Analysis: Ford comes out the winner in the Dale/Star saga

Even if you're convinced you're in the right and that you will eventually win, lawsuits suck.

They're time consuming and stressful and very expensive.

So even though a number of legal authorities were fairly certain Rob Ford could have won the defamation suit launched by The Toronto Star's Daniel Dale, the apology, and subsequent clarification of the apology the day later was a smart move by Toronto's mayor. The suit, the costs of which were funded by The Star, was dropped by Dale and there were probably reasons other than the spirit of forgiveness involved.

In the first place, Ford never said Dale was a "pedophile". The only people accusing Ford of having implied that were Dale's media cronies. Ford was talking about his own feelings of concern when he was told by a neighbor that someone was taking pictures of his backyard (which Dale denies and Ford has now said was not what Dale was doing). Thus, aside from the obstacle of proving Ford had defamed him, it would have been difficult, if not impossible for Dale to establish any damages even in the event of a ruling in his favor. As Ford never said Dale was a pedophile and nothing Ford has said has led anyone to believe Daniel Dale is a pedophile, how could Dale establish that his reputation has been harmed?

As a tactical move, the Ford apology, which clarified that he retracted any negative interpretation of Dale that could be attached to the TV interview the mayor had with Conrad Black, changed the equation. Almost certainly crafted with assistance from lawyers, the apology placed Dale and The Star in a position where they would very likely have been hit with all of Ford's costs if the matter went to trial and a judgement were reached against them.

Moreover, as much as the law suit was seen, from the onset, as another example of The Star's obsessive agenda to go after Ford using any means they could think of, following his initial apology, the tides had turned a great deal.

Even people not necessarily sympathetic to Ford were viewing the continuation of the suit at that point as petty, vindictive, and a substantiation of a vendetta The Star has had against Ford for the last 3 years.

The Star has come off as the major loser in all this. When Dale stated that with his employer's support, he would continue to be the City Hall reporter while suing the mayor, it became obvious beyond any doubt that even the pretense of objectivity could no longer be maintained by The Toronto Star.

Now Ford can concentrate on his campaign for re-election, with issues working in his favor such as his opponents' wastefulness, their penchant for taxation, and their corrupt subservience to unions.

So for Ford, the lawsuit has gone away, whereas for The Toronto Star, the stigma of bias, pettiness and unprofessionalism will stick around for a very long time.

Tories may take the wind out of Justin Trudeau's only policy plan

OTTAWA — As the year ends, Justice Minister Peter MacKay is strongly hinting that steps to modernize Canada's marijuana laws might be just around the corner.

Fining pot smokers for possession of small amounts is one policy the government will likely consider.

"That doesn't mean decriminalizing or legalizing, but it does mean giving police options, for example, to issue fines in addition to any other sanctions, or as a substitute for other sanctions," MacKay told QMI Agency. "These are things that we are willing to look at in the new year, but there's been no decision taken."

This is the first time the Conservatives have mentioned the idea since Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the feds were looking "very carefully" at it in August.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police says fining pot smokers may be just the ticket to give officers an option other than ignoring law-breakers or criminally charging them, setting up a long, expensive legal process.

Just in case you needed confirmation that Toronto Councillor Shelley Carroll is an idiot

One of the reasons that embattled Toronto Mayor Rob Ford's support is holding so firm, aside from his sincere efforts to curb wasteful municipal spending, is one of default. It's that his City Council opponents are blithering idiots who are salivating at the prospect at getting their grubby hands back inside your wallets. 

One such example is Shelley Carroll, a posturing, juvenile grandstander who is obviously exactly as bright as she presents.

According to The Toronto Sun:

Carroll suggested Ford was holding up that police probe by “hiding behind his lawyer” and refusing to meet with investigators.

“We are now at the point where I can’t think of any Torontonian who would have been able to put off answering questions for the police who have politely asked for this long,” Carroll said.   

Evidently Ms Carroll is unaware that unlike Stalin's Russia or Castro's Cuba, a state that has the affinity of the left wing of Toronto's City Council, Canadians cannot be legally compelled to speak to police.

