Bao Bao

In Berlin the oldest Panda known in captivity. He came to Berlin in 1980 at age approximately two years. Previously Pandas were seen in the Berlin Zoo in 1939 (albeit briefly) and again in 1958.

Provincial laws should be rendered constitutionally inoperative in relation to federal subject matters in only limited circumstances

Edwards Estate v. Food Family Credit Union, 2011 ONCA 497 rather unsurprisingly, holds that general limitation periods in provincial statutes apply to bankruptcy proceedings (see also Gingras v. General Motors, [1975] 1 S.C.R. and Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v. Ideal Petroleum, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 230). Of more general interest is a discussion of conflict/paramountcy. The Court holds:

[5]              Nothing in the development of conflict/paramountcy doctrine since these decisions calls into question their continuing validity. In recent years, the Supreme Court of Canada has consistently emphasized that provincial laws should be rendered constitutionally inoperative in relation to federal subject matters in only limited circumstances, namely where (1) the provincial law is in an operational conflict with a federal law, such that there is an impossibility of dual compliance or (2) the operation of the provincial law would frustrate the purpose of the federal law: see Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 3 at paras. 74-75.

Intervener or friend of the court

R. v. Kokopenace, 2011 ONCA 498 deals with the distinction between intervention and being a friend of the court, especially in criminal matters. In general adding as a party is not allowed in criminal matters but being a friend of the court is. The Court writes:

[2]    I am not prepared to add the applicants as parties to these appeals.  These appeals are criminal in nature and factually unrelated as they arise from entirely separate incidents.  In both cases the appellants are appealing their convictions for serious offenses, including murder and manslaughter, based on errors alleged to have been made at trial.   The only link between the two appeals is that both appellants raise an issue with respect to the manner in which the jury panel was selected for their trials. 

[3]    The parties to these appeals are the appellants and the Crown. In most instances there is no room and to add "strangers" as parties to a criminal appeal.  If simply added as parties, the interveners would, like any other party, have the right to seek to introduce new evidence, comment on the merits of the "substantive" grounds of appeal and would have rights of appeal.  In my view, such participation is inappropriate and inconsistent with the Canadian system of criminal justice. Indeed, neither proposed intervener seeks an opportunity to litigate the substantive issues under appeal but both wish to participate only in relation to the issue arising out of the jury panel selection process. 

[4]  The proposed interveners concede that the reason they seek to be added as parties arises from this court's common practice of requiring interveners as friends of the court to accept the record as it exists and not seek to augment the record. They hope to be excused from that condition so that they might participate more fully in the development of the record in relation to jury panel issue.

[5]  Intervention, whether as an added party or as a friend of the court, may be made subject to such conditions as the court deems appropriate. Even if added as a party, an intervener may be confined to the existing record and be subject to other restrictions imposed as conditions for the granting of intervener status. In contrast, an intervener added as a friend of the court may be permitted to augment the record in appropriate cases.

[6]  I am satisfied that both NAN and the ALST have the experience and resources that will enable them to provide assistance to the court in dealing with the issue of the jury selection process that arises in these two appeals.  Further, I am satisfied that the participation of both sets of proposed interveners should not be limited by the usual condition that they be bound by the record as developed by the parties. 

[7]  While this limiting condition will rarely be dispensed with, these proposed interveners have demonstrated a basis for permitting more wide-ranging involvement in this case. Both appellants supported intervention by the applicants on the basis that, amongst other things, they do not individually have the expertise, access to information or the resources to fully develop the record. In contrast, the proposed interveners have access to information not generally available to individual litigants and have the resources to develop an appropriate record for use by the court.  In my view, the participation of these interveners will be important in assisting the court to have a proper understanding of the nature and scope of the jury panel issue raised in these appeals. 

[8]  At this point I am prepared to allow the applications and order that applicants be granted intervener status as friends of the court and direct that their involvement will not be subject to the usual blanket limitation that they accept the record as it exists. This participation may well include being granted the opportunity to cross-examine any witnesses tendered by the Crown and developing and introducing other relevant evidence not tendered by the parties. 

