FTA Lawyer

Lucky for me, I defend people and companies that have been charged with offences under the FTA...and I tend to agree with your analysis of the legislation. I tried to build a blog about the act as a marketing tool, but there was simply little business generated by it, so I stopped spending time on it. When I signed up to this board, I was still actively posting on the blog, so I just picked FTA Lawyer as my handle...and wouldn't want to change my identity now! For a look at how critical I was of the Alberta Government re: the FTA check out the blog site...it still exists: FTA Blog FTA P.S. I never claimed Harper's interview was entertaining...

If you want to make a point that is even remotely valid, pull one quote from the Prime Minister during his interview with Mr. Mansbridge and explain here how it is representative of an idea from the stone-age. Maybe you can, but I won't hold my breath for your intellectual and analytical post. FTA

Black Dog has this one nailed perfectly... I am very much a defender of free speech, so, I accept Levant's right to publish things that piss people off and at times make one wonder how idiotic he can be. That said, the propaganda he seems to be pushing on this issue is outrageous...and really just dumb. The biggest regret I have is that I had to give his website a "hit" in order to look into this thread. I mean, people file misguided applications all of the time...some to Human Rights, some to court, some to other places / people. If this guy is so radical and so wrong in his filing, then one would expect a lawyer to respond with a statement that the application is improper and not in the jurisdiction of the tribunal...maybe even cite some law that backs that position. Instead, Levant openly calls the tribunal "kangaroo court", mocks the applicant for submitting his complaint in handwriting (wtf difference does this make?) and spouts off about George Orwell and the end of democracy while conjuring up images of a gestapo-type "state interrogation". I mean, really, if you push the limits of free speech, you cannot possibly think that you won't eventually offend someone and have complaints filed against you. You may ultimately be right in your position, and it may ultimately cost you money to prove that. But how is it that our concept of freedom and democracy is fostered if we have a situation where someone should be afraid to even file a complaint because they will be personally attacked and ridiculed, along with the very institution to which they complain? If someone reports me to the Law Society for something I feel is frivolous, I will respond that I think the complaint has no merit. I will not attack the Law Society's integrity for accepting and then looking into the complaint. Nor will I make fun of the person who complained for not using a typewriter. Mr. Levant needs to grow up...alot...and simply deal with what is a cost of doing business when you choose to publish controversial material. And he needs a lesson or two about how to do so with a level of tact and respect for the system...the very system that will protect his right to publish controversial things. And don't get me wrong, I think publishing the cartoons was the right thing to do. Without looking at the material, I would not have been able to decide which side of the issue I was on. Having seen the cartoons, I can understand that they could be offensive, but am of the view that they are not so offensive that they should be censored from publication. Living in a free society means living with things that offend you...becuase they are what other free people choose. I just fail to see how so many can become so outraged that a "radical" terrrorist-type has taken the unthinkable step and used a pen and paper to try to further his agenda. Seems far better to me than strapping into a dynamite vest... FTA

FTA = Fair Trading Act...Alberta consumer protection legislation. I have no clue about satellite treaties. What does this and Marc Emery have to do with this thread anyway? FTA

Taken from the Cobourg Police website: Link FTA

That's seriously your answer? Can't Omar give the same response to all of those who hate him for what he did (assuming it is proven)? WORLD: Omar, you bastard, why would you fight the allies of your country of citizenship and particularly, how in the hell could you kill an American soldier with a grenade...while not wearing a military uniform!!?? OMAR: T'is war...in all its ugly glory. Little infidel American soldier is a page in history now...bye bye. Boy, I guess I've been bested on this one... FTA

The thing is, I don't look for perfection in a politician or a particular party or a government or the House of Commons as a whole. It's not realistic. But when a PM can answer a direct question (that he didn't have the opportunity to prepare an answer to in advance) with a direct answer...he or she will likely get my vote, even if I don't like all of the answers. I watched intently the fist Mansbridge interview with PM PM after he took over from Cretien...because I was seriously considering voting Liberal at that time (I guess largely becuase I respected what he had done as Finance Minister) and within that interview, I saw everything I needed to decide I would never give PM PM my support. Non-answers to direct questions tell you plenty about what the real answer would have been. If Harper had answered evasively, I'd be just as disillusioned with him and his chances of getting my vote would have dropped dramatically. FTA