They can be arrested if police believe they have sufficient grounds to lay charges (which they evidently do not in the case of Ford) , but even then they cannot be forced to answer police questions. We have this thing called a Constitution and a Charter of Rights, plus long-standing British legal traditions which deal with these matters.

It couldn't be that Ms Carroll was having some drug-induced hallucination where she thought we were all living in the sort of police state we would have if she and her ilk were ever placed in charge, could it?

Kathleen Wynne's Ontario - Idle No More lawbreakers get a free pass from prosecution

 

TORONTO - In a rare move for a police chief, OPP Commissioner Chris Lewis says he "disagrees" with a decision by the Napanee Crown attorney to not bring to trial charges against several First Nations protesters in January's Idle No More rail blockade near Marysville.

"A thorough investigation was conducted by our criminal investigators," Lewis acknowledged this week. "They felt strongly that grounds to charge a number of the key protesters criminally existed, particularly given that this blockade was more than a brief inconvenience to a few people."

But, sources told the Toronto Sun, even with a police decision to lay charges the Crown rejected the notion.

Virginia's attorney general wants to ban oral and anal sex

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Another miscarriage of justice courtesy of Angela Corey, the Florida State's Attorney who prosecuted George Zimmerman

(CBS News) JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - A Florida woman who fired warning shots against her allegedly abusive husband has been sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Marissa Alexander of Jacksonville had said the state's "Stand Your Ground" law should apply to her because she was defending herself against her allegedly abusive husband when she fired warning shots inside her home in August 2010. She told police it was to escape a brutal beating by her husband, against whom she had already taken out a protective order.

A legal loophole that lets bureaucrats search your home without a warrant

by Brian Lilley

Imagine being at work one day when a platoon of government bureaucrats bust in and begin to raid the workplace. Would you assume your bosses were doing something illegal, like running a marijuana grow-op in the backroom? 

Or, it might be as simple as asking to hire someone under the Temporary Foreign Workers Program. 

As part of the changes to fix the troubled program, bureaucrats could soon have the power to raid a workplace that is part of the program without a search warrant. 

Here’s how the proposed regulations currently read: 

“An officer, while exercising their powers and performing their duties, and any person accompanying the officer, may enter on or pass through private property and is not liable for doing so. Unless the property is a dwelling-house, no person has a right to object to that use of the property and no warrant is required to enter on or pass through the property.” 

Think about that for a moment.

Breaking the Taboo - the failure of "The War on Drugs"

This film, narrated by Morgan Freeman, interviews former Presidents and describes the waste of resources and bad policies involved in the losing "War on Drugs" in the USA

Blazing Cat Fur Legal Defense Fund Drive

Blazing Cat Fur is a blog that is responsible for drawing attention to a great number of extremely serious matters of public interest.

His work, on a number of occasions, has led to municipal, provincial and federal government action. Items such as the Valley Park Mosqueteria and the East End Hate Madrassa are but two of the recent stories that never would have seen the light of day were it not for Blazing Cat Fur's exposure of them. The mainstream media appropriate the investigative work he does on his blog, without credit, on almost a daily basis.

Blazing Cat Fur is being sued by serial litigator Richard Warman for $500,000 for linking an item on his blog to Mark Steyn's website. It costs money to combat immoral abuses of the legal system.

If you are interested in preserving free speech and battling against those who would take your free speech rights away, a donation to the Blazing Cat Fur Legal Defense Fund is a great place to start.

The link for more information is HERE.

Rob Ford case: Judge’s decision to order mayor’s removal doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, lawyer says

The motion will be argued next week.

Lenczner said in his factum that Judge Hackland made several critical errors – first when he found that city council had the authority to order Ford to repay $3,150 in donations to his football foundation; then when he “conflated” provisions under the code of conduct with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA), and finally when he found Ford had not made an honest error in judgment.