BusterRhino's Oshawa

Cyclist fractures pedestrian’s skull, gets $400 fine

The story below certainly suggests the cyclist could have been charged with a criminal offence - perhaps criminal negligence.

But the fact remains accidents, sometimes tragic, do happen. And when an accident happens, even if there are tragic results, the accident should not be elevated to criminal wrongdoing.

Momentary inattention to the road (which amounts to careless driving) happens to all drivers. Remember, 'there but for the grace of God...".

http://bit.ly/oDHnDN

A cyclist who was going the wrong way on a one-way street when he struck a 56-year-old woman and fractured her skull will be fined $400, whether the woman lives or dies.

In a case that raises questions about the strength of the province's traffic laws, the 49-year-old man — whose name was not released — was charged with careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act. He faces no criminal charges or jail time.

Orphaned polar bear cub, Qannik, arrives at Louisville Zoo

http://bit.ly/n2Gq0k

A conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking.

Arthur Bloch or Martin Henry Fischer or others -- attributed to many

Shake yourself off

Direct extrinsic evidence of a testator’s intention in the face of an unambiguous will is inadmissible

Rondel v. Robinson Estate, 2011 ONCA 493 considers, and upholds, the common law position in Canada that direct extrinsic evidence of a testator's intention in the face of an unambiguous will is inadmissible:

[27]         The law properly regards the direct evidence of third parties about the testator's intentions to be inadmissible. There would be much uncertainty and estate litigation if disappointed beneficiaries like Dr. Rondel could challenge a will based on their belief that the testator had different intentions than those manifested in the will.

[28]         An apt example is Reishiska v. Cody, 1967 CarswellSask 97 (C.A.). In that case, the testator made a will in which she bequeathed her land to her niece and nephew on the condition that they arrive in Canada within 15 years of her death, or else the land would be transferred absolutely to the defendant. The niece and nephew arrived in Canada, but the defendant sought to introduce evidence that the testator intended that the niece and nephew be landed immigrants or permanent residents, not just visitors. The evidence was inadmissible because it attempted to establish a contrary intention to that determined by giving the words of the will their ordinary and natural meaning. To admit the evidence would have created uncertainty where no uncertainty existed in the words of the will.

[29]         An exception to the general rule excluding direct extrinsic evidence of intent in a court of construction arises where there is an "equivocation" in the will. The principle is set out in Feeney, The Canadian Law of Wills: Volume 2 Construction, 2d ed. (Toronto: Butterworths, 1982), at p. 56:

There is an equivocation only where the words of the will, either when read in the light of the whole will or, more usually, when construed in the light of the surrounding circumstances, apply equally well to two or more persons or things. In such a case, extrinsic evidence of the testator's actual intention may be admitted and will usually resolve the equivocation.

[30]         In Re Bruce Estate (1998), 24 E.T.R. (2d) 44 (Y.S.C.), the court held that the term "equivocation" is a term of art that has a special meaning in law. The court cautioned against simply equating it with either ambiguity or mere difficulty of interpretation, otherwise there would be no need for rules of interpretation and construction.

[31]         The affidavits of Mr. Silverman, Ms. Budi and Dr. Rondel do furnish evidence of some of the surrounding circumstances in this case. Before drafting her Will, Mr. Silverman did not ask the testator about her previous Will, did not review her assets and their location with her, and did not canvass with her the people who she might consider including in the Will. Nor, did she offer any of this information to Mr. Silverman. Taken together, this evidence might give rise to speculation that the testator did not turn her mind to the effect the 2006 Canadian Will would have on the 2002 Spanish Will and the European assets. However, when considered in the light of all the surrounding circumstances including this evidence, there is not the slightest equivocation in the testator's 2006 Canadian Will. The words of the 2006 Canadian Will are clear. As the application judge found, this was not a case about a typographical error, a solicitor's misunderstanding of the testator's instructions or a solicitor's failure to implement the testator's instructions. Rather, the solicitor drafted the testator's Will in accordance with her instructions to deal with the "entire residue of my estate", and she reviewed and approved of the language in the Will before executing it.

