Saturday, June 28, 2008

Neocon Nostalgia

Yearning for the 'good old days' at The Corner:

Where’s Dad? Not the “fathers” of these unfortunate pre-borns, but the fathers of these pregnant girls. Where, in other words, is the shotgun?

Back in the day when birth control and abortion weren’t readily available to high-school kids, fathers were pretty good deterrents to pregnancy. Boys knew they’d have kneecap problems if they got daddy’s little girl pregnant. If they were lucky, they’d be married by the morning after.

Girls, meanwhile, were less likely to risk pregnancy because alternatives to motherhood were few, adoption being the most likely.

It wasn’t a foolproof system, clearly, but the specter of lifelong consequences, combined with societal and parental disapproval, helped keep the illegitimate birthrate down.

Yup. Them sure was better times...

The scary question after District of Columbia v. Heller, however, is how many U.S. Supreme Court Justices might agree with that sentiment?

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAWCIVIL LITIGATIONWILLS AND ESTATESFAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOGSUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Friday, June 27, 2008

'Free at Last:' Canadian Human Rights Commission Dismisses Complaints Against Mark Steyn, Macleans Magazine

This Globe and Mail report will come as no surprise:

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has dismissed a complaint against Maclean's magazine over a controversial article on the future of Islam, magazine officials said yesterday.

Meanwhile, a decision from the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal over the same issue isn't expected for several months.

The Canadian Islamic Congress launched the dual complaints over an article by Maclean's journalist Mark Steyn. The article, The Future Belongs to Islam, came under fire by Muslim critics who claimed it spreads Islamophobia.

Earlier this month, closing arguments were made before B.C.'s Human Rights Tribunal over the article, which appeared in Maclean's in October, 2006.

In dismissing the complaint, the Commission stated:

Overall, the views expressed in the Steyn article, when considered as a whole and in context, are not of an extreme nature as defined by the Supreme Court in the Taylor decision. Considering the purpose and scope of section 13 (1), and taking into account that an interpretation of s 13(1) must be consistent with the minimal impairment of free speech, there is no reasonable basis in the evidence to warrant the appointment of a Tribunal.

For these reasons, the complaint is dismissed.

The full text of the CHRC decision is now online: Canadian Islamic Congress v. Rogers Media Inc.

For more discussion of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the John Ross Taylor case referenced in the CHRC ruling, see our December 17, 2007 post, Mark Steyn, Macleans and Canadian Human Rights.

We've written much previously on this complaint, and have little to add to our original commentary, also of December 17, 2007:

For the record, then, let me state the obvious:

  • These are merely complaints, and have not yet been adjudicated;
  • Allegations such as these will not necessarily be substantiated through the complaint processes or at a hearing;
  • Our press also has broad freedoms and protection in Canada - these will weigh heavily in the balance of any tribunal determination of these complaints.
  • If the complaints are weak or frivolous, they are not likely to have any success at all. The complainants nonetheless have the right to be heard. That is how our judicial processes work and that too, is a freedom worth protecting.

For additional commentary on the fallout of this dismissal, see:

For what's it's worth, Mr Steyn assures his readers that victory notwithstanding, the campaign to restore free speech to Canada will continue, unabated.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAWCIVIL LITIGATIONWILLS AND ESTATESFAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOGSUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Honda and Keays: Supreme Court of Canada Rules for Honda, Punitive Damages Awards Set Aside

The Supreme Court of Canada has today released its long-awaited decision in Honda and Keays.

By a 7-2 majority, the court ruled in favour of the employer, Honda. The trial court's award of punitive damages against Honda in the sum of $500,000, subsequently reduced to $100,000.00 by the Ontario Court of Appeal, has been set aside.

