Showing posts with label Ontario politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ontario politics. Show all posts

Monday, October 25, 2010

Vote in Toronto's Municipal Election

Following up on Garry's earlier post today, all Ontario readers should of course vote in today's municipal elections, but Toronto readers should especially take note.

The mayorship of Toronto is one of the most important political positions in the country, and if we were to construct a ratio of most political power to least amount of voter participation determining who has that power, it would far and away be in first place.

To assist you in making up your mind, you might want to consider Torontoist's assessments of each candidate's platforms: community and social services, transportation policy, finance and arts/culture policy. The assessments are fair and reflect each candidate's stated policy goals, with more detailed links for those interested.

Also consider the major endorsements for each candidate:
  • Rob Ford is endorsed by The Toronto Sun, The National Post, and city councillors Doug Holyday, Mike Del Grande, Giorgio Mammoliti, and John Parker, among others.
  • George Smitherman is endorsed by The Globe and Mail, The Toronto Star, Torontoist, former mayors David Crombie, Art Eggleton and John Sewell, MP Bob Rae, former mayoral candidate Sarah Thomson and city councillors Joe Mihevic, Pam McConnell Adam Vaughn, among others.
  • Joe Pantalone is endorsed by Jack Layton, MP Olivia Chow, former mayor David Miller, the Toronto and York Region Labour Council, actress Sarah Polley, and city councillors Sandra Bussin, Howard Moscoe, and Mark Grimes, among others.
Then go out and vote!

- Christopher Bird, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

All Politics is Local...?

Except in Anchorage, Alaska, apparently, where much of a Sunday senatorial debate was fixated on the 'necessity' of building a border security fence - between the U.S. and Mexico!

(Can you see Russia from Ciudad Juarez?)

Meanwhile, closer to home...

Remember to vote today in Ontario's municipal elections. Polls are open from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. For our Toronto readers, everything you ever wanted to know about candidates, polling locations, voting and election-day procedures is online here.

Finally, for more on a bizarre series of homophobic ads related to the Toronto mayoral campaign that aired on a local Tamil radio station, see Slap Upside the Head for the details.
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

Friday, September 10, 2010

Wind Turbines and The Green Energy Pushback

CTV News reports on protests yesterday by Lindsay, Ontario residents who confronted Premier Dalton McGuinty on the alleged health concerns arising from local wind turbines:

"Have you heard about the children who are getting nosebleeds from these (turbines)?" asked Pontypool resident Mary Cowling.

"Just one child -- one child -- is one too many to suffer the effects of a wind turbine. One little child. And if it was your child, and your grandchild, you would feel the same way as we do and you would fight like we are."

Provincial regulations on wind turbines are among the toughest in the world, McGuinty argued, adding that there's no scientific evidence to suggest that turbines cause health problems.

The province has to move to clean energy sources in order to reduce Ontario's dependence on polluting, coal-fired generation, he said.

The Potential Health Impact of Wind Turbines, a study published in May 2010 by the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health, concludes that wind turbines do not pose any significant medical threat to nearby residents:
The review concludes that while some people living near wind turbines report symptoms such as dizziness, headaches, and sleep disturbance, the scientific evidence available to date does not demonstrate a direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects. The sound level from wind turbines at common residential setbacks is not sufficient to cause hearing impairment or other direct health effects, although some people may find it annoying.
More on this via Wikipedia: Environmental effects of wind power
A European Commission report has found wind to have the lowest external costs, comprising human health impacts, building and crop damage, global warming, loss of amenities and ecological impact, when compared to coal, oil, gas, biomass, nuclear, hydro and photovoltaic.
Wind energy appears to hold the greatest promise of all clean energy alternatives. While I suppose it is predictable that turbine projects will attract frequent "not-in-my-backyard" styled opposition, the European Commission's comparison of damage costs per kWh for coal, gas, nuclear and wind electricity appears rather difficult to ignore:
For wind energy (one of the more promising renewable technologies to be implemented in some European countries) it should be emphasized that impacts from upstream processes and amenity impacts become important, since no pollutants are emitted during electricity production by wind turbines. These impacts and costs are calculated using emission databases for steel and concrete production - materials used to build a wind turbine and tower. Impacts from noise are quite low. Impacts from visual intrusion are difficult to value. Both impacts can be minimised through planning and consultation. Impacts on birds and animals are negligible when quantified. Human accidents during construction, or due to collisions on sea, are also very small, but can become relatively important when emissions from the production of materials decrease further.
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Update: September 17, 2010

Thanks to our readers for the very lively discussion in this post's comments thread.