Look, what I am saying is I really don't want to become a country that considers itself to be on the moral high ground because we torture captives more humanely than out enemies do...I'd prefer to stick to the principles that we started defending in the first place. Anyway, putting that aside (i.e. I am fully prepared to concede that our enemies do torture worse than us) your post is missing any attempt to answer why Bush would need to do away with habeas corpus applications... FTA

BINGO! Also, is it just me or is the registered gun = evidence trail thing completely goofy? Scenario #1 Someone steals a gun from me (all of mine are registered), I report it to the police. Guy who stole it goes and robs a store, and then for some inexplicable reason leaves the gun at the door when he leaves rather than taking it with him (I'm no sociologist, but every armed robber I've dealt with took the weapon with him). Cops arrive, run the gun through the registry...assuming the serial # is still on it...and then VOILA!!! They find out it is the gun stolen from me. How did this help them catch the crook again?!?!? Scenario #2 Someone steals a gun from me (assume registry scrapped and therefore no registration), I report it to the police. Guy who stole it goes and robs a store, and then for some inexplicable reason leaves the gun at the door when he leaves rather than taking it with him (I'm no sociologist, but every armed robber I've dealt with took the weapon with him). Cops arrive, can't run the gun through the registry. If I knew my serial # and put that in my police report then, assuming the serial # is still on it, then VOILA!!! They find out it is the gun stolen from me. If I don't know the serial # the cops will never know where the guy got his gun. How did this harm them from catching the crook again?!?!? Am I missing something? I could be...I just don't see what. FTA

Did you miss the few clips we all saw of how "we" (i.e. Americans, our NATO allies) treated captives? Do you not have the least bit of concern when democratic governments refuse to answer whether a technique like "waterboarding" is or isn't torture? for fear that the enemy might learn about our interrogation techniques? At the end of the day, my problem with the whole Khadr thing is not that I like terrorists or that I want one living in my basement...it's that we are allowing our principled societies to become barbaric (read terrorist) by abandoning centuries-old concepts of justice and fairness and then justifying our behavior by claiming to be better than the real terrorists becuase we have pure motives. It's bullshit. If the US has such compelling fair and just cause to detain people in a military prison in Cuba, then why...please, one person possibly tell me why...would Bush implement a law that bars any such detainee from making any application to any court in any jurisdiction seeking habeas corpus?????????????????? For those that may not know, habeas corpus is a hundreds of years old principle that compels a captor to "produce the body" of his prisoner to a court of law and provide an explanation why they are justified in keeping the person captive. If they are so justified, why not simply answer such an application? Really. Why? I challenge anyone to give me one good reason. If Khadr did what so many seem to have already decided he did (never mind the lack of any hearing or tiral) then it should be the easiest application ever to answer. Instead, the superior democratic freedom-fry loving Americans, defenders of all that is good, committers of no wrong, have barred Khadr and all detainees from any opportunity to have a judicial review of the validity of their detention. I'm sorry, if there is nothing to hide...then why hide? FTA

I don't think I saw a single "politician's answer" (i.e. answer without answering) in the whole interview. The whole scary hidden agenda thing really is dead now in my view. Love him or hate him, no one can watch the interview and walk away wondering where Harper stands on any of the questions that were put to him by Mansbridge. I originally voted for Harper to be leader of the CA...and then became a bit disillusioned by politics altogether. I didn't renew my party membership and while still voting in every election, had lost my desire to be affiliated with any particular party. I have issues I'm not real happy about the Harper gov't performance on, but this interview has done quite a bit to start to woo me back. I don't want to make this post a partisan slag (because that's really what turned me off of politics in general) but I can't help but compare the simple straight answers of Harper in this interview to the stammer that came from PM PM's mouth when asked if he was buying a Christmas wreath... I really think people will vote for Conservatives in the next election becuase they realize now how outrageous the other parties were in their attempts to paint PM Harper as the end to Canada. I'm not saying he has saved us from all that was bad and Liberal, but how can you buy the stories of the political parties that cried wolf? FTA