We'll have more on this decision later. In the meanwhile, this excerpt from the Court's headnote summary sets out the Court's conclusions quite succinctly:

Aggravated damages should not have been awarded in this case. The employer’s conduct in dismissing K was in no way an egregious display of bad faith justifying an award of damages for conduct in dismissal. On this issue, the trial judge made overriding and palpable errors of fact. The employer’s March 28 letter to K did not misrepresent the positions of its doctors and it should not have been faulted for relying on the advice of its medical experts. There is no evidence that B took a “hard‑ball” attitude towards workplace absences or that K was being set up when asked to meet B. The employer’s request for a meeting between K and B was normal in the circumstances. The employer’s decision to stop accepting doctor’s notes was not reprisal for K’s decision to retain legal counsel. Rather, the employer was simply seeking to confirm K’s disability. Lastly, there is no evidence that K’s disability subsequent to termination was caused by the manner of termination. [34‑35] [38] [40] [43] [46‑48]

Similarly, punitive damages should not have been awarded. Punitive damages are restricted to advertent wrongful acts that are so malicious and outrageous that they are deserving of punishment on their own. The facts of this case demonstrate no such conduct. Courts should only resort to punitive damages in exceptional cases and the employer’s conduct here was not sufficiently egregious or outrageous to warrant such damages. Even if the facts had justified an award of punitive damages, both the trial judge and the Court of Appeal should have been alert to the fact that the compensatory damages already awarded carried, under the old test, an element of deterrence and they should have questioned whether punitive damages were necessary. This failure resulted in considerable and unnecessary duplication in the award of damages. [61‑62] [70]

Both the trial judge and the Court of Appeal also erred in concluding that the employer’s “discriminatory conduct” amounted to an independent actionable wrong for the purposes of allocating punitive damages. The Ontario Human Rights Code provides a comprehensive scheme for the treatment of claims of discrimination. A breach of the Code cannot constitute an actionable wrong; therefore the legal requirement for the common law remedy of punitive damages is not met. Since there is no evidence of discrimination to support a claim of discrimination under the Code and no breach of human rights legislation serves as an actionable wrong, there is no need to deal with K’s request for recognition of a distinct tort of discrimination. [55] [57] [60]

The full text of the Court's decision: Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays, 2008 SCC 39 (CanLII)

For additional background, our previous articles on this important case are compiled here.

More reading:

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAWCIVIL LITIGATIONWILLS AND ESTATESFAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

Montreal Gazette: SCC Bell Ruling a "Stinging Rebuke" to Quebec Court of Appeal

From a June 26 Gazette op-ed:

The rapidity with which the Supreme Court heard the Bell buyout case, and the unprecedented speed with which it overturned the Quebec Court of Appeal's ruling that would have derailed the deal, sends an unmistakeable message to the appeal bench to get its act together on commercial law.

The Supremes' unanimous 7-0 decision, with costs thrown in as well, is a stinging rebuke to the Quebec court... It's not the first time the Supremes have overturned the top Quebec court, but the magnitude of the Bell case, and the consequences of it, dramatize the message from on high. In fact, the Supreme Court has previously reversed seven out of nine commercial rulings from the Quebec court, including five out of five unanimous judgments, in the last five years.

...A unanimous judgment of the Quebec court was unanimously reversed within 72 hours of a hearing. You don't see that every day. The message to the Quebec court was a resounding rejection of its logic and interpretation of business law, with a slap upside the head - don't you guys understand the consequences of this?

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAWCIVIL LITIGATIONWILLS AND ESTATESFAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOGSUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

US Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Control Law

WSJ Law Blog:

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the hotly-anticipated case over the D.C. gun ban, a 5-4 majority affirmed the D.C. Circuit’s ruling that the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns violated the Second Amendment. The majority opinion was written by Justice Scalia. Justices Breyer and Stevens wrote dissents. (Here’s the opinion.)

E.J. Dionne comments in A Court of Radicals:

In knocking down the District of Columbia’s 32-year ban on handgun possession, the conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court have shown again their willingness to abandon precedent in order to do whatever is necessary to further the agenda of the contemporary political right.

