instruction.
(4) Where a particular provision affords the accused a wider scope of justification than a companion provision, the narrower provision should only be put to the jury if the evidence lends an air of reality to the factual underpinnings of that provision, and the provision somehow fills a gap unaccounted for in the justification afforded by the wider provision.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Top advisor to Prime Minister who was convicted of fraud disclosed criminal record to PMO
April 3, 2011
The Canadian Press
OTTAWA—Bruce Carson was convicted on five counts of fraud — three more than previously known — and received court-ordered psychiatric treatment before becoming one of Stephen Harper's closest advisers.
And his lawyer tells The Canadian Press that Carson disclosed his entire criminal record during a security check that was required to become a senior staffer in the Prime Minister's Office.
http://www.thestar.com/mobile/NEWS/article/968462
The New Red Book
The Platform does not require an increase in the GST, personal income tax or small business tax rates. The details of what the Platform will cost and where the money will come from are set out in a schedule.
Two items especially caught my eye: the family care plan and the strengthening of pensions.
The family care plan allows Canadians who are employed to get EI benefits so as to take time off work to care for ill family members. For the self-employed or those without a job a Family Care Tax Benefit will help people who provide essential care to a family member. For those with ageing parents this family care plan is of great interest.
Pension reform is also a focus of the Platform. Among other things the Platform proposes a stranded pension agency to protect people with employer pensions where the employer goes bankrupt. More generally the Platform proposes a gradual increase in CPP and other reforms including protection for disability benefits if the insurer goes bankrupt.
These are two practical proposals. I think they can be done -- it's time for both.
Not everything is politics!
Hundreds of signs.
Oh dear.
I cannot possibly compete with so many signs.
Then I read the name on the signs: "DAYS".
Who is that?
Is there some unexpected change in Conservative candidate?
Then I read the first name... "Sears".
Hmmmn. "Sears DAYS". A sale on washers and dryers... .
Maybe I can get Metro to do a promotion in Red???
Saturday, April 2, 2011
James Morton at construction of Oshawa Mosque
Oshawa Liberal Candidate James Morton Endorses Benefits for Firefighters, Police and other Public Safety Officers killed in the line of duty
Oshawa, ON (April 2, 2011)
Firefighting is a dangerous profession. Studies confirm that firefighters suffer the highest rate of job related illness and injury of any occupation in Canada. The United States has recognised these risks and has provided a National Public Safety Officer Benefit for fallen firefighters and other public safety officers (police, correctional services and border guards) since 1976. Despite the need there is no national Public Safety Officer Benefit in Canada.
Numerous private member bills have been proposed, and passed, by Parliament, calling for a Public Safety Officer Benefit in Canada to protect the families of firefighters, police and others killed in the line of duty. Despite these private members bills the federal government has not acted in support of Public Safety Officers.
After meeting with representatives of Oshawa Professional Fire Fighters Association Local 465 James Morton, the Liberal Candidate for Oshawa in the upcoming federal election, has committed to urging the federal government, regardless of what Party is elected, to establish a Public Safety Officer Benefit of $300,000, indexed to inflation, payable on the death of any Public Safety Officer in the line of duty. Such benefit has an annual cost of $6 million or less than 25 cents a year for each Canadian; hardly a significant cost to make sure Public Safety Officer's families have some protection in the event of their death.
James Morton has further committed to moving a private member's bill for the speedy passage of a Public Safety Officer Benefit if the federal government does not make such benefit part of the government's agenda.
"Our firefighters, police and border agents risk their lives every day without hesitation. They are there for Canadians seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day. Many of our firefighters are volunteers. The very least we can do is to ensure the survivors of those killed in the line of duty have some financial cushion after their loss. I cannot understand why this has not been done long ago" said James Morton.
James Morton also committed to urging that the Canada Influenza Pandemic Plan and Guidance on Vaccine Sequencing be amended to provide firefighters and police, as first responders in emergencies, be made a first priority group for available vaccines. He also supported the need to recognise Fire Fighter safety as a core requirement in the National Building Code of Canada.
A press conference with further details will be held at the Liberal Party Campaign Headquarters located at 1 Warren Ave., Unit F, Oshawa on Sunday April 3rd at 1:00 pm.
