Mother's Day

Tomorrow, the second Sunday in May, is Mother's Day. The holiday is modern, coming largely as a reaction to the Franco-Prussian War and the American Civil War but it has roots going back to ancient times. Regardless, enjoy!!!

Vicks and his mother Olinka

זאָג ניט קיין

Never say this is the final road for you,
Though leaden skies may cover over days of blue.
As the hour that we longed for is so near,
Our step beats out the message: we are here!

Breach of common law peace bond leads to forfeiture and not to conviction for "disobeying a court order," contrary to s. 127(1) of the Criminal Code

R. v. Mousseau 2011 ONCJ 222 rules:

1            D.A. FAIRGRIEVE J.:— The question of law that arises in this motion to quash a charge of "disobeying a court order," contrary to s. 127(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, is whether the offence created by that provision has any application to an allegation that a person violated a condition of a so-called "common law peace bond." 

….

35     I accept the defence submission, then, both that an order to enter into a peace bond constitutes "an order for the payment of money," and that once the person bound over by a judge has acknowledged the bond or recognizance in accordance with the order that was made, it cannot be said that the person "disobeyed" it, within the meaning of s. 127. I agree with the position taken by Cadsby J. in Squires, supra, that it is not a crime to breach a condition of a common law peace bond. Rather, it is a regrettable event that opens the door to forfeiture proceedings.

Disposition

36     With the greatest respect for those who hold a contrary view, and notwithstanding the undeniable appeal of a simpler, more straightforward means of enforcing the conditions of a common law peace bond, I am satisfied that s. 127(1) of the Criminal Code has no application in such circumstances. The charge must accordingly be quashed.

Dean Martin presents The Rolling Stones - A truly odd concept

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOr2a9oEzGQ&playnext=1&list=PL723826BC39082E52

Guilty plea set aside

R. v. Brant, 2011 ONCA 362 is another Dr Smith case where a guilty plea was set aside.

One wonders how many guilty pleas are mere compromises. Recognizing Canada's very high conviction rate (over 96 cases in 100 where an adult pleads not guilty result in conviction) it seems reasonable to assume many plead guilty to avoid the risk of conviction of more serious offence.

The Court holds:

[1]              In 1995, Richard Brant, who was originally charged with manslaughter in relation to the death of his nine-week old son, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault. Although he had always maintained that he did not harm his son, an important consideration for the appellant choosing to plead guilty was the unequivocal opinion of Dr. Charles Smith that the infant had died from non-accidental head injury. In the fresh evidence Mr. Brant has explained why he pleaded guilty notwithstanding his belief that he was innocent. Moreover, there is some doubt that the facts agreed to at the time of the guilty plea could support the charge of aggravated assault and we note that the trial judge who accepted the plea indicated that it appeared to be the result of a compromise.

[2]              The fresh evidence from the Crown and the defence experts gathered following the investigation into Dr. Smith's cases cast considerable doubt on the validity of his opinion in this case. First, a genuine difference of opinion has emerged as to the weight to be attached to the existence of the so-called triad of subdural haemorrhage, cerebral edema and retinal haemorrhage. Secondly, it appears that Dr. Smith was unfairly critical of the work of the pathologist who performed the autopsy and considered that pneumonia may have played a material role in the death. The loss of important tissue sample should have had a significant impact on Dr. Smith's diagnosis of non-accidental trauma. Thirdly, the fresh expert evidence now available offers two non culpable explanations for the findings of the autopsy, namely idiopathic cardiorespiratory arrest or a blood clot in the cerebral sinus.

[3]              In short, the medical evidence is at best inconclusive and there is no circumstantial evidence to support a finding that Mr. Brant intentionally harmed his son, rather the circumstantial evidence suggests the contrary. Finally, Mr. Brant has explained his guilty plea. The conviction for aggravated assault was unreasonable. The fresh evidence establishes that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. It is in the interest of justice that the fresh evidence be admitted, the guilty plea set aside, the appeal from conviction allowed and an acquittal entered

Validity of restrictive covenants in employment agreements

Mason v. Chem-Trend Limited Partnership, 2011 ONCA 344 has a useful summary of the principles behind whether a restrictive covenant in an employment agreement is valid:

[16] This court also recently discussed the governing principles that are applicable when considering whether a restrictive covenant in a contract of employment is unreasonable and therefore unenforceable in H. L. Staebler Company Ltd. v. Allan (2008), 92 O.R. (3d) 107 (C.A.). They can be summarized as follows:

· To be enforceable, the covenant must be "reasonable between the parties and with reference to the public interest." (Elsley at p. 923)

· The balance is between the public interest in maintaining open competition and discouraging restraints on trade on the one hand, and on the other hand, the right of an employer to the protection of its trade secrets, confidential information and trade connections.