The court’s five most conservative members have demonstrated that for all of Justice Antonin Scalia’s talk about “originalism” as a coherent constitutional doctrine, the judicial right regularly succumbs to the temptation to legislate from the bench. They fall in line behind whatever fashions political conservatism is promoting.

Conservative justices claim that they defer to local authority. Not in this case. They insist that political questions should be decided by elected officials. Not in this case. They argue that they pay careful attention to the precise words of the Constitution. Not in this case.

...In his intemperate dissent in the court’s recent Guantanamo decision, Scalia said the defense of constitutional rights embodied in that ruling meant it “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” That consideration apparently does not apply to a law whose precise purpose was to reduce the number of murders in the District of Columbia.

Also see: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights - N.Y. Times

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAWCIVIL LITIGATIONWILLS AND ESTATESFAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOGSUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Thursday, June 26, 2008

He's Just a Politician, After All

MSNBC Jonathan Alter, on Barack Obama's policy reversal and new-found support for the telecom immunity provisions of a FISA "compromise" bill that will shortly be debated in the US Senate:

It was only a matter of time before the left was disappointed in Barack Obama, at least in a limited way. No politician is ever going to do everything that somebody likes.

And I think some folks in the netroots in particular on this FISA bill who are, you know, pulling their hair out over this, they have to realize, he's always been a politician, he'll always be a politician, and politics is the art of the possible. And he's a legislator. He knows that you can't always get everything that you want in a bill, even if he personally believes that the immunity for Telcoms is a bad idea. The larger idea of the bill was important.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAWCIVIL LITIGATIONWILLS AND ESTATESFAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOGSUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

SCC: Honda and Keays Update

The Supreme Court of Canada will be handing down its ruling in Honda and Keays tomorrow, according to an online report.


- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAWCIVIL LITIGATIONWILLS AND ESTATESFAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOGSUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Child Support Spies Down Under

An interesting update from The Australian describes aggressive enforcement measures to be adopted in Australia to secure payment of child support arrears from defaulting payors:

Private investigators will be used by the Child Support Agency (CSA) to spy on parents who are not meeting their child support payments.

The Federal Government says the new measures would help the CSA collect outstanding debts of $1 billion from the current financial year.

...The CSA will now be able to conduct optical surveillance, through private investigators in serious cases where parents have provided false or misleading information in relation to their child.

"What optical surveillance will do is provide visually compelling evidence that some people are not doing the right thing," Senator Ludwig said.

"We can use that visual evidence for court action. We can also use it to encourage parents to do the right thing and pay their debt in full.

"It can stretch from video surveillance, it can stretch to just observation, as well. A whole range of actions can be used."

(h/t - Sandra)

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAWCIVIL LITIGATIONWILLS AND ESTATESFAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOGSUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Manitoba Life Support Litigant, Samuel Golubchuck Passes Away

Samuel Golubchuck, the gravely ill Manitoba man whose family has waged a dramatic lawsuit against Winnipeg's Grace Hospital to require continuation of life support over the hospital's objection, has died.

Mr. Golubchuck who was 84, had been on life support since last fall.

Doctors argued that Mr Golubchuk's health had "virtually no chance of improving."

His family, comprised of devout, Orthodox Jews, argued that the hospital's intended cessation of life support would accelerate Mr. Golubchuk's death, contrary to his religious beliefs.

Justice Perry Schulman of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench ruled in February, 2008 that Grace Hospital was required to maintain life support for Mr. Golubchuk pending trial.

Trial had originally been scheduled for December, 2008.

The trial date was advanced to September 2008, after an application earlier this month by the hospital, in which it argued "the task of caring for Golubchuk is taking a toll on staff, and one intensive-care specialist has already stopped working rotations at the facility in protest."