[32]         The admissible evidence of the surrounding circumstances cannot support the inference that the testator did not intend to revoke the Spanish Will. Mr. Silverman and Dr. Rondel need to rely on the direct evidence of the testator's intent in their affidavits, and urge this court to expand the common law to allow them to do so.

[33]         It has been previously suggested that such evidence should be admitted to aid the interpretation of wills. The court's attention was drawn to a 1982 report of the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia that recommended eliminating the exclusionary rules of evidence and admitting all evidence in aid of interpretation that meets the normal evidentiary test of relevance. The recommendation was not accepted.

[34]         I prefer the different view taken by the Succession Law Reform Project reporting to the British Columbia Law Institute in a 2006 Report:

The view that has prevailed in the Succession Law Reform Project, however, is that removing all restrictions on admission of extrinsic evidence of intent would allow excessive scope for attempts to secure an interpretation contradicting the actual terms of the will. Fabrications or fantasies of the "he really meant me" or "he always said I would get the house" variety could be advanced much more easily than they can be under the present law. The Testate Succession Subcommittee and Project Committee were not as confident as the Commission had been that litigation over the meaning of wills would not increase if evidence of testamentary intent were made admissible without restriction. They were not prepared to endorse the former Commission's recommendation to abrogate entirely the exclusionary rule regarding extrinsic evidence of intent.

[35]         I agree. The evidence of disappointed beneficiaries and other third parties is simply not as probative of testators' intentions as their own clear and unambiguous expressions in the will. Departing from the well-established general exclusionary rule would not lead to a more faithful implementation of testators' true intentions. It would, however, lead to increased litigation. I agree with the observation of Brown J. in Re Kaptyn Estate (2010), 102 O.R. (3d) 1 (S.C.) at para. 36:

The rationale for this principle of admissibility rests in preserving the role of the written will as the primary evidence of the testator's intention and avoiding displacing the written will with an "oral will" gleaned from evidence of the testator's declarations of intent. [Footnotes omitted.]

[36]         A testator of sound mind knows her intentions and is able to express them. The very raison d'ętre of a written will, formally executed, is to record the testator's own expression of intentions. The formalities required for the proper execution of the will advance that goal by confirming that the will provides an accurate record of those intentions.

[37]         Third-party evidence of a testator's intentions gives rise to both reliability and credibility issues. Credibility is a concern because would-be beneficiaries can, without fear of contradiction by the deceased, exaggerate their relationship and fabricate the promises of requests. Reliability is a concern because testators are not obliged to write their wills to accord with the sincere or mendacious assurances they may have given to those close to them. Until they die, testators may freely revoke or vary the directions they have given for the distribution of their estates. The evidence of third parties, who cannot directly discern the mind of the testator, is logically incapable of directly proving the testator's intent.

[38]         In my view, there is no question about the good sense of the common law rule excluding direct extrinsic evidence of a testator's intent

Downtown London, Ontario

Breakfast meeting

‘Game changer’ study finds environmental links to autism

Autism rates are increasing for some reason. My sense is the increase is not a selection effect or artifice but something real. These studies, there are two, in the November issue of Archives of General Psychiatry may be the first step down a new road towards figuring out what is going on:


http://bit.ly/nxGKLn

LAURIE TARKAN      
New York Times     
 
A new study of twins suggests that environmental factors, including conditions in the womb, may be at least as important as genes in causing autism.

The researchers did not say which environmental influences might be at work. But other experts said the new study, released online on Monday, marked an important shift in thinking about the causes of autism, which is now thought to affect at least 1 percent of the population in the developed world.

The jury, passing on the prisoner's life,

May in the sworn twelve have a thief or two
Guiltier than him they try.

~William Shakespeare, Measure for Measure

Prosecutor in Casey Anthony case to retire

It's the kind of case you never quite recover from:


Bianca Prieto and Anthony Colarossi      
The Orlando Sentinel     
 
ORLANDO, FLA.—Veteran Assistant State Attorney Jeff Ashton announced Tuesday he will retire at the end of this week; just days after the biggest case of his career came to a close.