Note this cautionary report on an ongoing Saskatchewan wind farm lawsuit. Scientifically unjustafiable legal opposition to wind farms could prove to be quite costsly to objecting landowners.


- GJW

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

Friday, August 06, 2010

Bill 68: Proposed Changes to the Ontario Employment Standards Act

Ontario's Bill 68, the Open for Business Act, 2010, which passed second reading in June, proposes significant changes to Ontario's Employment Standards Act.  

The legislation is described in a provincial government backgrounder:

The Ministry of Labour is proposing amendments to the Employment Standards Act, 2000, that would:
  • Allow the Director of Employment Standards to require claimants to provide specific information and let their employer know about their Employment Standards complaint before the claim is assigned to an officer. 
  • Authorize employment standards officers to attempt settlements of complaints. 
  • Allow officers to make decisions on claims when parties fail to attend decision-making meetings or provide evidence on time. 
These amendments support the Ministry of Labour’s initiative to advance fairness in the workplace and modernize its Employment Standards program. These initiatives include:
  • Launching a task force in August 2010 to eliminate the backlog of 14,000 claims in two years. 
  • The new online severance pay decision tool for employers and employees. 
  • The future launch of a termination of employment/temporary layoff tool that determines when a layoff becomes a termination, the termination date and any termination pay owing.
The Toronto Star today details objections by various critics of the proposed changes:
“You don’t reduce backlog by creating more barriers to discourage complaints,” said Fred Hahn, president of the 230,000-member Canadian Union of Public Employees in Ontario.
For more reading, see the Star article: Employment bill stymies complaints against employers, critics say.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

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

Friday, November 06, 2009

McGuinty’s Early Christmas Gift to Auto Insurance Companies

After Finance Minister Dwight Duncan stood up in the Ontario Legislature last Monday and publicly wrung his hands at the mountain of motor vehicle accident claims in the province, he did what any clear thinking and sincere politician in his shoes would do to deal with rising auto insurance premiums – give more money to the insurance companies.

The proposed changes to the Province's automobile insurance regulations, due to come into effect next summer, would see the maximum allowable medical and rehabilitation coverage drop from $100,000 (in non-catastrophic cases) to $50,000.

The changes would also remove an injured person's right to obtain an assessment from their own doctor if they disagree with the findings of the insurance company's health provider.

But he didn’t announce that for the same money the average consumer would get less in accident benefits. He talked about “choice.” And everybody knows it’s good to have choices.

He added that drivers could still purchase $100,000 or even $1-million in non-catastrophic medical and rehabilitation benefits if they chose after the proposed changes come into effect. Motorists will also get options on the level of insurance coverage they want for attendant care, housekeeping and death and funeral expenses.

The recent proposals for auto insurance reform are simply the latest salvo in a decades-long erosion of the rights of motor vehicle accident victims.

In 1990 the government introduced legislation that only permitted compensation for pain and suffering in cases where it could be shown that injuries sustained had become “serious and permanent.” In 1996, the government of the day thought that insurance companies should be awarded a $15,000.00 deductible if pain and suffering claims met the “serious and permanent” threshold. That deductible was increased to $30,000.00 in 2003.

These unconscionable changes to the auto insurance landscape have given Ontario the reputation of being the toughest jurisdiction in North America for accident victims.

What is clear is that motor vehicle accident victims, their advocates and supporters have nowhere near the power or influence the insurance industry has. And as long as that imbalance remains, the insurers can always count on government to do their bidding.

