FTA Lawyer

The reason why so few complaints get investigated is that the vast majority of them are in the form and nature of your last sentence. I've said before to other posters on this site, act like a raving lunatic and that is how you will be treated. As for the remaining theme of your rant...you seem to have a very warped idea of the role of provincial law societies. If a lawyer commits a criminal offence (such as money laundering) and you complain to the law society and demand criminal charges, you will be told that they have no mandate to deal with such charges. As with any citizen, the POLICE are responsible for investigating and charging lawyers for commiting crimes. The law society certainly has concurrent jurisdiction to investigate the professional conduct aspects that a criminal allegation will involve, but you cannot get any relief from a law society in relation to criminal prosecution of a lawyer. And don't even try to tell me how hard it is to find a police officer willing to investigate and charge a lawyer...many of them literally dream of having such an opportunity one day in their careers... As for your claim that you didn't accuse Danson of double billing, your actual words were: Here is how Princeton University defines "probably": Apparently, you have considerable certainty, on the basis of available evidence, that Mr. Danson is double billing his clients. Sounds like an accusation to me. FTA

I'm not sure that former Chief Justice Lamer is the judge to use as your example here...many legal people actually would say he was a meritorious appointment. True, he was brought up through the ranks by Trudeau, but Mulroney was the one who elevated him to Chief. If he was simply a "Liberal party friend" as you suggest, it's hard to imagine why a Conservative PM would promote him. FTA

You may want to consult your own counsel about the law of slander and libel. You have less than nothing to accuse Mr. Danson of "double billing" or any other such unethical behavior. Perhaps you should contact him directly and make your baseless allegations...that is if you have any personal integrity: Law Society of Upper Canada Be sure to let us know how that turns out for you. As to your statement that "[y]ou can never trust a lawyer in Canada" I beg to differ. The vast majority of Canadian lawyers are reliable professionals, and your comment is not only juvenile but unfair. FTA

I think everyone is loosing their marbles over this issue for no good reason. The number I have seen is that 60% of judges appointed during the Liberal government were Liberal supporters. Hardly a significant bias if you ask me. If it were 80%, then I'd have to wonder if the best qualified were getting the job as opposed to the best connected. Common sense dictates that as between two similarly qualified candidates the reigning government of the day will appoint their supporters. The notiton of partisan appointments should only be concerning if unqualified people are getting the nod. And I've seen very little evidence from anyone to suggest that unqualified people are getting appointments. Of course, there will rarely, if ever, be complete agreement on the quality of any appointment...and once in a while an eyebrow or too will legitimately be raised when a particular person gets a seat on the bench, but I don't think there is any massive systemic impropriety going on here. Let me put it this way, I never hear any of my colleagues leaving a courtroom having lost a case saying, "f--king Cretien / Mulroney appointment!" And Alberta is a good case study...since provincially we have had 100% Conservative rule throughout the entire past federal Liberal regime. If this issue was such an actual problem, then all Provincial Court judges (Conservative appointments) would hate the Charter, not respect human rights, and throw everyone in jail while the Queen's Bench and Appeal judges (Liberal appointments) gave everyone a "slap on the wrist" and hugged them while chanting "Trudeau, Trudeau, Tredeau!" This just doesn't happen. In fact, the Alberta Court of Appeal is one of the most conservative-minded, tough on crime courts in the country in spite of 13 years of Liberal government appointments. At the end of the day, if I'm not seeing incompetent or political decision making in the courtrooms, then I'm really disinterested in all of the mud-slinging over people who have donated to a party being given the appointment...no matter which party is in power at the time. FTA