Ashton's last day at the Orange-Osceola State Attorney's Office, where he has worked for 30 years, will be Friday, a spokeswoman for State Attorney Lawson Lamar said Tuesday afternoon.

"Not guilty" does not mean innocent. It means "not proven beyond reasonable doubt".

Hamilton Courthouse

General Rule of Probate applies to validity and not construction

Smith Estate v. Rotstein, 2011 ONCA 491 deals with the General Rule of probate law, which is said to require that all testamentary documents be proven or probated at the same time. The Court held the rule applies not to the construction but only the validity of the testamentary instruments.

The Court holds:

(i) Did the motion judge err in granting partial summary judgment in respect of some, but not all, testamentary instruments?

[23] Counsel for the appellant relies on the General Rule of Probate, which can be traced back to 1858 through all 30 editions of the leading probate text – Tristram & Coote's Probate Practice. (The most recent edition is J.I. Winegarten, R. D'Costa & T. Synak, 30th ed. (London: LexisNexis Butterworths, 2006) at paras. 3.160-3.173.) The rule has its genesis in ecclesiastical law where a grant of probate from an ecclesiastical court in contentious proceedings was irrevocable, except in limited situations such as the discovery of a later will after the grant of probate or circumstances giving rise to fraud.

[24] The General Rule also served to protect an executor whose duties were circumscribed by the testamentary documents admitted to probate. Probating all testamentary documents at the same time promoted certainty and enabled the executor to proceed with confidence in carrying out his or her fiduciary duties.

[25] Counsel for the appellant describes the underlying purpose of the rule as follows:

The rationale for the rule remains persuasive today. A grant of probate sets up a property right in the assets of the estate in favour of the executor. All the world must have confidence in transacting with the executor that he or she has the right to deal with the property of the estate. This achieves transactional certainty. In contrast, admitting some, but not all, documents to probate may undermine this certainty. Second, the grant of probate allows the executor to be appointed and thus creates the obligation that he or she takes up. Granting probate in respect of some, but not all, documents before the court can result in a weak quality of the grant, especially as one document may revoke, limit or otherwise nullify another. It may make the executor's duties impossible to ascertain. The rationale for the General Rule thus continues to operate.

[26] Applying the rationale for the rule, as articulated by counsel for the appellant, I can find nothing in the reasons for judgment of the motion judge that offends the rationale. There is nothing, in the circumstances of this case, which would undermine the confidence of anyone dealing with the executor concerning the property of the estate. There is nothing in either the third codicil or the fourth codicil that weakens the grant of probate in respect of the will or its first two codicils.

[27] Finally, counsel for the appellant submits that the motion judge failed to recognize that the General Rule relates to the validity of the will and not its construction.

[28] I can find nothing in the reasons for judgment that suggest the motion judge did not recognize the General Rule relates to the validity of the will and not its construction. Indeed, at paras. 49-51 of his reasons, the motion judge appears to make the appropriate distinction:

A will and its codicils should be construed together as one testamentary disposition. As put in Williams on Wills, Ninth Edition:

The will and all the codicils thereto are construed together as one testamentary disposition, although not as one document and the same principles in general apply to the construction of a codicil as of a will. For the purpose of explaining the will or any codicil, the court may and is bound to look at the will and at all the other codicils (emphasis added).

But the issue on this motion does not involve the construction of testamentary documents; it concerns the validity of testamentary documents. The common law recognizes that proceedings involving wills may involve two distinct questions: (i) inquiring into which document constitutes the will of which the testatrix knew and approved; and, (ii) interpreting what the language of the will means: Balaz v. Balaz [[2009] O.J. No. 1573 (S.C.) at para. 10]. This proceeding engages the first question only. Once it is determined which documents constitute the will of Ruth Smith, subsequent questions of interpretation may or may not arise.