· "The validity, or otherwise, of a restrictive covenant can be determined only upon an overall assessment of the clause, the agreement within which it is found and all of the surrounding circumstances." (Elsley at p. 924)

· In that context, the three factors to be considered are, 1) did the employer have a proprietary interest entitled to protection? 2) are the temporal or spatial limits too broad? and 3) is the covenant overly broad in the activity it proscribes because it prohibits competition generally and not just solicitation of the employer's customers?

Vehicle searches proper incidents of detention of occupants

Two cases released today, one from the Supreme Court and the other from the Court of Appeal, uphold vehicle searches as proper incidents to the lawful detention of people in the vehicles.

R. v. Loewen, 2011 SCC 21:

2.         Lawfulness of the Search Incident to Arrest
 
 
[10]                          The trial judge noted that "[t]he connection of the search to the arrest is not disputed" (para. 27).  Notwithstanding Berger J.A.'s view to the contrary, we conclude that the trial judge made no error in concluding that the search was properly incidental to arrest, and did not violate s. 8 of the Charter


R. v. Plummer, 2011 ONCA 350:

[53]         However, there is nothing in Mann confining a search incidental to an investigative detention to only the person detained. Indeed, in Mann, the court actually considered both a pat-down search of the person detained, which it upheld, and a search inside the detainee's pockets, which it found to be unreasonable. Accordingly, I agree with this court's interpretation of Mann in R. v. Batzer (2005), 200 C.C.C. (3d) 330 at para. 16: "the [Supreme Court of Canada] leaves the clear inference that on the right facts, a search incidental to a lawful stop could comply with the common law and pass constitutional muster even though it went beyond a pat down."

Ignatieff to return to academia at University of Toronto

Good for Michael -- he's a good guy and a fine teacher -- I've seen him lecture and he is very engaging. U of T has done well.
  
OTTAWA—The Liberals' Michael Ignatieff, who announced Tuesday he was stepping down as his party's leader, will take up a prestigious teaching position at the University of Toronto.

The former journalist and Harvard lecturer is being appointed senior resident of Massey College, a position previously held by Pierre Trudeau, Liberal MP Bob Rae and former Reform leader Preston Manning.

"We are all very pleased that Michael Ignatieff has agreed to come to the University of Toronto," Massey College Master John Fraser said in a statement

Issue estoppel

Today's decision in Wolfe v. Pickar, 2011 ONCA 347 sets out the requirements clearly:

... the three requirements for the application of the issue estoppel:

(1)  the same question has been decided;

(2)  the judicial decision which is said to create the estoppel was final; and,

(3)  the parties to the judicial decision or their privies were the same persons as the parties to the proceedings in which the estoppel is raised or their privies.

Interpretation of texts

The principle for interpretation of statutes and contracts is holistic -- we look at the entire document to make sense of the parts assuming that the writer always intended there to be a meaning to the text.

Today's Vatican news release has an interesting passage about interpretation of Scripture -- and it seems to follow much the same principle:

" "A good hermeneutic cannot mechanically apply the criteria of inspiration, or absolute truth, in the extrapolation of a sentence or expression. The level on which it is possible to perceive Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God is that of the unity of God's history, a totality in which single elements are reciprocally illuminated and open themselves to understanding"."

Spring is here (but it's still chilly!)

Think you have election fatigue now? Just wait until 2015

By the end of October, Ontarians will have gone to the polls three times within 12 months (starting with last fall’s municipal election and ending with this fall’s provincial election).

But in 2015, they will go to the polls twice within the same month.

The first time will be for the next provincial election, which according to law is slated for the first Thursday in October every four years — or Oct.1, 2015.

And the second time is for the next federal election, which is scheduled for Oct. 19, 2015 under Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s set election law.

That is, of course, assuming Harper sticks with his fixed election date. If he did, it would be the first time he did so since the fixed election date law was passed in the Accountability Act in 2006.

Conspiracy theory: NDP deputy leader Mulcair doubts U.S. has bin Laden photos

There is no genuine issue that bin Laden was killed.