I find it remarkable that so many "legal experts" are coming out to say in a very simplistic and summary way that the government must follow a law passed by Parliament...otherwise there will be lawsuits... Look, I'm no expert on Kyoto, but I can tell you that the law imports reasonableness standards in almost every area, and legal obligations may be "binding" but nevertheless unenforceable. Consider a fanciful example... Let's say that the opposition parties pushed through a bill and made a law compelling the federal government to paint the entire sky over Canada red and white with maple-leaf accents. So long as all Parliamentary procedure is followed and the vote is valid, then the law is, as these "experts" have been saying, binding. For the government to refuse to paint the entire sky over Canada red and white with maple-leaf accents would be unlawful, contempt of Parliament or akin to a "coup" as the Liberals have suggested. Notwithstanding all of that, the law compelling the federal government to paint the entire sky over Canada red and white with maple-leaf accents would be unenforceable. It's literally impossible to do. So, if meeting Kyoto targets as required by the present bill working its way into law is impossible, then the law is meaningless and the only consequence facing the CPC for ignoring it will be an election. And I suspect that the CPC has it figured that things will go their way if they get to explain to Canadians that the only reason they're going to the polls is because the opposition forced them into having to ignore a law that was impossible to comply with. By and large Canadians want to take the environment issue very seriously, but not with reckless abandon. If one looks at B.C.'s recent announcement...and put it into context as the CBC reported as possibly being the most aggressive plan in all of North America...and if trying to comply with this new bill / law would mean going way beyond the B.C. proposal, I think most Canadians will start to see it for the partisan publicity stunt that it is. FTA

Most jury trials don't even ask those questions. You are just picked and that is that. My wife was picked for a triple homicide trial. They never asked her any questions at all except how old she was and what her profession was. Nothing about the case, nothing about what she thought about anything related to the case or crime in general. Argus obviously obtains his breadth of legal knowledge from American television. Having actually participated in picking a jury in a Canadian criminal courtroom, I confirm that jdobbin is absolutely correct...it is an incredibly rare situation that a juror is ever asked anything directly. In fact, much of the selection process involves mere observance of physical appearance / characteristics and making instinctive decisions on that basis. For example, in picking a jury for a college hockey player accused of sexually assaulting a "puck bunny", the Crown took about half a second to use one of its challenges to remove a guy from the jury pool who showed up wearing a Calgary Hitmen t-shirt. FTA (aka "soulless lawyer" with absolutely no interest in justice or fairness)

The judge in a jury trial is not the one who decides what happened...the judge is responsible for outlining the law, and the jury decides the facts. When a judge tells a jury that an acquittal is not an option, it is often appropriate because in the circumstances the law requires a conviction based on the evidence that has been presented in court. Presumably, in this case, the evidence amounted to this accused testifying that he did indeed load his gun and kill his daughter's boyfriend. Presumably, it was also in such a manner that self defence or defence of others provisions in the Criminal Code could not legally apply. As such, the judge has explained to the jury that following the appropriate law, they must convict...the only question for them to decide is whether it was 1st or 2nd degree murder, or manslaughter. That all being said, the Supreme Court of Canada recently wrote a decision strongly supporting the power of a jury to "nullify", that is, acquit someone even where it was legally not possible. It is the latest case of Grant Krieger, pot crusader, who took the stand in his trial and fully admitted to growing marijuana illegally and trafficking it to people to help their medical conditions. The judge instructed the jury to find guilt and when they objected (including 2 jurors trying to be excused due to their consciences) he ordered them to find guilt. The SCC said this was wrong...the jurors had a legal and moral obligation to convict, but whether they did so or not was between them and their own conscience / God / etc. and that while a jury has no legal right to nullify, they have the power to do so. FTA

As usual Drea, you are misrepresenting facts. French and English are NOT the official languages of Canada, they are the official languages of our federal government. On a more important provincial basis, they are only official in a single province, that being New Brunswick. I can't believe that I'm getting myself into this mess at this late stage, but someone needs to tune you in a bit Leafless... You keep telling others to read the Charter but I seriously doubt that you have ever done so yourself. Otherwise you likely wouldn't have made the whole argument that English and French are not official languages of Canada based on your ill-founded Federal / Provincial distinction. Even you have to agree that the 1982 constitutional amendments were not unilaterally imposed by the Feds. Section 16(1) of the Charter reads as follows: Other than Quebec can you tell me which provinces you suggest have not signed off on this characterization of English and French as the official languages of Canada? FTA

I'm a lawyer, and I will say that trial lawyers that sue doctors are the lowest of the low. This is really a statement devoid of all logic (and merit for that matter). I have a good friend whose orthopaedic surgeon set a spiral fracture of his leg without using any diagnostic imaging. The end result is that his foot is literally twisted instead of straight on his leg...by 30 degrees!! Suing a clearly negligent doctor is simply protecting the vulnerable health-care consumer from such occurrances and can hardly be characterized as the "lowest of the low". The fact is that repeatedly negligent doctors should not be practicing and suing them is one of the most effective ways to ensure that the doctors we do have are good ones. Pursuing an unfair advantage for a client or forwarding a frivolous lawsuit is the lowest of the low...no matter whether you are suing a doctor, a criminal, a business associate or a priest. FTA