Another Toronto lawyer – he isn’t involved in the Ford case – says in a lengthy analysis of the Hackland decision that it appears what the mayor was doing at that council meeting was first and foremost “fighting to defend his reputation. . . . He was offended, rightly or wrongly, by what he took to be political attacks on his integrity and the collateral damage on a charity that was and is dear to his heart.”

The looney left wants to replace Ford with this more dignified politician

Olivia Chow

How an 'Innocence of Muslims' Lawsuit Could Impact Hollywood (Analysis)

If an actress is able to get past any written agreement she signed and convince a judge she worked on a film under fraudulent pretenses, more controversy could be around the bend.

Garcia is upset because the film didn't turn out the way she expected. This is certainly a highly unusual situation. She says she was led to believe via a casting notice that she was working on an "historical Arabian Desert adventure film" and it turned into Innocence of Muslims, which she says caused her to lose her job, contact with her grandchildren and her sense of security. (The film has only been published as a 14-minute "trailer" so it's hard to say what it is at this point.)

But it's also not hard to re-imagine her lawsuit under different guises.

She says in the complaint:

"Defendant Bacile's representations that he intended to make an 'adventure' film, and that Plaintiff would be depicted as a concerned mother, were false. Instead, Defendant Bacile made an anti-Islam propaganda film, in which Plaintiff is falsely made to appear to accuse the founder of the Islamic religion of being a sexual deviant and child molester."

Now imagine if the complaint said this:

"Defendant Paul Thomas Anderson's representations that he intended to make a 'buddy' film, and that Plaintiff Joaquin Phoenix would be depicted as an up-and-comer, were false. Instead, Defendant Anderson made an anti-Scientology progaganda film, in which Plaintiff is falsely made to appear to be victim to a cult."

Or maybe this:

"Defendant Jerry Bruckheimer's representations that he intended to make an 'adventure' film, and that Plaintiff Jake Gyllenhaal would be depicted as a strong male lead, were false. Instead, Defendant made a film (Prince of Persia) that caused audiences to laugh at him."

Read the full article at The Hollywood Reporter 

UPDATE:  Judge refuses to remove 'Innocence of Muslims' clip from YouTube

Closing arguments in the Nortel Trial

Perhaps the strangest aspect of the accounting fraud trial involving Nortel’s three most senior financial executives is this: it’s that the defence has insisted on the most disclosure of evidence, not the Crown. So it was Friday evening, when lawyers for the three defendants — Frank Dunn, Douglas Beatty and Michael Gollogly — submitted their closing written arguments to Ontario Superior Court judge Frank Marrocco.

Some 500 pages of trial analysis from the defendants became available Monday, easily topping the 210 page final statement from the Crown, which was presented to the judge Aug. 3.

It can be reduced to this line: “There’s not a shred of evidence of any overt acts of concealment by the accused with respect to their accounting practices,” the argument notes. 

Jim Bagnall  has done an excellent job following this trial. Read more HERE

Former Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant tries to come back from a wreck

Former Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryan's story is a tragedy of remarkable proportions. A evening out with his wife ended with the mangled body of a deeply disturbed bicycle courier on the street of Toronto after a haywire attempt by Bryant to shake the infuriated former mental patient from his convertible. That night was also seemingly the end of what was considered one of the most promising political careers in Canada.

I've met Bryant and his wife a few times. He was my Member of Provincial Parliament, and his wife Susan was a colleague of a very good friend of mine at a law firm. They are both decent, intelligent people.

The tragedy that affected the families of the politician and the courier were unexpected for the former and almost inevitable for the latter. Darcy Allan Sheppard had a history of mental illness from the time he was a child. He had serious addiction problems and earlier in the night he was killed, Sheppard's girlfriend called the police because he had threatened her while he was drunk and belligerent.

There are some people who are upset because tthey think Bryant got an advantageous deal in not having to face trial. It strains credulity to imagine that he did not get preferential treatment because of his connections, influence, affluence and employment of strategic counsel and public relations.