In my view Ms. Rotstein's argument conflates a task not yet before this court – the interpretation of valid testamentary documents – with one that is – ascertaining which testamentary documents are valid. Ms. Rotstein has put in issue the validity of her mother's last will and codicils. Her brother's Rule 20 motion requires the court to determine whether a trial is necessary or unnecessary to determine the validity of those testamentary instruments. Put another way, the questions on this motion are which of the testamentary instruments require a trial to determine their validity and which, if any, do not? If the answer is that some do not require a trial, then the objections to their validity can be dismissed and what remains for trial will be the validity of the other testamentary instruments. Once the validity of all testamentary documents has been ascertained, either on this motion or at trial, it may or may not be necessary to engage in questions of interpretation of those testamentary instruments which have been found valid, but that is an exercise for another day and another place.

Delivery of one of several installments of defective goods not necessarily repudiation of entire contract

Cimmaster Inc. v. Piccione Manufacturing Technologies Company, 2011 ONCA 486 deals with one defective delivery of goods. The Court upheld the trial judge's conclusion that the defective delivery was a severable breach giving rise to a claim for compensation for the defective delivery and not a repudiation of the entire contract. The Court holds:

[11] The trial judge held that resolution of the appellant's counter-claim turned on s. 30(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, which provides as follows:

(2) Where there is a contract for the sale of goods to be delivered by stated instalments that are to be separately paid for and the seller makes defective deliveries in respect of one or more instalments or fails to deliver one or more instalments or the buyer neglects or refuses to take delivery of or pay for one or more instalments, it is a question in each case depending on the terms of the contract and the circumstances of the case whether the breach of contract is a repudiation of the whole contract or whether it is a severable breach giving rise to a claim for compensation but not to a right to treat the whole contract as repudiated. [Emphasis added.]

[12] The trial judge accepted that there had been a defective delivery in respect of the first instalment but there had not been repudiation of the whole contract by the respondent. In the result, what occurred was a severable breach entitling the appellant only to compensation for the problems with the first instalment but not loss of profit for the balance of the contract. The trial judge applied the test from Maple Flock Co. v. Universal Furniture Products (Wembley) Ltd., [1934] 1 K.B. 148 (C.A.) which had considered the identical United Kingdom legislation. The court in Maple Flock, at p. 156, characterized the issue as to whether the seller had delivered the earlier instalment in such circumstances as to lead to the inference that it "cannot or will not deliver any other kinds of goods in the future". The trial judge applied the approach outlined at p. 157 of Maple Flock:

With the help of these authorities we deduce that the main tests to be considered in applying the sub-section to the present case are, first, the ratio quantitatively which the breach bears to the contract as a whole, and secondly the degree of probability or improbability that such a breach will be repeated.

[13] The trial judge held that the defective delivery of the first instalment did not reasonably give rise to an inference that similar breaches would occur with respect to the other two instalments.

Leap into the day!

The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism.

Sir William Osler, 1st Baronet (July 12, 1849 – December 29, 1919) said this.

Although known mostly now for the hospitals that are named for him, Osler was arguably the greatest Canadian physician and certainly one of our greatest teachers.

He was one of the founding professors at Johns Hopkins Hospital and its first Professor of Medicine. Osler created the first residency program for specialty training of physicians, and he was the first to bring medical students out of the lecture hall for bedside clinical training.

"My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober." G. K. Chesterton

Election of rights

Charter Building Company v. 1540957 Ontario Inc. (Mademoiselle Women's Fitness & Day Spa), 2011 ONCA 487 deals with a party that, following an unfulfilled settlement, sought a default judgment. As seeking default judgment is inconsistent the party was barred from later relying on the settlement. The Court holds:

[15]        The essence of the doctrine of election is that a person is precluded from exercising a right that is inconsistent with another right if he has consciously and unequivocally exercised the latter.

[16]        The doctrine is set out in the oft-quoted decision of Lord Atkin, in United Australia Ltd. v Barclays Bank Ltd. , [1941] A.C. 1 (H.L), in which the appellant had started an action against a company on a cheque, framing the action as money had and received to the use of the appellant. The cheque had been unlawfully issued. The action was discontinued and no judgment obtained. The appellants then brought an action against the bank for conversion of the cheque. It was held that the commencement of the first action did not amount to an election to waive the tort so as to preclude the bringing of the second action. In the course of his decision, Lord Atkin said at pp. 29-30:

It seems to me that in this respect it is essential to bear in mind the distinction between choosing one of two alternative remedies, and choosing one of two inconsistent rights. As far as remedies were concerned, from the oldest time the only restriction was on the choice between real and personal actions. If you chose the one you could not claim on the other

...

