charter.rights

Don't be silly. You are not entitled to sunlight. Ask any apartment dweller living downtown Toronto. There is no limitation on your neighbour's property intended to protect you. They can do anything permitted either factually or intentionally within the zoning by-law. As I said the Mosque is in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood. The residential zones permit religious centres as permitted uses withing residential zones. Protesting and petitions are useless instruments on single issue nimbys.

Americans! Too arrogant to admit they are wrong. Too stupid to know when they are wrong.....

I've cited the Criminal Code of Canada, and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and there is no law for illegal use, only for possession. That trumps your advisory group that has a semantics problem in making a recommendation. Both act are law in Canada and nothing else matters....except of course being blond which gives us all a laugh from time to time.....

Nope. You might want to brush up on the Planning and Municipal Acts. The purpose of limiting heights under zoning by-laws to to maintain a certain character to residential neighbourhoods. Homes and permitted accessory structures are limited in size so that they cannot be used for businesses or other uses out of character. However, if the use - such as a pool slide - is in keeping with the "intent" of the by-law then Council, through their Committee of Adjustment can authorize a variance from that by-law to permit the extraordinary height or size. And while the Committee of Adjustment is required to notify neighbours within 300m of the address, the Committee only considers issues that have a basis in planning. Complaints about loss of property value or interference with neighbour's views are ignored since they are subjective issues without any basis in fact.

Forgive us if you are trolling.

The CCSA doesn't make or prescribe law. They are an advisory group only. So yes they are wrong. Nowhere under the scope of The Law is "use" illegal. Only possession is.

Only if the joint is present, then the charge is for possession not for illegal use as AW has been trying to insist. Once the joint is consumed, then there is nothing more that can be done.

It was answer 20 pages ago. Toking off another's joint is use without possession. Also shooting up from another's might be stupid but it is not illegal unless the drugs are seized at the time of use. USE is not illegal.

If there are no more drugs and all have been consumed then there is no possession and contrary to AW's cerebral epidural one cannot be charged for the use of drugs.

Nope - dumb wrong again. One can legally use controlled substances for recreational use. In fact at most concerts in Canada, the police do not interfere with the open consumption of weed and hash. Needle exchange programs assist in the use of controlled and illegal drugs. Use is fine. And even possession of small amount is usually never challenged. The biggies are for possession over minimum amounts, or for possession with the intent to distribute. Use is NOT illegal.

The CCC says nothing of the sort. You are just trolling. Either that or....you're blond, right? Is that your problem?

The purpose of the Judicial system is to maintain Peace, Order and Good Government through the enforcement of laws and rules of order.

There is no law. Period. Try citing the Criminal Code of Canada like I and others have. You are dismissed. Now trying being a good American and shut up.

Ummm Yes. Your assertion that "use" is illegal was dismissed pages ago. There is no law in Canada that prohibits "use" of controlled substances. Your citing a senate committee report and employment policy is not law in Canada. Get that through your dumb American head.

Don't be so stupid. I and others have debated and presented facts disputing your point of view. There comes a point when one refuses to learn that you just quit trying. No, you are just trolling. When YOU start presenting factual information and sources and get rid of your "my opinion trumps all" attitude, maybe then people can have a healthy debate with you. Until then, you are just trolling. Typical American on a Canadian Board.

It is separate from the executive and legislative branches. And no. You're obviously not really interested in learning since you have been proven wrong on many issues in this thread alone and continue to assert those same errors, refusing to acknowledge the facts presented to you from many sources. In internet terms that is called trolling.

You don't learn but making stupid comments based on no fact. You learn by shutting your trap and listening / reading.

Stick American politics over health care. You had your chance to ruin that for 50% of the Americans without coverage. You don't get a say in ours.

No. The Supreme Court issues "rulings" on the application or constitutionality of law. In McIvor, the BC Supreme Court did exactly that - they ordered the government to change the definition of an "Indian" under the Indian Act to be more inclusive. In McIvor, the court ruled that the present definition violated the Charter of Rights. Indian Affairs had 1 year to change the definition and eventually complied. An appeal to the Supreme Court was disallowed and rejected. The Courts have the authority to alter the law, or to change its meanings or clarify their intent. That is for all intents and purposes following quasi public opinion set out in aboriginal jurisprudence.

It is unlikely you would be welcomed in Oshawa. They hate foreigners.

Wrong. The bulk of social formation came out of paganism. The Victorians (Family Compact) rewrote history to make seem like those lazy asses contributed the most.

Huge Chinese restaurants must be built in commercial zones. Mosques and churches however, are perfectly legal and appropriate in residential zones. That is the law.

You are ill-informed. If you want a 3m slide you have every right to put it up. If you are proposing another structure that doesn't comply with the zoning by-laws then you might have to apply to the Committee of Adjustment for a vairance. In the course of due process they will contact your neighbour, to advise them that they have a right to file an objection however, is has nothing to do with their approval. The Committee only hears their objection if it has some basis in planning law or planning principles. Things like :I don't like it" or "It will block my view" are ignored by Committee. Wrong again. Neither the Municipality or the Provincial governments have any say in the construction of communications towers. The are regulated under federal law and are exempt from all planning authority approvals and building codes. So this comment can be easily ignored as false. You have to KNOW Canada before your can COMMENT on us and our laws.

Actually if you take a good look at who built this country you will find a lot of Buddha in it. Canada is not a Christian country. It is multi-religous with accommodation for everyone.

Most municipalities have churches and mosques etc zone residential. So it is entirely appropriate to locate a mosque in a residential neighbourhood. I suspect the purpose of that is so that churches and mosques etc can easily be accessed by walking. So the location might encourage Muslims to relocate to your neighborhood so they won't have to depend on cars to get them there. Its kinda cool that your neighbours might have a different religion - something you can learn from - and hopefully bridge gaps and help become more tolerant of other ideologies. Enjoy their company. No doubt they call Canada their home too.