Why US Forces acted without prior authority in the territory of an ally is a genuine question -- my sense is that there was authority from Pakistan but they preferred to keep it deniable (otherwise they would have made a bigger stink than they did -- also bin Laden had local protectors who are probably powerful in their own right).       
In any event, Thomas Mulcair is a bright man and one must assume he said what he said because he believes it. But why he believes it is another matter:

The Canadian Press     
 
OTTAWA—The first burst of controversy from the next crop of MPs came not from a raw NDP rookie but from the party's experienced deputy leader who said he doesn't believe the United States has photos of Osama bin Laden's body.

Thomas Mulcair struck a conspiracy theory note Wednesday when he told CBC TV that U.S. President Barack Obama's version of the death of the terrorist mastermind is incomplete, if not untrue.

Obama said he has seen photos of bin Laden's corpse but releasing those photos would be akin to peddling gruesome trophies. Mulcair was doubtful.

"I don't think from what I've heard that those pictures exist," Mulcair said during an appearance on Power and Politics.

What went wrong and how we can fix it

We have to shout out from the rooftops why Liberals are different and what we stand for:

http://bit.ly/jFKglA

Retroactive spousal support considered on the same basis as child support

S.P. v. R.P., 2011 ONCA 336 is an important decision dealing with, among other things, retroactive support for children and spouses. The Court held that retroactive spousal support is to be considered under the same principles as retroactive child support:

[59]         The principles relating to the award of retroactive spousal support are similar to those considered in the award of retroactive child support. In Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10, Cromwell J. for the court stated at para. 207:

…similar considerations to those set out in the context of child support are also relevant in deciding the suitability of a "retroactive" award of spousal support. Specifically, these factors are the needs of the recipient, the conduct of the payor, the reason for the delay in seeking support and any hardship the retroactive award may occasion on the payor spouse. However, in spousal support cases, these factors must be considered and weighed in light of the different legal principles and objectives that underpin spousal as compared with child support.

Furtwangler Conducts Beethoven Coriolan Overture 6.30.43

Terrifying, earth-shattering wartime performance of Beethoven's Coriolan Overture. Wilhelm Furtwangler conducts the Berlin Philharmonic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9JpIqeJMVk

Appeals from default judgment improper unless motion to set aside default brought first

Ketelaars v. Ketelaars, 2011 ONCA 349 is a brief but important decision. As a procedural matter the case holds a motion to set aside default is a condition precedent to an appeal from a judgment obtained on default. The Court holds:

[5]              It is not necessary to deal with the compliance issue, because, as this Court has said, an appellant from such an order "must exhaust his [or her] remedies in the court of first instance before an appeal lies to this Court: Silvonen et al, Trustees of the Estate of Halow v. Halow, Sr. (2002), 59 O.R. (3d) 211 (C.A.) at para 7.  There are procedures available in the Superior Court to change, vary or set aside such a default order.  To the extent Gray v. Rizzi, 2010 CarswellOnt 7120 (S.C.J) suggests to the contrary, we disagree.

I could sleep until next Monday!!!

Lack of knowledge of the law can, on rare occasions, be a defence

Ignorance of the law is no defence – that's a well-known phrase and it summarizes the general principle that if something is unlawful you cannot avoid liability for doing that something by saying you didn't know it was unlawful. 

 

But sometimes the law requires a specific knowledge and if that knowledge is based on knowing something about the law, a lack of legal knowledge may afford a defence.

 

Hence, in R. v. Arruda, 2011 ONCA 345, the accused was charged with perjury.  He defended on the basis that he did not understand the full meaning of a question asked at a bail hearing.  The lack of understanding was as a result of an (alleged) lack of legal knowledge. 

 

The Court of Appeal today held that such a lack of knowledge can amount to a defence:

 

[1]              The appellant appeals his convictions after a trial by judge and jury for the crimes of perjury and attempt to obstruct justice.  The charges arose out of his testimony as a proposed surety at a bail hearing that took place in March 2007, in the course of which the appellant was asked "And you have no criminal record?" to which he answered "No I don't".  In fact, he had a dated criminal record consisting of convictions between 1971 and 1995 for possession of stolen property, attempt theft, impaired driving and obstruct peace officer.

 

[2]              At the trial, the appellant, a 55 year old man originally from Portugal who was on disability for his alcoholism and who had finished only five years of school, gave evidence as to why he gave false testimony at the bail hearing.  He explained that at the time he answered the question, he did not know it was false.  He did not know he had a criminal record.  He believed that given the passage of time his record had been "wiped" clean.  In cross-examination he testified that had anyone asked him specifically if he had been convicted of impaired driving, he would have said "yes", although he did not realize that a conviction for impaired driving gave him a criminal record.  The appellant also testified that he did not know that a criminal record was relevant to his qualifications as a surety.