On the other hand, if a man is entitled to one of two inconsistent rights it is fitting that when with full knowledge he has done an unequivocal act showing that he has chosen the one he cannot afterwards pursue the other, which after the first choice is by reason of the inconsistency no longer his to choose. Instances are the right of a principal dealing with an agent for an undisclosed principal to choose the liability of the agent or the principal: the right of a landlord where forfeiture of a lease has been committed to exact the forfeiture or to treat the former tenant as still tenant and the like. To those cases the statement of Lord Blackburn in Scarf v. Jardine [(1882) 7 App. Cas. 345, 360] applies "where a man has an option to choose one or other of two inconsistent things when once he has made his election it cannot be retracted." In a later passage [(1882) 7 App. Cas. 345, 361] Lord Blackburn speaks of a man choosing between two remedies: but it is plain that he is speaking of remedies in respect of the inconsistent things as stated above. The case was one where the plaintiff had a right of recourse against two former partners, or against two new partners: but obviously not against both. Lord Blackburn quotes Dumpor's case [(1601) 4 Co. Rep. 119(b)] which was a plain case of inconsistent rights, the question of waiver of a forfeiture. I therefore think that on a question of alternative remedies no question of election arises until one or other claim has been brought to judgment.

[17]        The doctrine has been endorsed by Canadian courts. See, for example: Findlay v. Findlay, [1952] 1 S.C.R. 96, at pp. 103-104 and 110.

[18]        The doctrine of election has been broken down into two categories – the common law doctrine of election and the equitable doctrine of election.

[19]        Election at common law takes place where a party is faced with a choice between two inconsistent courses of action that affect another party's rights or obligations, and knowing that the two courses of action are inconsistent and that he or she has the right to choose between them, makes an unequivocal choice and communicates that choice to the other party.  The doctrine provides that the party making the election is afterwards precluded from resorting to the course of action that he has rejected.  The election is effective at the point of communication on the basis that the parties to an ongoing relationship are entitled to know where they stand: The Commonwealth of Australia v. Verwayen (1990), 170 C.L.R. 394 (H.C.A), at pp. 421-422.

What? It's Monday? Feels like a holiday to me ...

London Courthouse

To say it's quiet at 8:00 am would be an understatement...

Stumbling into another war

Canadian involvement in the war in Libya has been extended.

Why?

What is Canada's strategic (or even tactical) reason to be in Libya? How does bombing one side in a local civil war make sense?

One can only hope that (1) the rebels win, (2) Libya remains united, (3) the rebels are liberal democrats who will respect human rights better than what came before and (4) that the rebels will remember their 'friends'.

Anyone taking bets on those 4 hopes?

"We're all cornered
Winnipeg Free Press

Whatever authority the authors of the United Nations resolution to legitimize limited military intervention in Libya may have intended to extend, the resolution now appears to have taken on a life of its own.

The war in Libya today has gone beyond what the sponsors and supporters of the UN resolution had envisioned. Indeed, no one envisioned a "war" in Libya at all, proposing instead the imposition of a "no-fly-zone" over the strife-torn country to protect civilian lives from the atrocities being committed by the armed forces of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. It should have been a piece of cake for a mighty military alliance like NATO opposing a tin-pot tyrant like Col. Gadhafi.

Last week, however, the Canadian Parliament had to approve the extension of that mission by another three months, committing Canadian forces to something that has become quite different from what it was originally advertised as being. Despite the denials that almost everyone in charge will issue, the mission now is clearly to topple Col. Gadhafi and replace him with a new government comprised of rebel forces. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said as much when he went to Libya and diplomatically embraced the rebel government-in-waiting."

The law is not so much carved in stone as it is written in water, flowing in and out with the tide.