- Stephen Ellis, Toronto

Stephen Ellis is a Toronto, Ontario lawyer

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, September 28, 2009

Quote of the Day: Legal Aid a "Triumph of Equality"

Frank Addario, President of the Ontario Criminal Lawyers Association, on the continuing boycott of serious criminal cases by the Province's legal aid lawyers:
Elected politicians have to declare themselves on access to justice for the poor. Governments that genuinely support equality must provide stable, long-term funding for legal aid programs. No waffling, half-measures or hedging will do.

Legal aid is modern social justice at its best. It is a triumph of equality when good lawyers accept such cases. It means that no matter how poor a person or how disorganized their life, a talented lawyer will speak for them.

In the legal system, at least, poverty takes a back seat. This beautiful ideal shows the rest of the world how we define justice. It's time to restore its sheen.

- 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, September 02, 2009

Michael Bryant: Did the Police Rush to Judgment?

Given the unusual evidence now emerging regarding the deadly, downtown Toronto altercation between former Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant and bicycle courier, Darcy Allan Sheppard, it is now abundantly fair to question whether the Toronto Police may have jumped the gun in charging Mr. Bryant before all the evidence was in.

Mr. Bryant, 43, was charged Tuesday with criminal negligence causing death after the incident which occurred Monday evening.

Through some excellent reporting by Toronto Star reporter Cathal Kelly today, we learn that only an hour before the Bloor Street altercation that would leave Mr. Sheppard dead, he was subject of a domestic disturbance complaint by his girlfriend, and in police hands:

Less than an hour before his path would fatally cross that of former Ontario attorney general Michael Bryant, Darcy Allan Sheppard was sitting in the back of a police cruiser.

Sheppard had been trying to get into an apartment on George St., south of Allan Gardens. Until a week before, he had lived there with his girlfriend, Misty. Then he had rented a place in the west end.

On Monday night, he showed up at the rundown building near Jarvis and Gerrard Sts. After eight days of sobriety, he had been drinking. Police said they were called. When officers arrived shortly after 9 p.m., they told Sheppard, 33, to leave and not come back.

...By 9:45 p.m., Sheppard was cycling west along the stretch of Bloor St. W. often called the Mink Mile. After passing the intersection of Bloor and Bay Sts., Sheppard collided with Bryant's black convertible Saab.

...Police would later call the accident that brought the two men together a "minor collision." Sheppard appeared unhurt. He angrily slammed his bag down on the hood of Bryant's car.

Despite the evening chill, the Saab's top was down. Sheppard and Bryant began jawing at each other. Bryant's 42-year-old wife, lawyer Susan Abramovitch, was in the passenger seat... According to witnesses, Bryant cut the argument short by pulling away. As he headed westbound on Bloor St., Sheppard chased the car on foot. He grabbed hold of the vehicle on the driver's side. It's not clear if he was trying to get into the car, get at the driver or merely prevent him from leaving.

As there are apparently surveillance videotapes of the incident available, and numerous on-site witnesses to be interviewed, one must wonder whether the speed to charge Mr. Bryant may somehow have been influenced by his political and legal celebrity.

Whether Mr. Bryant used more force than was reasonably necessary to protect himself and his wife from Mr. Sheppard's clearly threatening behaviour may prove to be a question of degree that can ultimately be decided only at a trial.

At first glance, however, there is abundant doubt that Mr. Bryant, faced with an aggressive and belligerent stranger who was relentlessly accosting his open convertible vehicle, acted excessively.

A more likely explanation is that he did what he believed necessary in the instant circumstances - perhaps taking the only action then available to him - to defend himself and his wife from an obvious aggressor who would not let go of his open vehicle.

The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the information now available is that Mr. Sheppard was acting irrationally, violently and with criminal intent at the time of this incident. As CBC News reported today:

Toronto police are investigating whether a cyclist killed in an altercation with a car driven by former Ontario attorney general Michael Bryant grabbed the driver or the wheel.

Sgt. Tim Burrows said police have seized a number of video surveillance tapes from the stretch of Bloor Street where the confrontation occurred and are examining them frame-by-frame to confirm the accuracy of witness accounts that have suggested the cyclist may have been trying to get Bryant into a headlock and that the two may have been wrestling for control of the wheel.