 

[3]              The defence at trial was that, given the appellant's various challenges, the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant, when he gave the evidence about not having a criminal conviction, knew it was false and intended to mislead.  

 

[4]              The argument on appeal is based on the trial judge's answers to questions posed by the jury after four hours of deliberation – questions that focused on the use the jury could make of the appellant's mental capacity, linguistic ability, history of alcoholism and understanding of the law.

 

[5]              The jury asked the following questions:

 

Can reasonable doubt be based upon questions relating to mental capacity or linguistic ability?

 

Can reasonable doubt be based upon the accused not understanding the law?  For example, criminal convictions do not translate to having a criminal record.

 

[6]              The trial judge's answer to the first question included advising the members of the jury that:

 

a)           they were "getting sidetracked" in looking at mental capacity or linguistic ability;

 

b)           there was no "not criminally responsible" defence raised, but that the appellant's memory "is relevant to what he knew when he testified";

 

c)           linguistic ability was not an issue as there was no evidence that the appellant did not understand the question asked or his answer; and

 

d)           any finding about the appellant's memory should be based on the evidence presented, not "speculation" about alcoholics.

 

[7]              The trial judge's answer to the second question included advising the jury that "everyone in our law is presumed to know the law".

 

[8]              Shortly after answering the questions, the jury returned its verdict of guilty in relation to each offence with which he was charged.

 

[9]              Counsel for the appellant on this appeal, who did not represent him at trial, submits that these answers were wrong in law and effectively deprived the appellant of his only available defence, namely, that he lacked the mens rea: he did not intend to deceive.

 

[10]         We agree.

 

[11]         As to the first question, it was clear that the jury was seeking help with respect to the appellant's mental capacity and linguistic ability, issues that could only relate to the appellant's defence that he lacked the mens rea necessary for perjury.  Answering the question by criticizing the jury for being sidetracked through the introduction of the concept of an NCR defence was unresponsive and confusing. A correct answer should have dealt with the evidence with respect to the appellant's ability with English and his difficulty in understanding and answering the question about whether he had a criminal record.  

 

[12]         With respect to the second question, advising the jury that the appellant was deemed to know the law was, in our view, a fatal error.  The jury was asking whether the appellant's mistaken belief that his criminal record was "clean", though an error in law, could create reasonable doubt as to the appellant's mens rea for perjury.  The trial judge's answer that "everyone is presumed to know the law", followed by a summary of the appellant's evidence relevant to the issue of his understanding of his criminal record and  ending with what the trial judge described as evidence that was "contradictory" on this point, severely prejudiced the appellant.  The jury may well have understood the trial judge to mean that the appellant was deemed to know that his criminal record still existed.

 

A long six weeks -- time to rest and recover

AN UNCERTAIN TRUMPET - - WHY THE LIBERALS LOST... AND HOW WE CAN WIN AGAIN

I wrote the following piece six years ago. I still think it has relevance for our future as Liberals

At the end of 2005 Canada was an economic leader among the world’s richest nations. In March 2005 the International Monetary Fund praised Canada for the fastest growth rate and strongest budget position among the United States, Germany, Japan, France, Britain, Italy and Canada. While assisting allies in suppressing terrorism, Canada avoided joining the war in Iraq. Issues of redress to aboriginal peoples and those discriminated in the past were being resolved by negotiation and, apart from a relatively small scale government contracting scandal in Quebec there was little to trouble the Canadian public. In short, Canada was successful both at home and abroad.

So how is it that the incumbent party, running for re-election in a time of peace and prosperity, lost? And lost, not to a party historically rooted in Canadian ideals, but rather to a party radically opposed to the (highly successful) status quo.

Stephen Harper, now Canada’s Prime Minister, is no Joe Clark. Mr. Harper spent his early political years on the far right wing of Canadian politics. He called for Canada to join the war in Iraq and described Canada as a Northern European welfare state “in the worst sense of the word”. Other Conservative MP’s have similarly extreme views. Harold Albrecht, MP for Kitchener-Conestoga claimed same sex-marriage could wipe out society in just one generation. Cheryl Gallant, MP for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke said the beheading of hostages in Iraq was “absolutely no different” from abortion. Ms. Gallant wrote to constituents telling them Christian phobia was taking over Canada and warning of coming persecution of Christians in Canada (this in a country where Christians make up 84% of the population and are an overwhelming majority of MP’s, MPP’s, judges, civil servants and police). The point here is not to ridicule the Conservatives for their views but rather to point out how extreme, odd and radical those views are. For such a political party to win in a nation not beset by extraordinary problems raises the question of what did the incumbent do wrong? How could the Liberals lose to people like Cheryl Gallant?