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAWCIVIL LITIGATIONWILLS AND ESTATESFAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOGSUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Google Search Stats, Community Standards and Obscenity

ABA Journal Top Stories:

A lawyer for a pornographic website operator plans to use statistics from Google to establish community standards in Florida. Lawyer Lawrence Walters plans to introduce evidence that Pensacola residents are more likely to search Google for terms like “orgy” than for “apple pie” or “watermelon,” the New York Times reports.

Also see: How to Define ‘Obscenity’? Lawyer Looks to Google for Help -WSJ.com: Law Blog

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAWCIVIL LITIGATIONWILLS AND ESTATESFAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOGSUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Conflict of Interest: Judge Recuses Himself from Obscenity Trial

Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Los Angeles, California, has recused himself from an obscenity trial after sexually explicit photographs on his own Web site became public.

The judge was presiding over a federal case against Los Angeles film maker Ira Isaacs, who is accused of selling and distributing obscene films of a highly extreme nature, when a newspaper published details of his Web site's content.

Read the full story here:

- Shashi K. Raina, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAWCIVIL LITIGATIONWILLS AND ESTATESFAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOGSUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Monday, June 23, 2008

Workplace Thesaurus Update

Apparently, it's not called "downsizing" any more.

It's now known as resizing.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAWCIVIL LITIGATIONWILLS AND ESTATESFAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOGSUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

More Carlin

Modern Man:

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAWCIVIL LITIGATIONWILLS AND ESTATESFAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOGSUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

George Carlin - Seven Words

American comedian, George Carlin, has died of heart failure at age 71, according to the Associated Press.

The AP's report chronicles Mr. Carlin's brushes with legal notoriety and his legendary comedy routine, Seven Words You Can Never Say on TV:

Carlin's jokes constantly pushed accepted boundaries of comedy and language, particularly with his routine on the "Seven Words" — all of which are more or taboo on broadcast TV and radio to this day. When he uttered all seven at a show in Milwaukee in 1972, he was arrested on charges of disturbing the peace, freed on $150 bail — and typically unapologetic on his release.

A Wisconsin judge dismissed the case, saying the language was indecent but citing free speech and the lack of any disturbance.

When the words were later played on a New York radio station, they resulted in a Supreme Court ruling in 1978 upholding the government's authority to sanction stations for broadcasting offensive language during hours when children might be listening.

"So my name is a footnote in American legal history, which I'm perversely kind of proud of," he told The Associated Press earlier this year.

Seven Words:

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAWCIVIL LITIGATIONWILLS AND ESTATESFAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOGSUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Sunday, June 22, 2008

The Great American Underpants Suit

A Los Angeles traffic cop is suing Victoria's Secret for damages over eye injuries allegedly arising from defective underwear:


(h/t - Pseudo)

More from TSG:

As she was attempting to put on a Victoria's Secret thong, a Los Angeles woman claims that a decorative metallic piece flew off the garment and struck her in the eye, causing injuries and a new product liability lawsuit against the underwear giant. Macrida Patterson, 52, alleges that she was hurt last May by a defective "low-rise v-string" from the Victoria's Secret "Sexy Little Thing" line, according to a lawsuit filed last week in Los Angeles Superior Court.

...Jason Buccat, told TSG that a "design problem" caused the decorative piece to come loose and strike Patterson in the eye, causing damage to her cornea. He added that the eye injury, which caused Patterson to miss a few days of work, will be "affecting her the rest of her life." Patterson is a traffic officer with L.A.'s Department of Transportation.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAWCIVIL LITIGATIONWILLS AND ESTATESFAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOGSUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Saturday, June 21, 2008

Quote of the Day: Greenwald on Obama, FISA

Glen Greenwald of Salon, on Barack Obama's support of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) "compromise," passed yesterday by the U.S. House of Representatives:

In the past 24 hours, specifically beginning with the moment Barack Obama announced that he now supports the Cheney/Rockefeller/Hoyer House bill, there have magically arisen -- in places where one would never have expected to find them -- all sorts of claims about why this FISA "compromise" isn't really so bad after all. People who spent the week railing against Steny Hoyer as an evil, craven enabler of the Bush administration -- or who spent the last several months identically railing against Jay Rockefeller -- suddenly changed their minds completely when Barack Obama announced that he would do the same thing as they did. What had been a vicious assault on our Constitution, and corrupt complicity to conceal Bush lawbreaking, magically and instantaneously transformed into a perfectly understandable position, even a shrewd and commendable decision, that we should not only accept, but be grateful for as undertaken by Obama for our Own Good.