If these very basic questions are still being investigated, why in the world has Mr. Bryant already been charged?

The tragic consequences that ensued should not influence or inflame the investigative process.

That this may well have been atypical behaviour for Mr. Sheppard merely compounds the tragedy. As details emerge, it is clear his own circumstances were compelling, and that he was a much cared-for man in his community who struggled valiantly to overcome his own personal issues.

That too, should not cloud any investigation into this matter.

There should be no rush to judgment in these allegations against Michael Bryant.

It appears there may already have been.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

UPDATE:

I'd like to welcome readers from Bike Forums who have clicked through in response to this post at your messageboard:

Regarding Michael Bryant's murder of cyclist Darcy Sheppard, this attorney said it's perfectly acceptable to kill the cyclist when he's holding on for dear life to your car.

Bah.

If I understood the facts to be that Mr. Sheppard was "holding on for dear life," as opposed to the version of facts consistently described in news reports including those excerpted above, that Mr. Sheppard was behaving in a threatening, aggressive manner toward Mr. Bryant as this horrible episode developed, my comments would have been quite different.

If you are aware of credible, contrary evidence, please comment and let me and Wise Law Blog readers know - with links. We are interested.

- Garry J. Wise

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, August 02, 2009

Ontario Drivers' Cell Phone Ban Likely in Effect in October

Ontario's "no talking while driving" law will likely come into effect in October 2009, according to a July 27th report in Market News, an electronics industry journal that interviewed Jim Bradley, Ontario's Minister of Transportation:

It's official...maybe. Minister Jim Bradley says that the hands-free ban that was confirmed earlier this year for the province of Ontario will "likely" come into effect by October. Starting that month, drivers found chatting on a cell phone or operating a handheld wireless gadget in a car while driving could face hefty fines.

The month of October has been pegged as the likely date for the long-awaited ban to officially come into play, but a representative from the Ontario Ministry of Transportation confirms with Marketnews that while this is a likely scenario, it hasn't been 100% confirmed. Still, Minister Jim Bradley's statements have caused many to speculate that yes, October will be the month of reckoning.

While the use of handheld electronic devices will be strictly forbidden under Bill 118, motorists can still use hands-free accessories, like Bluetooth headsets and speakerphones. Drivers will also be allowed to depress the button requires to power up these units, like portable GPS devices, but no further manipulation of them while driving will be permitted. Fines can go as high as $500.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

UPDATE: October 1, 2009

The provincial government announced yesterday that the Ontario drivers' cell phone ban will come into effect October 26, 2009.

- Garry J. Wise

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, July 19, 2009

Rachel's Bits and Briefs


Here are a few notes for the weekend:

Ontario Criminal Lawyers' Legal Aid Boycott Expands
An Ontario Legal Aid boycott by criminal lawyers has now expanded to reach Kingston and Thunder Bay, reports the Law Times. The Criminal Lawyers Association (CLA) is organizing quickly to effect change to a legal aid program that it argues has been “broken for over 20 years.”

“A lot of the work we’re doing for free. The Crown’s office and the judges are being compensated handsomely for the system to run, and we haven’t been compensated in the last 20 years adequately at all” stated Gil Labine, the Thunder Bay CLA’s Regional Director.

CLA President Frank Addario recently met with Attorney General Chris Bentley to discuss the association’s agenda. Mr. Bentley "was not able to commit at this time to the improvements that are critical to ensuring a sustainable and equitable legal aid system,” said Mr. Addario. Currently, Ontario's maximum legal aid rate is $98.00 per hour, which many lawyers feel fails to address their high overhead costs.
The Globe & Mail reports that over fifty Law professors have added their support to the boycott as has the Law Society of Upper Canada, which released the following statement directed towards the Attorney General:
“We believe that access to justice is not an abstract notion, but a constant public policy challenge that requires adequate public funding.”
(Image courtesy of http://www.cartoonstock.com/)

Is it Time to Update Your Passport Photo?
The Toronto Star reported July 1st that a Toronto woman was jailed, fined and detained in Kenya for “no longer looking like her passport photo.”