The Liberals lost because people did not know what, if anything, the Liberals stand for. The problem is not that people know the Liberal message and reject it (that may be the NDP’s problem) - - rather people have no idea what Liberals stand for and so think the Liberals are too weak to govern.

In the 2006 election the Conservatives focussed on a very limited, and very clear, message - - change, trust, values. Everything they said was related to, and spoke of, that message. The Liberals, by contrast, talked of specific issues - - the underlying message had to be inferred from the Liberal position, on say, child care. Voters did not, or could not, infer a message that way. The caricature of the Prime Minister as Mr. Dithers was unfair. But this caricature stuck because, absent a unifying message, Liberals appears to be dealing with everything ad hoc.

And because the Conservatives had a theme, they sounded consistent. Worse, having a theme when the Liberals had not, the Conservatives set the parameters of public debate - - values related to government contracting, gay marriage and punishment of criminals. Values, in the last election did not deal with poverty, social justice or to not giving tax breaks to already wealthy Canadians.

During the election I heard a leading Liberal explain to party workers that it was hard for Liberals to get a message out because the Liberal party position is usually “yet, but”. Issues are so complex that we cannot take a simple position - - what a misconception! The implementation of simple concepts can be hard - - murder is wrong but books are written on the laws of homicide - - but simple concepts are simple. The Liberal message must be clear, simple and understood.

Voters must know the Liberal party stands for something and what that something is. “If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle” (1 Corinthians 14: 7-9). If the Liberal party is to avoid a Conservative majority in the next election, it must offer a clear choice. To win we must:

- define our message

- attack our opponents

- defend our leader

- inspire our voters

These seem to be obvious points but they were overlooked in the recent past.

What is the Liberal choice and how does it differ from Conservatives? Winston Churchill set out the core of Liberal priorities when he served as Minister of Social Welfare in the Liberal Asquith government in 1911. “To raise people up from poverty. To reconcile private interests with public rights. To attack monopoly. To reward enterprise, but not with untrammelled privilege and preference. To exalt the individual over ruler or regulation. To expand freedom at home and abroad. This is our liberalism. This is the signature of our society.” As a summary of Liberal values this is as good a statement as any. The Conservatives and Liberals hold very different views of the country. Liberals support shared responsibility, shared opportunity and a fair chance for everyone to choose how they want to live. Conservatives favour concentrated wealth and power, leaving people to fend for themselves, economically, but socially Conservatives favour more control over the choices people are allowed to make. Liberals have a message - - freedom from want, freedom to choose, freedom to be what you want to be. Now, this is just one way to frame the Liberal message, but it is a simple, clear and concise message that explains the Liberal policy on everything from gay rights to child care to taxation of capital gains. And it illustrates just what Liberal values are and lets Canadians see Liberals are consistent and fit to lead.

The Conservatives focus on values was very successful in the last election but it was focussed on a bizarre and tiny set of issues - - gay rights, a small scale (and despite the noise, it really was small scale) corruption scandal in Quebec, gun ownership and, to a lesser degree, abortion. Because values and trust were framed by the Conservatives, Liberals looked weak. Yet, in truth, gay marriages was not a real issue - - it is clear the Courts will mandate it under the Constitution; and the number of Canadians affected is trivial. Gun control was also more apparent than real - - Liberals were not taking guns from hunters and Conservatives were not allowing widespread ownership of handguns. Abortion, while a simmering issue, was never openly addressed by the Conservatives and the corruption scandal, ultimately, is being dealt with by the police and the Courts. The “values” issues raised by the Conservatives were mainly smoke and mirrors.

But Liberals do have real values that affect Canada as a whole; and here the debate favours the Liberal party. By example, poverty is a values issues; health care is a values issue; taxation of capital gains is a values issue; treatment of First Nations is a values issue. On all these issues the Liberal position is far more popular, far more Canadian, then the Conservative position. If put clearly to Canadians, Liberals will win on values. It is worth nothing that Americans, who elected George Bush, when asked to choose the most urgent moral crisis facing the US said “greed ad materialism” (33%) and “poverty and economic justice” (31%) twice as much as gay marriage and abortion (Zogby Internation 11/12/04 Press Release). Liberals must broaden the values debate.