Accompanying those claims are a whole array of factually false statements about the bill, deployed in service of defending Obama's indefensible -- and deeply unprincipled -- support for this "compromise." Numerous individuals stepped forward to assure us that there was only one small bad part of this bill -- the part which immunizes lawbreaking telecoms -- and since Obama says that he opposes that part, there is no basis for criticizing him for what he did. Besides, even if Obama decided to support an imperfect bill, it's our duty to refrain from voicing any criticism of him, because the Only Thing That Matters is that Barack Obama be put in the Oval Office, and we must do anything and everything -- including remain silent when he embraces a full-scale assault on the Fourth Amendment and the rule of law -- because every goal is now subordinate to electing Barack Obama our new Leader.

It is absolutely false that the only unconstitutional and destructive provision of this "compromise" bill is the telecom amnesty part. It's true that most people working to defeat the Cheney/Rockefeller bill viewed opposition to telecom amnesty as the most politically potent way to defeat the bill, but the bill's expansion of warrantless eavesdropping powers vested in the President, and its evisceration of safeguards against abuses of those powers, is at least as long-lasting and destructive as the telecom amnesty provisions. The bill legalizes many of the warrantless eavesdropping activities George Bush secretly and illegally ordered in 2001. Those warrantless eavesdropping powers violate core Fourth Amendment protections. And Barack Obama now supports all of it, and will vote it into law. Those are just facts.

...It's either that he "chickened out" or -- as Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin asserts and Digby wonders -- Obama believes he will be President and wants these extreme powers for himself, no doubt, he believes, because he'll exercise them magnanimously, for our Own Good. Whatever the motives -- and I don't know (or much care) what they are -- Obama has embraced a bill that is not only redolent of many of the excesses of Bush's executive power theories and surveillance state expansions, but worse, has done so by embracing the underlying rationale of "Be-scared-and-give-up-your-rights." Note that the very first line of Obama's statement warns us that we face what he calls "grave threats," and that therefore, we must accept that our Leader needs more unlimited power, and the best we can do is trust that he will use it for our Good.

It is Mr. Greenwald's conclusion, however, that hits it out of the park:

The excuse that we must sit by quietly and allow him to do these things with no opposition so that he can win is itself a corrupted and self-destructive mentality. That mindset has no end. Once he's elected, it will transform into: "It's vital that Obama keeps his majority in Congress so you have to keep quiet until after the 2010 midterms," after which it will be: "It's vital that Obama is re-elected so you have to keep quiet until after 2012," at which point the process will repeat itself from the first step. Quite plainly, those are excuses to justify mindless devotion, not genuine political strategies.

... no good comes from lending uncritical support to a political leader, or cheering them on when they do bad and destructive things, or using twisted rationalizations to justify their full-scale assault on your core political values. The overriding lesson of the last seven years is that political figures, more than they need anything else, need checks and limits. That is just as important to keep in mind -- probably more so -- when you love or revere a political leader as it is when you detest one.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAWCIVIL LITIGATIONWILLS AND ESTATESFAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOGSUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Friday, June 20, 2008

Top Ten Law Songs

Check out this "official" ranking of its all-time top ten law songs by U.S. law blog, Above the Law:

    1. I Fought The Law - The Clash
    2. Lawyers, Guns, and Money - Warren Zevon
    3. 99 Problems - Jay-Z
    4. Folsom Prison Blues - Johnny Cash
    5. We're All Winners, as arranged by Nixon Peabody
    6. Law and Order theme song
    7. Hurricane - Bob Dylan
    8. Alice's Restaurant - Arlo Guthrie
    9. I Fought The Law - Bobby Fuller 4
    10. The Road Goes on Forever - Robert Earl Keen

What do you think?