Jeff Melvoin

Oshawa waterfront

The Prosecutor Stole His Life; The Justices Took His Money

Prosecutors and police must not be afraid of law suits and so hesitate to act.

But but but we have to create a transparent system of compensation for those wrongfully convicted. (And they exist and always will no matter how careful we are):

http://bit.ly/jXggno

By LINCOLN CAPLAN

In an important prosecutorial-misconduct case this term, the Supreme Court's conservative majority threw out a $14 million jury award for a New Orleans man who was imprisoned for 18 years, including 14 on death row, for a robbery and a murder he did not commit. One month before John Thompson's scheduled execution, a private investigator discovered that prosecutors had hidden evidence that exonerated him.

How you think when you lose determines how long it will be until you win: G. K. Chesterton

Goose (OK A SWAN) at waterfront

Greek bailout?

http://bit.ly/lxY4DS

The Indignati [middle class protesters] are not stupid, and are well aware of two salient points. First, the 'bailouts', as they are always called, are no such thing. Taxpayer-funded capital injections into otherwise bankrupt banks were bailouts. The Greek 'bailouts' are loans, pure and simple. The money will have to be repaid, and repaid at ungenerous rates of interest: 5.2 per cent for Greece, 5.8 per cent for Ireland. These short-sighted and grasping interest rates, motivated by the need to provide political cover for other governments, make an already critical problem significantly worse. The Greeks know they are being lent money just so they can work very hard for lower wages and higher taxes in order to pay it back at great cost. This arrangement is in place because of the second thing the Indignati know well, the fact that the outstanding Greek debt is mainly owned by French and German banks. This is why the Western European governments are especially keen on the 'bailout': it's helping to keep their banks solvent. The Indignati do not find that a compelling reason to embrace a decade or so of abject misery. They want the Greek government to default, and the banks to accept losses for loans they shouldn't have made in the first place.

Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the King's English

The Merry Wives of Windsor, Act I, Scene iv

B.C. man launches suit over wrongful convictions

There is a common thread in wrongful convictions -- a lack of disclosure. If we want to avoid sending the innocent to jail (here for nearly three decades) we cannot cut back on the obligation of prosecutors to disclose all relevant information:


http://bit.ly/m9ZR72


"They heard Crown lawyers and the judge made several mistakes during the 1983 trial. The Crown conceded that evidence wasn't disclosed to Henry as it should have been and if he was tried again, a jury wouldn't convict him. "

The smaller the mind the greater the conceit.

Aesop

Sleep in -- it's the weekend!

The love of one's country is a splendid thing. But why should love stop at the border?

Pablo Casals

Strauss-Kahn Is Released as Case Teeters

http://bit.ly/l7cP7d

It is remarkable how many media reports that Strauss-Kahn was widely known to be a dangerous sexual predator have rapidly been deleted from the web. In any event, it seems likely the charges will be withdrawn -- and Strauss-Kahn may go on to become President of France. Awkward for State meetings with the US President perhaps?

With Consul General for South Africa to Canada, Tselane Mokuena.

Ethanol Plant at Oshawa Harbour - City of Oshawa resolves against

This resolution, passed this week, is as strong a resolution I have seen.

1. That the City of Oshawa emphatically reaffirms its opposition to the development of an ethanol plant at the Oshawa Harbour beside the Provincially Significant Second Marsh:

2. That the Right Honorable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, the Honourable Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance, the Honourable Gerry Ritz, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Honourable Denis Lebel, Minister of Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities, the Honourable Peter Kent, Minister of the Environment, MP Or.
Colin Carrie and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada be advised that the City of Oshawa adamantly opposes the establishment of an ethanol plant at the Oshawa Harbour and requests that the Federal Government in the interest of transparency and accountability forthwith:

(a) Withdraw any consent previously given by the Oshawa Harbour Commission for an ethanol plant to be established on Crown land or land to become Crown land at the Oshawa Harbour;

(b) Withdraw any consent previously given by the Oshawa Harbour Commission for an ethanol plant proponent to apply to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada for any federal funding for an ethanol plant to be established on Crown land or land to become Crown land at the Oshawa Harbour;

(c) Deny any and all requests for financial contributions or support for an ethanol plant at the Oshawa Harbour including the current request by FarmTech;

(d) Withhold any further Federal consideration of any major new land uses at the Oshawa Harbour since the Canadian Port Authority has not been formed and the Land Use Plan required by the Canada Marine Act has not been prepared and approved by the Canadian Port Authority, including the required public participation; and

(e) Compel the Oshawa Harbour Commission,as appropriate,to undertake those actions outlined in Part 3 below .