Suaad Mohamud Haji, 31, stated that she “has lost weight, changed her glasses and maybe looks a bit darker-skinned since the photo was taken more than four years ago.” She was held in jail for 8 days, required to post bail of $2,500.00 (U.S.) and has been waiting for 2 months to hear back about a hearing that could lead to further jail time.

The single mother of a twelve-year-old son flew to Kenya to visit her sick mother and upon her May 17th return flight, was detained. Ms. Haji stated in the article that she leaves messages for the Canadian High Commission every day and “nobody returns her calls.”

The Toronto resident faces a Court hearing July 21 and fears being sent back to jail if Canada will not vouch for her.
- Rachel Spence, Legal Assistant, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Ontario Judges Balk at Bill 133 Investigation Duty

The Globe and Mail reports that Ontario's family court judges are not happy with the new, investigative duties assigned to them by Ontario's proposed Bill 133 in child custody applications by non-parents:

A confrontation is brewing between family court judges and the Ontario government over a scheme aimed at preventing a repeat of the shocking death of a Toronto child last year.

The plan would require judges to play the improper role of "investigators" in child-custody applications launched by non-parents, a group of 12 judges said in a submission to a committee of MPPs studying the proposed legislation, Bill 133.

...The judges condemned the new provisions as "an unwieldy and intrusive scheme" that will force judges to assemble a welter of evidence involving prior child protection proceedings, family law proceedings and criminal record checks.

"It is improper for judges to assume this role," they said. "A court is not equipped to administer a scheme of this nature, nor are judges equipped to conduct the kind of investigations contemplated. We are convinced Bill 133 does not provide a workable system."

"In a system that is critically under-populated by lawyers, the task of judges becomes more difficult," they said.

- 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, February 04, 2009

Ontario's Ban on Smoking While Driving With Children

Our friends at Overlawyered are not amused:

Ontario bans smoking in cars with children present

Because the government, unlike your parents, has your best interests at heart.

Meanwhile, Ontario's proposed ban on use of hand-held cell-phone while driving has passed second reading, but remains in Committee.

Thus, it is not yet the law of our Province.

- Garry J. Wise, Cancun

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, November 23, 2007

Ontario Government to Introduce Amended Adoption Disclosure Law

On September 17, 2007, Ontario's Adoption Information Disclosure Act came in to force. As we reported on September 19, Ontario's Superior Court struck down the new law two days later.

The Act, as originally drafted, would have permitted adoptees to obtain records including their birth names and the names of their birth parents from previously sealed government records. Birth parents would also have been permitted to obtain information from their birth children’s records and adoption orders.

While the original Act provided that both adoptive children and birth parents could register notice that after such disclosure, they did not wish to be contacted by the other (which, if violated, could result in a fine of $50,000), the Act's retroactivity caused serious privacy concerns for persons who had long believed that their personal information would always be maintained by the government on a confidential basis in accordance with prior legislation, long in effect.

Four people, two of whom remain unidentified, launched an action against the Attorney General of Ontario and the Coalition for Open Adoption Records, claiming the Act was unconstitutional.

The matter was heard by Mr. Justice Edward Belaboba in June 2007. In concluding the Act infringed Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, his Judgment focused on two substantive concerns:

  1. the retroactivity of the law; and
  2. the law did not require the consent of both parties to the release of information.

On November 14, 2007, CBC News reported:

The McGuinty Liberals are taking another run at opening up past adoption records after deciding not to appeal a judge's decision quashing their adoption law.

The revised legislation, which is expected to be introduced imminently, will address Justice Belobaba's ruling by including a provision permitting either party to veto disclosure of personal information to the other.

Information about current rights of adoptees and birth parents is available online from the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

- Annie Noa Kenet, Toronto

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

EMPLOYMENT LAWCIVIL LITIGATIONWILLS AND ESTATESFAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Writer Stevie Cameron Blogs about Mulroney and Schreiber

Keep one eye on Canadian author, Stevie Cameron, who has been blogging of late about Mulroney and Schreiber:

I've just had a chance to read some of the letters Karlheinz Schreiber wrote to Brian Mulroney over the last year; letters that were attached to the affidavit he filed in court. As the months wore on with no response from his old friend, Schreiber's tone grew angrier and more frantic.