An employer can't ever be forced to give someone a job (or to keep them if they already have a job). You can undoubtedly be fired for no reason whatsoever...the only obligation of your employer is to give you reasonable notice (as set out in Employment Standards legislation and common-law) or to give you severance pay in lieu of reasonable notice. If an employer wants to fire you "for cause" (and then have no obligation to give you notice or severance pay) then the cause must be one related to job performance or your trustworthiness as an employee. Keep in mind, all of these statements are of course subject to the terms of an employment contract or collective bargaining agreement. If you can negotiate yourself better job security then good for you. Otherwise, your employment truly exists at the pleasure of your employer. FTA

I confirm what others have said already. Almost every service employer in the Province is hiring. You really can't drive down a street in Calgary for more than 2 blocks without seeing a sign soliciting employees. The local Tim Hortons I go to is open 24hrs. and now has an "Employee Transport Unit" which is just a fancy name painted on their Dodge Caravan which the owner drives around to pick up and drop off employees...just another creative way to keep good help from going elsewhere. Many fast-food chains are sporadically closing their drive-thru windows (and sometimes even the whole restaurant) because they don't have enough employees. Even Canada Post recently made the news up in the Edmonton area because they cannot deliver mail regularly on all of their routes. Some people are having to drive to the depot to pick up their own mail or wait for it to come once every week...simply because there aren't enough letter carriers. On the housing side of things, rental properties are outrageously expensive and virtually impossible to come by. Last number I heard was a 0.6% vacancy rate for Calgary. Purchase prices are insane, although they did level off here for the winter months. The 1800 sqft. house I bought in June for $434,000.00 will now fetch me $460,000.00...but unless I plan to move away from the city, the increase is almost useless as I would have to sink it into another over-priced abode. If you plan to come out here, my advice is get housing arrangements written into your contract. If you have skills that a company needs badly enough, let them find you a place to live (and they will). FTA

They are paid a stipend for their services plus are billeted in others homes (who are also paid) I would certainly consider them employeed? In fact, the typical WHL (or in this case QMJHL) contract is far more detailed than the one most people have with their respective employer. Bottom line here is that a coach, like any employer, has a wide discretion to "fire" a player. Best this kid can expect is some kind of severance pay, but that is probably determined in the fine print somewhere. Is the coach a dick for using this as a reason to cut a player? Yes. Is it illegal? I don't see how. FTA

Sorry to be a tease...but I really can't divulge anything more detailed than what I have in the previous post. Not that I think you are a Crown Prosecutor, or someone who will send a report to one, who will send it to the guy prosecuting my case...but stranger things have happened. The one true advantage I have as a defence lawyer at trial is that I know my client's version of the events, but no one else does...unless and until I put him on the stand. It would be a really bad idea for me to let any of that information out of the bag on a case that is pending. I promise to tell you what happens though! (assuming my client lets me...they don't always) FTA

McGuinty nailed it... FTA

So is it OK for K to use the knife against the riding crop or not? I know you may think I am being equivocal...but the bottom line is that it depends on the circumstances. I can't really do any better than what I have set out in my previous posts about what factors will be considered in answering your question. Is stabbing someone in the guts a reasonable response to being stung with a stick? Maybe...maybe not. Why don't you tell me? FTA P.S. I have a trial in March where the issue is self-defence. My client pulled a knife on a guy who attempted to get him to fight outside a nightclub and then pursued my client to his house in a cab. Even after my client pulling the knife, the guy still jumped at him and in the ensuing melee, the guy ended up with a minor stab-wound. My client has no criminal record...the guy has a record for assaulting a person outside of the exact same nightclub where this incident originated... I'll let you know what the Provincial Court of Alberta says on the issue!