I'm wondering about the omission of the theme from Perry Mason, a golden-era TV offering which no doubt piqued the original interest of a whole generation of lawyers in pursuing careers in the field of real-life courtroom drama:



Back to the list....

We've previously featured numbers 1 and 9.

So, here is the late Warren Zevon with a rare, acoustic version of Lawyers Guns and Money from a 1994 BBC Christmas broadcast:

... and a more robust, full band version, from David Sanborn's Night Music in the late 80's:

And finally, our featured tune makes a cameo appearance as a theme song for a David Letterman bit, Celebrity Legal Troubles, with Mr. Zevon filling in for an absent Paul Schaeffer:


- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAWCIVIL LITIGATIONWILLS AND ESTATESFAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOGSUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Supreme Court of Canada Rules in Favour of Bell (BCE Inc)

From Report on Business:

OTTAWA — BCE Inc.'s $35-billion sale to Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan can proceed after the Supreme Court of Canada threw out a lower court a decision that put the largest buyout in Canadian history in jeopardy.

The decision was unanimous, and costs are awarded to BCE. The reasons for the court's decision are to come later.

Also see CBC: Top court says BCE deal can go ahead

The text of the Court's endorsement, setting out its ruling, is as follows:

Docket

32647

BCE Inc., et al. v. A Group of 1976 Debentureholders composed of: Aegon Capital Management Inc., Addenda Capital Inc., Phillips, Hager & North Investment Management Ltd., Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, CIBC Global Asset Management Inc.,, et al.

Judgment on the appeal rendered, CJ Ba Bi LeB De Abe Cha,

The appeals from the judgments of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montréal), Numbers 500-09-018525-089 and 500-09-018527-085, dated May 21, 2008, heard on June 17, 2008, are allowed with costs throughout.

The decision of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the trial judge’s approval of the plan of arrangement is affirmed.

The cross-appeals from the judgments of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montréal), Numbers 500-09-018524-082 and 500-09-018526-087, dated May 21, 2008, heard on June 17, 2008, are dismissed with costs throughout.

Reasons to follow.

Allowed, with costs

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAWCIVIL LITIGATIONWILLS AND ESTATESFAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOGSUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

On Olbermann

From a fascinating and insightful profile of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann by Peter J. Boyer in the New Yorker:

The Olbermann-O’Reilly feud, which is wholly Olbermann’s creation, began with a wisecrack in 2003, the first year of “Countdown.” It evolved after Olbermann instituted a farcical segment called “The Worst Person in the World,” in which O’Reilly, depicted as a pompous buffoon, was regularly cited. O’Reilly, the biggest draw of the highest-rated cable-news network, could only lose by engaging with Olbermann, but he could not resist. Refusing to mention Olbermann by name, he sponsored a petition drive to have him replaced, and eventually began to aim on-air broadsides against NBC’s parent company, General Electric, and its chairman, Jeffrey Immelt. “If my child were killed in Iraq, I would blame the likes of Jeffrey Immelt,” O’Reilly asserted in April, citing G.E.’s business relationship with Iran. (The company began phasing out its contracts there in 2005.) This only encouraged Olbermann, who subjected Bill-O (as Olbermann calls him) to near-daily barrages of acid caricature. Instead of using video clips of O’Reilly for his routines, Olbermann began voicing O’Reilly’s words himself, in a demonic mimicry of the Ted Baxter character on “The Mary Tyler Moore Show.”

See: One Angry Man: Is Keith Olbermann changing TV news?

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAWCIVIL LITIGATIONWILLS AND ESTATESFAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOGSUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Friday, June 13, 2008

Conflict of Interest

Truism of the day:

Even supporters of the death penalty should agree that nobody should be sentenced to death by a judge who is sleeping with the prosecutor.