I have to admit that I have not kept up with all of the posts on this thread, but if they are as well-informed as this one, then what this board is accomplishing is to prove how ignorant our populace is about this issue. Instead of all of the bloody bickering about what everybody should do, maybe we should pause for one fraction of a second, remind ourselves to breathe in and out to replenish the oxygen in our brains, and realize that the gun control we have is strict, the penalties for gun crimes harsh, and when viewed objectively, we don't have a gun crime problem in this country which justifies billions of dollars blown on an incomplete inventory list. While Wild Bill appears to want higher actual sentences (robbery with a firearm is automatic 4 years presently), he appears to have no idea whatsoever that we do have mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes. We have special sections of the Criminal Code for using a gun or an imitation of a gun in a crime which will get you guaranteed jail...consecutive not concurrent...no discretion in the judge. We have definitions in the Criminal Code that deem most of the bb-guns that they sell at Canadian Tire (and other such retailers) "firearms" for the purposes of these offences, even though they are not firearms that need to be registered and can be sold to anyone (no license required). F--k, if we put as much effort into crime prevention as we do into lobbying for laws we already have we'd have no crime at all! FTA

You completely miss the point. Our brave men and women, both past and present, did/do not fight for a country that would detain someone almost indefinitely without trial, denying a centuries-old principle of habeas corpus, to be tried in a military tribunal intentionally devoid of domestic criminal rules/procedures/protections in a pathetic sham pretending to be due process. Canada is founded on the rule of law and Omar Khadr ought to be proven to be an unlawful enemy combatant and proven to have in that capacity murdered an American soldier before we cast him away to rot in hell. How do you, or anyone on this board have any idea whatsoever what happened in this case? I rather doubt any of you were there to witness what Khadr did or didn't do. I am in no way trying to support what Khadr is alleged to have done...but I personally beleive that media hype and political rhetoric does not a traitor make...I'd rather see some form of lawful (meaning fundamnetally fair) conviction before I cast my stones. Here's a link with an interesting chronology related to the military commissions and this quote: Trial Watch Passing laws to circumvent laws which are the very laws that you rely on to denounce the conduct of the person you accuse as a traitor puts you in a bit of a philosophical and intellectual bind doesn't it? FTA

I have great respect for Justice Sheilah Martin which caused me to look into this case further...I didn't immediately trust that the media had fairly portrayed her ruling. Notice of Appointment for Justice Martin Upon reviewing the Court of Appeal's decision, I think fairness requires a bit of a clarification of what Justice Martin actually ruled. Court of Appeal Decision The facts of the case are interesting. The guy failed a pre-employment drug test because he had smoked marijuana 5 or 6 days before being tested. My read is that there was no evidence that he had ever been tested while working (let alone failed such a test). The company said passing the pre-employment drug test was a pre-condition to employment, but they tested the guy on June 28 and apparently put him to work right away. He was called off of the jobsite on July 17 when the test result came back as a fail. Justice Martin ruled that the company's policy had the effect of treating all persons as disabled by drug addiction, because it automatically fired anyone who failed the pre-employment test...not accounting for the possibility that the worker was not an addict and therefore not a risk to use at work (and therefore no reason to fire them). If the company perceived an applicant to be "disabled" (in the way in which it's policy was administered) and refused employment on the basis of that perception, they were in violation of the Human Rights legislation. Justice Martin then found that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the pre-employment drug testing was effecting a lower accident rate on the job-site, and basically concluded that it was thus unjustified to automatically fire someone for failing a pre-employment drug test without some effort to accommodate them (i.e. give them a chance to re-test after clearing THC from system). At the end of the day, the Court of Appeal did say she was wrong, and did say that it was not logical to apply the human rights legislation in the way in which she did, but one can hardly correctly say that Justice Martin made a finding that smoking pot was a fundamental human right or that some guy's right to smoke pot was to be placed above the safety of his fellow workers. It was a bit more complex than that. FTA