He could not believe that Mulroney, the man he gave cash to in 1993 and 1994 in time of need, could let him down like this. Now that he himself needed Mulroney to lobby Prime Minister Stephen Harper for help in preventing the authorities from shipping him back to Germany to face charges of fraud, tax evasion and bribery, there was only silence.

Still, as I waded through Schreiber's arguments, I was startled to see my name appear here and there."All my personal problems," he wrote Mulroney on January 29, 2007, "began with Stevie Cameron's book, 'On the Take,' and Allan Rock's political witch-hunt with the RCMP against you."

Who knew.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

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

EMPLOYMENT LAWCIVIL LITIGATIONWILLS AND ESTATESFAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Chris Bentley Named Ontario's New Attorney General

In a cabinet shuffle announced yesterday, Premier Dalton McGuinty named Chris Bentley as Ontario's new Attorney General.

First elected in 2003, Bentley is MPP for London West.

He previously served as Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities from June, 2005. He was Minister of Labour from 2003 through 2005.

Prior to his election to the Legislature, Bentley practiced criminal and labour law with the London firm, Bentley & LeRoy LLP.

According to his official biography:

He is a graduate of Sir Frederick Banting Secondary School. He attended the University of Western Ontario and received his law degree from the University of Toronto Law School in 1979. He was called to the Ontario Bar in 1981 and later obtained a one-year Masters level degree from Cambridge University, England.

Chris practised criminal and labour law before his election as MPP for London West. He represented clients at trial, on appeal, and before various boards and tribunals.
Chris has taught part-time at the University of Western Ontario Law School since 1992. He helped to establish the Law School Careers Office and has lectured at various continuing education courses for judges, crowns, the police, and defence counsel. He is the author of a book on criminal law.

Chris is active in the London community. He was on the organizing committee and was the first chairperson of Neighbourhood Legal Services London & Middlesex, a legal clinic established in London in 1985 to assist low-income clients. He runs and has been a regular participant in the 24-hour relay to raise funds for London's hospitals. Chris has also completed three Boston marathons.

......
UPDATE: November 2, 2007

Less-than-flattering words on the new Attorney General from Julius Melnitzer at Legal Post.

Behind the quiesence was a singular sense of purpose, a keen interest in politics but disturbingly, also a sense that whatever Chris wanted, Chris got. Always your buddy but definitely not a buddy in bad times.

Much too smart to make the mistake that Michael Bryant, his predecessor, made. You'll never see him upstaging the premier or making his ambitions obvious. Rather, he'll just quietly go about being extremely competent and collecting kudos without acknowledging them. Has the knack of fading into the woodwork but always remaining part of the wall.

Excellent at staying on the good side of the media. Will feed lots of off-the-record information. When he has collected sufficient credits and the time is right, he'll dump anyone who's a liability and make his play for the leadership.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

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

EMPLOYMENT LAWCIVIL LITIGATIONWILLS AND ESTATESFAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

Thursday, October 11, 2007

McGuinty Confirms February Statutory Holiday for Ontario

Making good on an election promise, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has announced that Family Day, Ontario's new statutory holiday, will begin in 2008.

The holiday will be on the third Monday of February each year.

This is a very welcome development.

A note, though, at the risk of snowing on the Family Day parade.

Am I the only one who finds the name of this new holiday a bit cloying and pandering?

There are many Ontarians without families, by choice or by circumstance. Some may rightfully find "Family Day"a bit of an uncomfortable, exclusionary or upsetting reference.

Couldn't it just have been named "I Wish We Had the Rest of this Freezing, Dark, and Awful Month Off, Too... Day."

Who wouldn't relate to that?

(No offended comments from Ontario's many, blizzard-lovin' skiers, snowmobilers and tobogganers, please)

Hey, I've got an idea - let's hold a referendum to decide...

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

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

EMPLOYMENT LAWCIVIL LITIGATIONWILLS AND ESTATESFAMILY LAW & DIVORCE