For further information contact Stuart Smith, at 905-442-2627 or by email at oshawafederalliberal@gmail.com
- 30 -
A good week - but we need a good month!
Michael Ignatieff has surpassed most pundits' expectations and tomorrow's policy announcement will generate good press. (Of course Harper helped by stumbling).
But... there's a long road ahead and most people aren't following the election closely yet. During canvassing many ask if the election is federal, provincial or municipal.
We need more than a good week -- we need a good month! Much work ahead and many miles to go before we sleep!
"Mr. Harper looking scared of Mr. Ignatieff"
"Indeed, if there was one issue that typified the strange dynamics of Week 1, that was surely it. In a rare public misstep, Mr. Harper said he would welcome a one-on-one debate with Mr. Ignatieff. Then, when the Liberal Leader publicly took him up on it, the Conservative Leader meekly backed away.
Perhaps it was just a blip, a momentary shift in the power dynamic. Perhaps that's what this whole week was. But strange things can happen when the stakes are so much higher for one side than the other. And Mr. Harper looking scared of Mr. Ignatieff, rather than the other way around, is right up there."
Friday, April 1, 2011
Greens seek judicial review - do they have a case?
First, the broadcast spectrum is not private property -- it is public property (internet and cable channels pose other issues). That doesn't mean that broadcasters do not have freedom of expression but it does mean they have to adhere to certain standards. Those standards are set by the CRTC.
Second, the Leaders' debate is a very significant part of the democratic process. It can lead to a change in the election and hence the nation.
Finally, the CRTC presently does not regulate the Leaders' debate -- in fact, pretty well nobody does.
What does all this mean legally?
Well, it's possible to conjure up an argument that the public ownership of airwaves, together with the constitutional mandate in favour of democracy given to government (including the CRTC), requires careful regulation of the Leaders' debate so as to protect and promote democracy. Imagine, say, a situation (hello Italy) where all the broadcast media supported one Party. Democracy would be impaired. Perhaps the CRTC is obliged to have regulations regarding the Leaders' debate.
The trouble for the Greens' argument is that even if a Court accepts there is a duty on the CRTC to regulate (and I see that as a stretch) no Court would go ahead and draft the regulation; the Court would say "CRTC go draft regulations and get back to us in a year or so". At most the Court's order would affect the next election. And even if the order did require regulation, it's not clear the Greens would be given a spot on the debate: perhaps the participants would be limited to Parties with elected members.
None of this, of course, addresses whether Elizabeth May should be allowed on the Leaders' debate -- but while Ms. May may (or may not) be right politically she isn't on the right track legally:
http://www.theprovince.com/mobile/iphone/news/national-news/goes+court+ruling+debates/4541023/story.html
Amendment of pleadings
[18] Rule 26.01 provides that:
On motion at any stage of an action the court shall grant leave to amend a pleading on such terms as are just, unless prejudice would result that could not be compensated for by costs or an adjournment.
[19] Although the general rule is that amendments are presumptively approved, there is no absolute right to amend pleadings. The court has a residual right to deny amendments where appropriate: Daniele v. Johnson (1999), 45 O.R. (3d) 498 (Div. Ct.) at paras. 11 -15.[2] Further, I would agree that the proper factors to be considered are those first set out in Simrod v. Cooper, [1952] O.W.N. 720 (H.C.J. Master) at p. 721, aff'd at p. 723 (H.C.J.), and quoted with approval in Vaiman v. Yates (1987), 60 O.R. (2d) 696 (H.C.J.) at p. 698, which can be summarized as follows:
· An amendment should be allowed unless it would cause an injustice not compensable in costs.
· The proposed amendment must be shown to be an issue worthy of trial and prima facie meritorious.
· No amendment should be allowed which, if originally pleaded, would have been struck.
· The proposed amendment must contain sufficient particulars.
Which side are you on?
Canvassing at the GO Station
The take-up rate was high -- almost everyone accepted a pamphlet.
Most interesting was the lack on interest in the NDP. Lots of Conservative supporters and lots of Liberals. No NDP.
This is shaping up to be an interesting race... .