More on this from the New York Times.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAWCIVIL LITIGATIONWILLS AND ESTATESFAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOGSUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Thursday, June 12, 2008

US Supreme Court Restores Guantanamo Habeas Rights: "Stunning Blow" to Bush Administration

In Boumediene v. Bush, a decision of the United States Supreme Court released today, the Court ruled in favour of Guantanamo detainees, finding they "have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus. They are not barred from seeking the writ or invoking the Suspension Clause’s protections because they have been designated as enemy combatants or because of their presence at Guantanamo."

In affirming the entitlement of detainees to assert habeas challenges in U.S. courts, the Supreme Court dealt a historic blow to the wartime policies of the Bush administration.

The commentary that follows is from Robert Ambrogi's Legal Blog Watch:

The 5-4 ruling was, as Lyle Denniston wrote at SCOTUSblog, "a stunning blow to the Bush Administration." American Bar Association president William Neukom said the decision "reaffirms the vision of our founders, and helps restore the credibility of the United States as a leading advocate and model for the rule of law across the globe." Kathryn Kolbert, president of People for the American Way, described it as a rebuke of "President Bush's vision of the presidency as an office of limitless power." And here is what the court, itself, had to say, in the words of Justine Kennedy's majority opinion:

We hold that petitioners may invoke the fundamental procedural protections of habeas corpus. The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, a part of that law.

Mauro at The BLT writes that the U.S. District Court in Washington, which now has habeas jurisdiction over the detainees as a result of today's ruling, is already responding to the decision. As many as 200 detainees have filed habeas petitions, and many were being held pending the outcome of Boumediene.

Not surprisingly, President Bush disagreed with the ruling, according to an Associated Press report:

ROME - President Bush on Thursday strongly disagreed with a Supreme Court ruling that clears foreign terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts. Bush suggested new legislation may now be needed to keep the American people safe.

"We'll abide by the court's decision," Bush said during a news conference in Rome. "That doesn't mean I have to agree with it... It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented," Bush said. "And that dissent was based upon their serious concerns about U.S. national security."

Bush said his administration will study the ruling. "We'll do this with this in mind — to determine whether or not additional legislation might be appropriate so we can safely say to the American people, 'We're doing everything we can to protect you.'"

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAWCIVIL LITIGATIONWILLS AND ESTATESFAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Land Transfer Tax – First Time Home Buyer Rebate extends to Resale Homes

On December 13, 2007 the Government of Ontario announced proposed amendments to the Land Transfer Tax Act to extend the Land Transfer Tax Refund Program for First-Time Homebuyers, thus far available only to purchasers of new homes, to purchasers of resale homes.

This important change to the Land Transfer Tax regime in Ontario became law on May 14th 2008, without much publicity, when Bill 44 received the Royal Assent.

The new rebate is applicable to transactions for which the agreements of purchase and sale was entered into after December 13, 2007.

For transactions closing after May 14th 2008, the rebate will be automatically applied upon completion of appropriate statements in the Electronic Land Registration system.

For transactions that closed prior to May 14th 2008, but the agreement of purchase and sale was entered into after December 13th 2007, the purchasers will have to apply to the Ministry of Revenue for a refund.

For eligibility and procedure for claiming a refund, read here.



- Shashi K. Raina, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAWCIVIL LITIGATIONWILLS AND ESTATESFAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOGSUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Leafs Welcome Ron Wilson as New Head Coach

Video from today's press conference introducing Ron Wilson as the next head coach of the Toronto Maple Leafs:


- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAWCIVIL LITIGATIONWILLS AND ESTATESFAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOGSUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Saturday, June 07, 2008

Dylan on Obama

Bob Dylan, commenting on Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic Presidential Nominee, as reported by Associated Press:

In an interview with the Times of London, the musician is quoted as saying that Obama has changed politics in the United States, though Dylan does not specifically endorse the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee

"Well, you know right now America is in a state of upheaval. Poverty is demoralizing. You can't expect people to have the virtue of purity when they are poor," Dylan is quoted as saying.