Well this emphasizes my point really. Prior to the gun registry ever being implemented, you had to get a gun license (formerly an FAC, now a POL or PAL). To get the gun license you had to pass a safety course in which you were tested both on paper and with a practical component to demonstrate that you could properly handle and store firearms and ammunition. After passing the course, you submitted an application to the Chief Firearms Officer (usually through your local RCMP detachment) which involved a criminal record check and voluntary disclosures of mental health and / or domestic issues. In cases where you were living with a spouse, they would be asked to sign as to their knowledge and consent to your application...and even where they signed to that effect, the RCMP would contact them privately to ask if the spouse had any objection to you getting a gun license. Then you are called in by the local firearms officer (RCMP) for a one on one face to face meeting where you talk about why you want to own guns, whether you belong to a shooting club, whether you do big-game hunting etc. If all of that goes okay, your application is sent for final review and then the Chief Firearms Officer either approves or denies your application. Only then, do you get to walk into your local sporting goods store and legally buy a gun. All of these things have been actively in place for years, and were being done before billions were blown on trying to "make a list and check it twice" with respect to ownership of every single long gun in the country. FTA

This is wrong. I don't expect all out there to be experts in the Criminal Law...otherwise, my services would be of little value (nevermind the jokes that my services are of little value anyway...). That said, people wanting to make statements of the law so authoritatively ought to do a little research on the subject first. In Canada, there are two ways for a person to obtain a true pardon (as opposed to a National Parole Board pardon of your criminal record): 1. The Queen Herself exercises her Royal Prerogative of Mercy...and simply excuses you from your crime and any associated punishment; or 2. The Governor in Counsel (i.e. Prime Minister with the advice of cabinet) grants a "free pardon" or a "conditional pardon" pursuant to s. 748(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Section 748(3) of the Criminal Code says that the effect of a free pardon is "that person shall be deemed thereafter never to have committed the offence in respect of which the pardon is granted." The Latimer case is a perfect example of why this power is given to the PM. Imagine that subsequent to his conviction, the Parliament debates and passes into law an Act which would have excused Latimer's conduct and made it legal. The only proper thing to do would be to give him a free pardon at that point...otherwise he would always remain a convicted murderer serving a life sentence (even if parolled). In my view, the only hope for Latimer to get a free pardon would be this scenario...and no PM, Conservative or otherwise, will bring on the heat that would come from using this power in this case unless public concensus has already brought about a law legalizing euthanasia in the manner in which it was done by Latimer (i.e. unilateral decision by a caretaker). So, lobby your MP and write to the PM...you have at least a theoretical chance of convincing the government of the day to absolve Mr. Latimer and send him home. Otherwise, get somebody who has power and influence to take your plea for mercy for Mr. Latimer before the Queen. In either case, I think you have a very long uphill battle. FTA

Laws that are not voluntarily complied with by the majority of those to which the laws apply will ultimately die. We might as well end the waste now rather than wait for billions more to disappear. Many lawmakers and law enforcement officials do not believe in and therefore do not themselves comply with the long-gun registry. While purely anecdotal, the percentage of average citizens who refuse to comply is even higher. There really is little hope for the registry to ever accomplish anything meaningful. Keep in mind that without the registry, a firearms owner still has to be licensed, so the state objectives can still be addressed without blowing unreal amounts of money to attempt to catalogue each specific firearm. And here's an interesting tidbit...how many people out there know the procedure for transferring a registered firearm? If you look at it, you will see that the original registrant simply sends a notice in to the bozos in Miramiche advising who the gun has been transferred to. If the gun is not subsequently re-registered, or if the transferee has given fraudulent info., then what? See the point is that as we speak registered guns are essentially becoming unregistered through slack procedures...nevermind the ones that have never been registered in the first place, or the ones that have been illegally smuggled into the country. To be honest, I can't believe that gun registry proponents don't see that the fact that outrageous shootings keep happening...in spite of the registry...proves that registration is a futile endeavour. If only logic and common sense could prevail on this issue... FTA