But on the other hand, when one reads decisions based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a particular phrase comes up over and over: "the administration of justice."

Would it have been likely for Bryant to have been convicted for having killed Sheppard while trying to escape from the enraged, hysterical, intoxicated courier?  Given the evidence that has come out about Sheppard's history of similar violence, it seems that the result of a trial would have seen more than a half a million dollars of public funds spent to end with Bryant's exoneration.

Bryant has just published a memoir detailing the incident. It may be the beginning of a successful process of him trying to rehabilitate his public image. Or enough people people may have made up their minds about him to confound that hope.

Is it fair? What is unfair is that everyone in a similar situation doesn't have the access to the same resources and privileges as Michael Bryant. But that's life. However, despite the tragedy of Sheppard's death and Bryant and his family's unalterable trauma, justice appears to have been done.

An interesting interview with Bryant on CBC here


These photos of Darcy Allan Sheppard attacking a car in a similar way to the one he had attacked Bryan's were instrumental in the decision not to take his case to trial.

Canadian Federal Court Says No Copyright Infringement For Linking, Posting Several Paragraphs

The Federal Court of Canada has issued an important decision involving copyright and posting content online. The case involves a lawsuit launched by Richard Warman and the National Post against Mark and Constance Fournier, who run the FreeDominion website. Warman and the National Post sued the site over the appearance of two articles and an inline link to photograph that appeared on the forum. The court dismissed all three claims. 

While the first claim (Warman's article) was dismissed on the basis that it took too long to file the lawsuit, the legal analysis on the National Post claim involving an article by Jonathan Kay assesses the copyright implications of posting several paragraphs from an article online. In this case, the article was 11 paragraphs long.  The reproduction on the Free Dominion site included the headline, three complete paragraphs and part of a fourth. The court ruled that this amount of copying did not constitute a "substantial part" of the work and therefore there was no infringement. The court added that in the alternative, the reproduction of the work was covered by fair dealing, concluding that a large and liberal interpretation of news reporting would include posts to the discussion forum.  The decision then includes an analysis of the six factor test and concludes that the use was fair.

More at Michael Geist's Blog

Obama says he will not support SOPA Bill

The growing anti-SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) support that has swept through the gaming and Internet community found a very big ally today. With websites like Reddit and Wikipedia and gaming organizations like Major League Gaming prepared for a blackout on January 18^th – the same day that the House Judiciary Committee hearing on HR 3261was scheduled in Washington, DC – President Barack Obama has stepped in and said he would not support the bill. SOPA has been killed, for now.

Full article at Forbes.com

Message to Occupy Toronto: The Occupation can continue if you just move your tents over a few yards

Mr. Justice David M. Brown rendered his Order today dismissing Occupy Toronto's effort to quash the City's eviction notice. It was an intelligent, well though out and lengthy (54 pages) Order that in essence, says the protesters are hypocrites and don't understand The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Rather than offer my own commentary, the Order is written in plain, straightforward language that expresses the basis of the dispute between Occupy Toronto and the rest of the community-at-large. Judge Brown starts by posing questions:

How do we live together in a community? How do we share common space? These questions have elicited quite different answers in different political communities at different times over the centuries. In our Canadian community we have crafted an understanding which has drawn on long strands tracing their roots back to both secular and religious sources. In the realm of political and civic relationships we have articulated.that understanding most recently in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter’s Preamble makes two points: as a consequence of the "supremacy of God", we all must bring humility to our dealings with our fellow citizens; as a consequence of "the rule of law", we all must live subject to some rules – we are not unconstrained free actors.

And based on the evidence reaches these conclusions: 

[9] Although proclaiming a message of participatory democracy, the evidence, unfortunately, reveals that the Protesters did not practice what they were preaching when they decided to occupy the Park. Specifically, they did not ask those who live and work around the Park or those who use the Park – or their civic representatives – what they would think if the Park was turned into a tent city.

[10] The Protesters now say, in effect, that the Charter did not require them to ask; that the Charter sanctions their unilateral occupation of the Park– which they intend to continue for an indefinite period of time – because of the importance of their message and the way in which they convey it – by taking over public property. 

