just sue it

this is a little old but still funny.

A handyman working at a British hotel sawed off a tree branch while standing on a ladder – with the ladder leading against the branch being cut.

Peter Aspinall, 63, fell 14 feet after falling from his ladder. A British court fined the hotel $3,100 for failing to perform a risk assessment on the dangers of sawing the branch, according to Maclean’s.

Aspinall has now launched a civil suit against the hotel. – Natalie Fraser (Lawyer’s Weekly: June 25, 2010)

Canadians have a constitutional right to government-held info: SCC

According to a recent ruling of the SCC, right to access to government records is now a Charter rights. In a unanimous 7-0 ruling in Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v. Criminal Lawyer’s Association, [2010] S.C.J. No. 23, the SCC decided that if the information is needed to promote “meaningful public discussion on matters of public interest”, Canadians have an access right to that information, guaranteed by s. 2(b) of Charter under the heading Fundamental Freedoms.

Criminal Lawyer’s Association (CLA) called this “an epic win”, that ensued after a decade-long battle for access to a 300-page review conducted by the OPP with regards to how the Hamilton and Halton police “handled the investigation of the 1983 murder of Toronto mobster Dominic Racco. Mr. Racco was shot and killed on December 1983 and his body was dumped on a Milton rail line. Two Hamilton men, Garaham Court and Dennis Monaghan were charged consequently by Hamilton Police. They had the charges stayed in 1997 after Justice Stephen Glithero of the Ontario Superior Court found evidence of “flagrant and intentional misconduct” by the Crown and Halton and Hamilton police in the process. An investigation by the OPP ensued that resulted in the review but it was not made public despite CLA’s request. The denial of the government to force the OPP to release the review was basically what fuelled the legal action taken by the CLA that was eventually granted the right to appeal by the SCC.

Although, the CLA found the ruling, an epic victory, it was not granted the right to access the information in the OPP review. The SCC, in turn, held that right to access could only be triggered when the information sought “is necessary for meaningful public discussion on matters of public interest”. In matters where the release of information may “interfere with the proper functioning of the governmental institution in question”, or where they are shielded by solicitor-client privilege, such rights are not guaranteed to the public.

For one, the SCC held that the review may contain information about the parties that are protected by the solicitor-client privilege. Furthermore, it was decided that CLA has failed to demonstrate that “meaningful public discussion of shortcomings in the investigation and prosecution could not take place without making the OPP report public”. Yet, the Supreme Court sent back the CLA’s request to the information commissioner for a fresh review. Yet, the ruling was described as “a baby step toward recognizing that access to information is a constitutional right” by Paul Schabas of Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP.

Many countries including UK and US have similar laws implemented in their laws. Sweden, embedded access to information laws in their legislation in 1766 via their Freedom of the Press Act. The British Freedom of Information Act (2000), implemented such rights into the country’s legal system. In Canada, the Access to Information Act grants citizens access to records held by federal bodies and Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is the legislation that governs matters that come under the scope of the Ontario provincial government. The significance of this “baby-step” is of course in having the access to information right established as constitutional rather than statutory.

Read this article by Dan Michaluk and Paul Broad of Hicks Morley for further analysis of how this case impacts the government institutions.

overflo

Former Quebec Judge charged with murder

Justice Delisle, a 1957 graduate of Laval University was admitted to the Quebec Bar in 1958. He was appointed to the Quebec Superior Court in 1983 and promoted to the Court of Appeal in 1992. Justice Delisle retired last year.

According to the Criminal Lawyer Jean-Pierre Rancourt, Delisle J. was a well-respected and competent judge. Renald Beaudry, another criminal lawyer who also pleaded cases before Delisle J., described him as a level-handed and intellectual judge.

On November 2009, Quebec City Police received a call from Delisle J.’s house about a possible suicide. Though they initially believed it to be a case of suicide, Sandra Dion, the police spokeswoman, said that further investigation led them to lay first-degree murder charges against Justice Delisle in mid June in connection with the death of his wife, Marie-Nicole Rainville. The deceased was wheelchair bound, following a stroke that she suffered from two years ago, raising doubts that the murder may have been an act of compassion – reminiscent of Latimer v. R. (difference being that in Latimer the victim was the guy’s daughter who had cerebral palsy).

The former Justice Delisle was arrested on June 15^th on charges of first-degree murder and illegal possession of a weapon. However, just about a week later on June 23^rd, Justice Claude Gagnon of Quebec Superior Court got Delisle to agree to a $100,000 bail, which his daughter Helene Delisle and former law partner Pierre Cimon put together to release the first member of the Canadian judiciary to be charged with murder.

It is certain that 26 years of sitting on the Quebec bench doesn’t help in making his trial impartial. So how are the officials to handle a case with so high a level of sensitivity?

Well for one, the Crown Prosecutors that are going to be nominated should not have known the former judge. Also the presiding Judge must come from somewhere other than Quebec. Gangon J. who released the former judge on bail has claimed that he did not personally know Delisle or his family. The two crown prosecutors, Lune Morais and Charles Levasseur “have limited ties to Quebec City, and do not know Delisle nor have ever pleaded a case before [him]” the Lawyers Weekly writes.

Another step taken in ensuring impartiality is what’s termed as a “pre-inquiry”. This procedure, which is only initiated in highly sensitive cases, involves having the testimony heard privately before a judge ex parte (without having to have all the parties present) and in camera (in private). This is made possible by s.507.1 of the Criminal Code:

507. (1) Subject to subsection 523(1.1), a justice who receives an information laid under section 504 by a peace officer, a public officer, the Attorney General or the Attorney General’s agent, other than an information laid before the justice under section 505, shall, except if an accused has already been arrested with or without a warrant:

(a) hear and consider, ex parte,

o the allegations of the informant, and

o the evidence of witnesses, where he considers it desirable or necessary to do so; and

(b) where he considers that a case for so doing is made out, issue, in accordance with this section, either a summons or a warrant for the arrest of the accused to compel the accused to attend before him or some other justice for the same territorial division to answer to a charge of an offence.