Here's a thought... The recent shooting at Dawson proves that registration of firearms is useless...almost completely. The fact of the matter is that the risk of "mass shootings" comes from the gun owner, not the gun (a re-statement of the adage that "guns don't kill people, people kill people"). The gun owner has been licensed in Canada since the imposition of the FAC in 1976. Those licensing requirements are far more strict today in the current licensing regime. The vast majority of gun owners have never had a problem with licensing. Most have never had a problem with tighter storage and transport rules. Most have never had a problem with registration for handguns. The big problem (since it was first suggested) has always been and will continue to be registration of long guns. Even many who originally supported the idea have changed their minds since the true costs of a useless endeavour have come to light. What is also evident from Dawson is that the flaw in Canada's gun control regime is in the lack of monitoring / review of gun owners. Buddy was okay and passed all tests when he got his guns, and then went off the deep end. Perhaps, instead of continuing to pour money down the proverbial rat-hole that is the long-gun registry, can even the gun-control lobbyists agree that our resources would be better spent on mandatory renewal procedures that include an actual risk assessment by a psychologist? It wouldn't have to be every year...but maybe every 2 or 3. Force the gun owner to sit down with someone who knows a bit about people who are likely to go off the deep end and just go over their current situation. If there are too many risk factors, then suspend the license and take the guns temporarily...until the owner can lower their risk score. It will never be perfect, of course, but why can't we look at ideas like this that actually allow safe, responsible gun ownership without much interference and focus our efforts to reduce harm on the one area that we might actually be able to produce a benefit? As a gun owner, a couple hundred bucks and an hour of my time every couple of years would be completely acceptable to me...particularly if it meant no more pissing money away on a registry! FTA

If K reasonably believes that he will suffer death or grievous bodily harm as a result of the attack being imposed by J, and believes he has no way to preserve himself other than to wound, maim, or even kill J, then the Criminal Code says K is justified in so doing. I really don't see much of a divergence here between what the law says and what is "ethical." FTA So, you think K should accept the beating if it is merely humiliating and intensely painful but falls short of grievous bodily harm, and that K should be punished if she does not? No, no, no, no, no. All I have been trying to say here is this: 1. Self Defence is an area of the law where what is "legal" and what is "ethical" seem to coincide. 2. The reason I say #1 is because you are entitled to legally repel any kind of assault from a touch to a gunshot...but only with force which is considered "reasonable" in the circumstances. 3. What is reasonable in any given scenario does not involve dissecting with 20/20 hindsight what the defender did or what the results were...the issue is, in the defender's mind, what did he know and what did he reasonably believe to be the threat and the necessary force to end the threat. If K wants to use force to end an assault (be it merely annoying or altogether life-threatening) let him feel free to do so...but back to the OP...if he does so in a completely disproportionate manner to the threat he faced he cannot legally or ethically expect that the aggressor has no ground to complain. FTA

If K reasonably believes that he will suffer death or grievous bodily harm as a result of the attack being imposed by J, and believes he has no way to preserve himself other than to wound, maim, or even kill J, then the Criminal Code says K is justified in so doing. I really don't see much of a divergence here between what the law says and what is "ethical." FTA

Why are you barbaric? If I saw you assaulting someone in that manner, I might intervene to stop you from continuing. It is non-sensical to be barbaric. Let's make the situation a little more pointed -- bb doesn't beat the man once he's down, but during the fight he has a choice: punch the assailant in the jaw, or crack his kneecap with a kick. If bb choses the kick, can the now crippled assailant reasonably complain the he should have punched him in the jaw instead? No. This is what is meant when I say that you need not "measure the nicety" of your response. In the ethics of this example, the person defending himself is well-founded to take reasonable steps to end the attack. Obviously, there are thousands of ways that could be accomplished, hundreds of which would fall into the category of "reasonable." Choose any one of these, and you are on solid ethical ground. Coincidentally, the case law overwhelmingly supports the proposition that the results of your actions (i.e. crippled leg vs. sore jaw) are not relevant to determining whether your defensive actions were reasonable in the circumstances. FTA

It would take an aspiring tyrannical leader a quarter of a century to replace all of these positions with his tyrannical henchmen. Your point is quite deflated by this reality. Pretend Harper is that aspiring tyrannical leader...how many of the list of current appointees above are his and how many belong to Martin and Cretien? You can't just come in and totally clear the board of senators, judges, Lieutenant Gov.'s, etc. etc. and appoint new ones. FTA