[11] With the greatest of respect to the Applicants and the Protesters, they are mistaken.

 
However, one aspect of the ruling that the media has neglected is this:

[18] The City of Toronto owns the Park, the western boundary of which abuts grassed land owned by the Anglican Archdiocese of Toronto as part of the grounds of St. James Anglican Church. Some of the Protesters’ tents and shelters occupy Church land. The Church has not sought to enter these proceedings. Accordingly, what is at issue simply is the validity of the Trespass Notice in respect of the City-owned lands.

The Anglican Church has expressed support for Occupy Toronto. Well, here's a chance for them to put their money where their mouth is. The large lawn in front of St. James Church is only a few yards west of the city-owned St. James Park.

Occupy Toronto could move their tents there, and unless the Anglican Church applies for a Trespass Order like the City did, the occupation could continue on Church property.

Now wouldn't that make things interesting? 



UPDATE: The Church has issued an Eviction Notice to the protesters too. It seems that despite "supporting their goals" the Anglican Church doesn't support the Occu-squatters to the extent of wanting to put up with their smell and bad behaviour.

Canadian-Israeli citizen sues Sea Hitler crew for a million dollars

Blazing Cat Fur has the scoop on a just-launched lawsuit by a Canadian/Israeli woman against the terror-supporters of the Sea Hitler for $1 million in damages.

Related: Even the Turkish Foreign Minister is now telling the Hamas terror enablers to hold off on their flotilla. This is after the UN Secretary General and Canada's Foreign Minister have issued condemnations of the boats who want to help Hamas have an easier time smuggling in Iranian arms.

Conrad Black on drugs

No! Not that way!  He's writing about the Conservative government's proposed mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes, and Black makes a lot of sense.

Stephen Harper's position on marijuana laws are archaic, illogical and anti-libertarian. Alcohol does extensive damage to many people, but in a free society, we allow people to make choices rather than have the state do it for them. Marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol and the hypocrisy of criminalizing one and not the other undermines any morality to those laws.

Most police chiefs in North America recognize that enforcing laws against it is not only ineffective but a waste of both scarce police and court resources.

The libertarian movement seeks to legalize and tax marijuana, and Canadians can lobby their government to turn the liability of antiquated nanny-state regulations into a revenue producing asset.

Here's an excerpt of what Black (along with Evan Wood) wrote (full column can be seen at The National Post):

..the argument that locking up more drug dealers improves community safety is flatly untrue. Research clearly demonstrates that gun violence is a common and natural result of many a successful drug bust, and often occurs when remaining gangs fight over the new economic opportunity that police have unwittingly created. California is an excellent example of this sad reality. The state now has a prison budget that exceeds expenditures on post-secondary education, and yet the intractable gang violence that is directly linked to the drug trade has only been inflamed by these efforts.

Clearly, we need new approaches to address the drug problem. Writing recently in the Globe and Mail, former federal Conservative party campaign manager Tom Flanagan noted that “Some prominent Canadian conservatives, such as former Fraser Institute president Michael Walker, Conservative MP Scott Reid, legal writer Karen Selick and financial journalist Terence Corcoran, have led the way in decrying drug prohibition, but their position has to become more appreciated within the conservative movement.”

One can only hope that this happens soon. Failed mandatory minimum sentencing legislation is currently being repealed in various U.S. states, including New York, Michigan, Massachusetts and Connecticut, and it will be a sad legacy for Canadian conservatives if we sit quietly and ignore how U.S. society has been remarkably weakened by the same laws our government is now hell-bent on enacting.

Ezra Levant loses libel case to Giacomo "Serenity Now" Vigna

Ezra Levant was sued for libel and defamation for calling Human Rights Commission lawyer Giacomo Vigna a "fibber" when Vigna claimed he needed an adjournment before a Human Rights Commission hearing because he wasn't feeling "serene."