3. That the Oshawa Harbour Commission,in the interest of transparency and accountability, be requested to immediately:

(a) Release to the public any license, lease, option or other legal instrument which

(d) Release to the public the data, analysis and business case on which it based its decision to accommodate a proposed ethanol plant at the harbour including information on the use of ships and shipping/harbour facilities by the ethanol plant;

(e) Release to the public any approvals or consents that the Oshawa Harbour
Commission received from the Federal Government in regard to a potential ethanol plant at the Oshawa Harbour; and

(f) Withhold any further Oshawa Harbour Commission consideration of any major new land uses at the Oshawa Harbour since the Canadian Port Authority has not been formed and the Land Use Plan required by the Canada Marine Act has not been prepared and approved by the Canadian Port Authority, including the. required public participation; and

4. That the City Manager be authorized to engage, on a sole source basis, specialized consulting services to prepare and submit a submission to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in respect to the Environmental Assessment Screening Report for a proposed ethanol plant on the Gifford Hill at the Oshawa Harbour to be funded from the Harbour Redevelopment Reserve; and further, that the City's submission be posted on the
City's website.

5. That the Mayor's office coordinate a public awareness and political campaign focused on stopping the proposed ethanol plant at the harbour.

6. That the Council of the Region of Durham be requested to support the City's position as set out in this motion regarding opposition to the development of an ethanol plant at the Oshawa Harbour.

Canada Day -- get out and play!

Canada Day thoughts

Canada is a good place to be.

A client, quite seriously, asked me if I was afraid of what might happen in the Provincial election this fall. I replied that I was confident the Liberals would do well and went on about how the campaign hasn't really begun.

My client responded by saying "perhaps, but if the Liberals lose will you leave the country?"

At first I thought my client was crazy but then I realized that where he came from being a member of an opposition group was physically dangerous.

And then I realized in much of, perhaps most of, the world, being in opposition is not safe.

Canada is different.

While I want a Provincial Liberal government I am totally confident that I am safe in remaining an open Liberal under a PC or NDP government. I have no fear that on visiting Ottawa a federal agent will throw me in a dungeon because I am a Liberal. Indeed, I know that my Conservative MP would politely meet me and discuss any concerns I have -- as would any NDP or Bloc MP -- regardless of my party affiliation.

Canada is blessed to be a peaceful Kingdom with freedom and ordered liberty. We have much to be grateful for.

Have a wonderful Canada Day.

Happy Canada Day

Canada Day celebrates the anniversary of the founding of Canada on July 1, 1867 as an independent Kingdom being part of the British Empire. It is, in a very real sense, Canada's birthday!

Salad daze

Strauss-Kahn case near collapse, officials say

If it does collapse the attitude of Europe towards American justice will be interesting:

http://bit.ly/iY4X1k

The new revelations are likely to buttress the view of Strauss-Kahn's supporters, who complained that the American authorities had rushed to judgment in the case.

Some of Strauss-Kahn's allies even contended that he had been set up by his political rivals, an assertion law enforcement authorities said there was no evidence to support.

Strauss-Kahn resigned from his post as managing director of the International Monetary Fund in the wake of the woman's allegation and was required to post $1 million bail and a $5 million bond.

He also agreed to remain under 24-hour home confinement while wearing an ankle monitor and providing a security team and an armed guard at the entrance and exit of the building. The conditions are costing Strauss-Kahn $250,000 a month.

Prosecutors had sought the restrictive conditions in part by arguing that the case against Strauss-Kahn was a strong one, citing a number of factors including the credibility of his accuser, the housekeeper, saying her story was "compelling and unwavering."