I'm not going to say that Mr. Day is the sharpest tool in the shed, but your post could not be more of a disingenuous (I might have also said guileful, but that implies an element of intellect in deception) attempt to make the Conservatives, and the PM look foolish. You choose a post title which suggests that you are breaking a story that demonstrates why Harper can't let his ministers make public statements and then imply that it is because they have such outrageous ultra-fanatic personal views. Day might not be very good at comedy / sarcasm / or "mockery" as the article clearly identifies his musings to be, but he's no worse at it than you are at trying to come up with a valid criticism if this post is any indication. Absent innuendo like this post, nobody would see this article as anything but Day suggesting...to constituents that live in a deep-freeze...that Mr. Gore's views on global warming are overblown scare tactics. Hardly award-winning prose, (is that an oxymoron?) but nothing scandalous in any way, and certainly not "tout[ing] the benefits of global warming". FTA

Excellent point.

Yes, Canada was a liberal democracy pre-Charter...the fact is that the Charter is simply an elevation of many of Canada's common-law principles to the status of "supreme law"...not much of the substance of the Charter was new to Canadian law in 1982. No, the notwithstanding clause of the Charter cannot amend the Constitution that pre-dates it...and if that's what you mean by "constitutionally narrow", well, then, okay. I still somewhat disagree with your characterization of the clause because of the pervasiveness of the rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by ss. 7-15 of the Charter. The Charter gives no powers to government, they in fact get power as you've noted from the "division of powers" sections (91 and 92) of the Constitution Act (used to be BNA Act). BUT, the Charter does dictate the manner in which the government can exercise its powers. By virtue of s. 52 of the Constitution Act, any law that contradicts the Charter is of no force or effect. So...the notwithstanding clause allows a government to pass a law affecting any of the items I listed before that would otherwise be of no force or effect. Why I say this is not "constitutionally narrow" is that almost every head of power under ss. 91 and 92, when exercised, will have an impact on the "life liberty and security of the person" for example. We're sort-of talking about different elements, so in a way we are not really disagreeing. I would clearly agree that the notwithstanding clause is "limited" in its application (i.e. not permissive of a full-scale erasing of all Canadian law) I just don't see it as "narrow" becuase of all of the things you could do with it that would be illegal without it. Going back to the OP, an "evil genius" using the notwithstanding clause couldn't legally do anything he wanted but he could (in strict theory only) raise a hell of a mess in terms of human rights. FTA

If Q assaults P and P defends, can Q justly (in an ethical rather than stricly legal sense) complain of P's methods in defence? Of course...depending on what P actually does. While some may not think it, criminal law is largely built on concepts of ethics and morality...that is, we generally criminalize conduct that is morally and ethically wrong. The law of self-defence is actually a good example of this because it accounts for all of the possible scenarios...where the defender is attacked unprovoked, where the defender believes an attack is coming and makes a pre-emptive strike, and yes, where the initial agressor becomes the defender. An assault can be any unwanted touching or even an attempt or threat to do so. If I were to push someone because I think he or she is stupid, and then walk away, I have committed an assault (legally, morally, ethically). If the victim of my assault "defends" himself by bludgeoning me to death with a baseball bat from behind, I think I have a valid complaint (legally, morally, ethically). There are all kinds of nuances about the way the law actually applies (in large part depending on whether the defender reasonably believes they are at risk of death or grievous bodily harm or not), but the general summary is that you are only entitled to defend yourself with force that is reasonably necessary. If you far exceed what is reasonable, then in law (and I dare say morally and ethically) you are no longer defending yourself, but in fact, committing an unlawful assault of your own. For those who will then question how to know where the line is, I can tell you that the common law has routinely confirmed that one acting in self defence need not "measure with nicety" the level of his or her response. That is, if you over-react a little, whether that is considered "reasonable force" or not will be decided by considering what you knew and subjectively thought at the time you were defending yourself, with a full appreciation for the panic and fear that often is in play. Bottom line (which I think is the point of the OP), if you don't want to be overzealously "defended" against, don't attack people in the first place. That being said, just because you may have assaulted someone, it does not mean they have free license to attack you back with whatever method and with whatever force they please (legally, ethically, morally). FTA

I'm a criminal lawyer who regularly deals with the law of self-defence and I don't understand your poll question...I doubt I'm the only one. What exactly are you asking our opinion of? FTA