The judge ruled that Vigna was defamed because there was no proof Vigna was lying, or "fibbing" when he made the claim.

Vigma also claimed "defamation" for mocking comments Levant made about Vigna, referring to him as "Serenity Now" Vigna and comparing him to George Costanza's father on Seinfeld.

The judge ruled that while the comments were mocking, they were not defamatory.

So do NOT call "Serenity Now" Vigna a fibber. He isn't a fibber, he just wasn't serene.

Eddie Greenspan's evening of Law and Laughter (and my evening of strangeness and fun)

Last night, a gathering of 400 or so of Toronto's esteemed citizens celebrated the career, philanthropy and public service of Canada's most famous criminal defense attorney, Eddie Greenspan. In the ornate 2nd floor ballroom of the soon-to-be demolished Yorkville landmark Four Seasons Hotel, guests and presenters included Lieutenant Governor David Onley, PostMedia's Paul Godfrey, and the one of the most famous lawyers in the history of the profession, F. Lee Bailey. Somehow I got invited (possibly the same way Peter Sellers' character got invited to the party in the movie of the same name) to this evening of our city's venerable citizenry's bestowing richly deserved accolades on one of Canada's champions of human rights and supremacy of the rule of law.

The event itself was the 5th annual ORT Hero's Dinner. ORT is a charitable organization that provides educational opportunities for deserving young people in a number of countries in Europe, Latin America and throughout the world. (In case you're curious, ORT is an acronym of the Russian words for this 140 year old charity's name. No one I could find at the dinner, including the organization's Canadian head, seemed to be able to pronounce, much less translate what those words actually mean. Greenspan told me that George Jonas wrote it out phonetically for him to say, but he still couldn't quite get it.)

Greenspan made it clear that he does not see himself as a hero, and in a evening billed as "Law and Laughter," his partner Todd White hilariously pointed out that Eddie is as far from a superhero as a person could get. Unless you consider a hero to be someone who has tirelessly worked to ensure that the death penalty is not restored in Canada, who has provided critical legal assistance to those who couldn't afford it without fanfare, who has been an invaluable source of education to generations of law students, and  who has made great personal and financial contributions to a number of charities. So that's the kind of hero Eddie Greenspan is.

Greenspan's lovely and witty daughter Juliana spoke, and then, a man who Greenspan considers a genuine hero was one of the main presenters last night. The renowned American criminal attorney F. Lee Bailey. Bailey, who is now in his 80's, was sharp, funny and looked in fantastic shape. He told a few amusing anecdotes including one where he allegedly hypnotised a young Eddie Greenspan.

The best part of the evening, for me, was to hear first-hand what I've been told by others who know Greenspan personally; that's he's amazingly funny.

Greenspan regaled the audience with a greatest hits parade of funniest comments heard in court during his legthy career. My consumption of whiskey throughout the evening has rendered me unable to recount them all, but some included:

Opposing Counsel: "What was the distance between the cars at the time of collision?"

Greenspan: "Your honour, my client couldn't possibly be guilty of forgery, he's semi-literate and barely capable of writing his own name."   Judge: "It's not his own name he stands accused of writing"

Opposing Counsel: "You say you have memory problems and frequently forget things."  Witness: "Yes."
Opposing Counsel: "Can you provide an example of something you've forgotten?" Witness: "No."

Witness: "My husband's a liar and untrustworthy. He's been unfaithful to me."
Greenspan: "What makes you thnk that?"
Witness: "For one thing, I'm pretty sure he's not the father of my children."


One of Eddie's funniest lines from the night was his recounting of asking his beloved wife Suzy if, when they first got married, she would have imagined, in her wildest dreams that Eddie would receive this type of honour. Eddie said that Suzy replied, "Eddie, you're never in my wildest dreams."

It was a fun evening filled with laughs and weirdness.

The weirdness came when I and a few friends went from The Four Seasons, where the ORT dinner was held, over to the bar at One Hazelton, the tony new(ish) hotel in Yorkville.

I'll save that part of the story for part 2.