Conservatives will try to keep values as their own preserve by references to G-d. In his victory speech Stephen Harper said “G-d Bless Canada”, clearly acknowledging support from the religious right and claiming, implicitly, the moral high ground.

Liberals do not need to hid their faith. Most Canadians have strong religious beliefs and Liberals gain nothing by pretending that faith does not inform their views. This does not mean turning the Liberal party into a religious organization. But, it is possible to express personal faith and convictions about public policy while respecting the pluralism of Canadian democracy.

So, in dealing with minimum sentencing and progressive taxation, Liberals can show their faith (if it be so), illustrative Liberal values and shows that the Conservatives cannot suggest that G-d is a member by citing Luke 12:48:

But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

On “Conservative” issues, Liberals can and should speak. Liberals should say the rights of hunters be respected. Liberals who hunt should let the public know - - banning handguns does not suggest shotguns will be taken away from people in the Ottawa Valley. On abortion Liberals should recognize the moral ambiguity and say abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Policies to make it possible for children to be raised by their mothers combat abortion and promote a real freedom of choice. The Liberal commitment to political inclusion, expansion of economic opportunity and fair compensation for work done all speak to “values”.

Liberals must not be shy. Liberals cannot hide their light under a bushel. Negative advertising, if accurate and not personal, are effective and highlights real policy differences. In the last election Liberals failed, until late in the campaign, to point out the very real flaws in the Conservative’s policy. Negative campaigning, as the Conservatives proved, works - - so long as it is seen as fair, factual and being about these issues and not personal failings. Attacks on Liberal leaders, and they will come, must be met immediately and strongly. Timid calls for an apology will not fly - - Liberals must roar like lions and fight back like the tigers they are. Liberals must close the gap on the very issues where they are seen as weakest. For example, Conservatives are seen strong on law and order - - Liberals should focus on that very issue to show (a) Liberals have view, policy and solution and (b) the Conservatives solution is ungenerous, flawed and inadequate.

Liberals can win the next election. But we cannot win it unless Canadians know what Liberals stand for. An uncertain trumpet will not rally our forces - - we should let forth a powerful blast that will take down the walls set up by the Conservatives.

A great adventure

A few minutes ago I conceded to Colin Carrie, the Conservative MP for Oshawa. He was very gracious and I am glad for him.

While I think his Party's platform is misguided there is no doubt that he, and the Conservatives, have a strong mandate and that's the way democracy works. All I can say is I hope I am wrong and the platform works well.

The election itself was a great adventure and, while exhausting, was something worth every minute of the effort. We were not successful but we ran a good tight campaign and one I am very proud of.

Last handshake, last canvass -- KUDOS to all candidates on a fine race!

As I stood in the rain saying "make sure to vote" I reflected on just how exhausting this process is. Going door to door is absolutely essential. We did, in fact, hit the entire riding. Yesterday we distributed another 4,500 pieces of literature -- the streets of Oshawa are Red with our signs.

What will be the result? We'll know soon enough but I will say this, it has been a heck of a hard run. The Greens, the Conservatives, the NDP and the other candidates (especially the Marxist-Leninist) have run hard, tough campaigns. Regardless of who wins it's worth remembering the good will of all candidates. Everyone is running for the "right" reason -- to make Canada a better place.

Obviously I disagree with much of what the other candidates say -- but they are saying what they believe and they all deserve respect for that.

KUDOS to all on a fine race!!!

E-Day. Off to canvass at the GO Station

12 need-to-know facts about voting day

http://bit.ly/kpHla7

Off to a Holocaust Remembrance and then to non-partisan joint end of campaign party

We invited all the candidates and their volunteers.

The Greens are coming and we expect the Conservatives and perhaps Marxists.

Unfortunately the NDP declined.

It's a way to show appreciation to the volunteers who have worked so hard for every candidate.

Space shuttle launch scrubbed

NASA said Sunday that it will not launch space shuttle Endeavour on Monday.

The original launch, scheduled for Friday, had to be scrubbed when part of a power system for the shuttle's hydraulics malfunctioned.

No new date has been set for Endeavour's final mission. It is the second-to-last for the shuttle program and will be led by Mark Kelly, husband of wounded Ariz. Rep. Gabriel Giffords.

http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/0H2RO6/LQN0VA/GIM5NB/BLE0CO/P7CFY/9A/h