I'm not sure what to even say...I suppose it does not matter because since I am a lawyer none of it could be true? While August may be right that most criminal clients have little money and less education, I find it difficult that he can't believe that rich smart people commit crimes too... I have acted on criminal files for multi-millionaire clients whether you think that statement is too self-serving to be true or not. I'm up right now working on a file for a client who scarcely makes enough $ to feed his four kids...But I guess you just have to take my word for it. FTA

I am far from a person who automatically trusts police, just becuase they wear a uniform. I have taken some pretty direct runs at police in both criminal and civil cases, so I know quite a bit about what I say on this point. I also have a police officer client, who I consider a friend, who had to take the life of a man who he was escorting out of a building in what appeared to be a "routine call". Many people called him a murderer...including in public protests at City Hall. The subsequent Fatality Inquiry proved that he was completely justified and the people who shot their mouths off just went back to their lives as though nothing happened. His life and those of his family were devastated to the point that he almost took his own life one night due to the stress and the vivid PTSD nightmares that he was suffering. no queenslave, you know nothing about the case that you are referring to, less still about the officer involved and his family, and really ought to keep your shameful comments to yourself. FTA

Two as it turns out. One is set tentatively for hearing on April 17, 2008 on the correctness of a jury charge regarding intent for 1st versus 2nd degree murder. The second is the one I have mentioned in this thread. Both files were my partner's at the Alberta Court of Appeal, so I will be second string on them in Ottawa. FTA

I can honestly say that I have never once attempted to "limit cloud or hide the truth" on behalf of a client. I can also honestly say that well over 80% of my criminal clients plead guilty. It's sort of hard to hide the truth when you admit to what you've been charged with. I can also honestly say that step one in every criminal case is to explore whether a community diversion program is available to your client...it's a guarantee to avoid jail and a criminal record. I can further honestly say that I have never once recommended a client refuse an Alternative Measures Program referral when it was offered to him / her by the Crown. I can honestly say that I burn the midnight oil just as long for a Legal Aid client as I do for a wealthy one (and I do have both extremes in clients who have nothing but the clothes they are wearing and others who have enough money to buy small countries if they wanted to). This year alone, I have returned thousands of dollars of retainer funds to clients because I didn't need to do as much work as was orignially expected on their file, or becuase I specifically advised them to abandon an application that was unlikely to produce a good result (and thereby ended their need for my services). And, I can tell you that my practice is successful, both for myself financially and for my clients in the results that I get...and, most of my colleagues in the city of Calgary can say all of the above for themselves as well. And the truth (about how the justice system really works) shall set you free... FTA

August, I don't want you to think I am ignoring your post...but I really can't engage in debating the question you have posed. Such questions may very well be riased in the SCC hearing and I don't feel that it is proper for me to express personal opinion on issues that our firm will be arguing before the courts. FTA

It really is simple to convince me that Tasers are as safe as the manufacturer suggests...that is, "safer than Tylenol." Shoot your mom with a Taser in a live televised demonstration. See, 'cause I'd give my mom a Tylenol any old time, but there's no way in hell I'd shoot her with a Taser. Does that mean I'm an abusive son? No. It means Tasers are not safer than Tylenol. Maybe that's why Tylenol is sold on the shelf in every grocery store in the country, and Tasers are Prohibited Weapons. FTA P.S. I asked a young RCMP officer who was wearing a Taser in court about a year ago whether he had been shot by one to see what it was like (the same way they train for use of pepper spray). He responded NO...they stopped doing that because... And then he stopped talking (when he remembered he was talking to a lawyer) and walked away. Things that make you go hmmmmmmmm?

Section 8 of the Charter provides the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The tens of thousands of cases that interpret that right do so with an analysis of a citizen's reasonable expectation of privacy in any given set of circumstances. Our firm is currently taking a case to the Supreme Court of Canada on the issue of whether a citizen has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the garbage that they put out for collection by the city garbage men. Alberta Court of Appeal Decision SCC Registry As is always the case, I do not post about pending cases, so I leave the issue for others to debate and I will keep you posted on the outcome of the SCC decision. FTA

Rather, too much sue and no mapleleafweb makes FTA a dull boy!! FTA