"But we've got this guy out there now who is redefining the nature of politics from the ground up ... Barack Obama," he was quoted as saying. "He's redefining what a politician is, so we'll have to see how things play out. Am I hopeful? Yes, I'm hopeful that things might change. Some things are going to have to."

So, like all of us, I guess Bob Dylan is wondering if the times, they may be a-changing...?

And why not...

Let's add this version by Bruce Springsteen to the mix, from a 1997 Tribute to Dylan at the Kennedy Centre in Washington, as a tuxedo-laden Dylan watches from the audience, flanked by the Clintons...

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAWCIVIL LITIGATIONWILLS AND ESTATESFAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOGSUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Friday, June 06, 2008

KFC Canada to Improve Welfare for Chickens

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) enlisted the help of Canadian and long time PETA member Pamela Anderson to generate attention to their ongoing, controversial “Kentucky Fried Cruelty” campaign. The campaign focused primarily on the poor conditions in which chickens used by the restaurant were maintained and slaughtered.

To stop the campaign from continuing in Canada, KFC Canada and PETA reached an agreement that promises “improved welfare for the chickens”.

The Toronto Star reports:
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has agreed to call off its Canadian "Kentucky Fried Cruelty" campaign, featuring actress Pamela Anderson, following a signed agreement with the company. The campaign will continue in the U.S. and abroad, however, PETA said.

Among other things, the deal obliges KFC Canada to begin buying from suppliers who use gas to kill chickens painlessly, considered the least cruel method of slaughter.


The company is pledging to insist on other "animal-welfare friendly" measures, including a crowding maximum and phasing out growth hormones and other drugs.
KFC is also slated to add a vegan item to their menu... no word yet on whether it will be "Finger lickin' good".

- Annie Noa Kenet, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAWCIVIL LITIGATIONWILLS AND ESTATESFAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOGSUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Employer Tells Waitress who Shaved Hair for Charity: Wear Wig or Go Home

After her father died of cancer, Stacey Fearnall, a waitress at Nathaniel’s restaurant in Owen Sound, Ontario, decided to shave her head as part of a “Cops for Cancer” charity event. When she attended at work for her shift, her boss advised her to wear a wig or go home. In spite of some public outcry, the restaurant owner continues to defend his position.

CTV.ca reports:
Nathaniels owner and chef Dan Hilliard defended his decision, saying the restaurant has certain standards. He prohibits male staff from wearing earrings and requires employees keep their hair at a reasonable length.

Fearnall is still on the payroll and she can return to work once she grows her hair back, he said, adding she was offered the summer off to spend time with her kids.

Fearnall, who also works in a plant nursery and as a caterer, told The Owen Sound Sun Times she was shocked by what happened.

"I honestly can't believe this is happening,'' she said. "It's ridiculous that I would be punished for doing a good thing.''
Stacey Fearnall’s husband has contacted the Ontario Labour Relations Board who informed her she should file an Ontario Human Rights Complaint.

- Annie Noa Kenet, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAWCIVIL LITIGATIONWILLS AND ESTATESFAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOGSUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Prime Minister Stephen Harper Goes to Ontario Superior Court

A pretty good cross-examination of Conservative M.P., James Moore, by CBC's Don Newman.

Mr. Moore comments on expert reports tabled at Ontario Superior Court by the Prime Minister, purportedly opining that the Cadscam tapes were "doctored:"


Also see:

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAWCIVIL LITIGATIONWILLS AND ESTATESFAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOGSUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Wednesday, June 04, 2008

Hillary Clinton's Last Hurrah?

Video of Hillary Clinton's 'victory' speech after last evening's South Dakota primary win:


- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAWCIVIL LITIGATIONWILLS AND ESTATESFAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOGSUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG