Next time think twice about breaking up with your partner on Facebook, or having too much fun when you’re in an unhappy marriage.
Gerry Oginski of the TechnoLawyer Blog gives Lee Rosen thumbs up for this well produced, educational video.
But it’s not just the clients who need to watch what they are saying these days. Brenda Hollingsworth and Richard Auger, the Ottawa Lawyers, said yesterday,
Noticed several people tweeting about their legal advice today, especially in family law cases. Bad idea.
Speakers and chairs include The Honourable Mr. Justice Craig Perkins, Lorna M. Yates, Caroyn J. Jones, Jeffrey H. Wilson, Lorne Glass, Frank A. Mendicino, Pamela M. Krause, Thomas C. Dart, Burgar, Avra Rosen, Melanie Russell, Dr. Barbara Fidler, Child Psychologist, Harold Niman, Esq., Stacie R. Glazman, Andrew Feldstein, Jennifer A. Treloar, and Michael J. Polisuk.
There is even a judges panel, which includes The Honourable Mr. Justice R. John Harper, The Honourable Madam Justice Cheryl Robertson, The Honourable Madam Justice Kendra Coats, and The Honourable Mr. Justice Stanley B. Sherr.
Let’s hope someone brings these issues up in discussion.
He spoke on a variety of subjects, but largely focused on what he perceived to be the role of his Ministry.
It was his opinion that immigrants to Canada are pretty well off – they have their own institutions and organizations, and don’t really need much governmental support. Never mind that he talked at great length to dismiss the legitimacy of organizations that have criticized his policies, and failed to identify which organizations spoke for the most discriminated elements in society.
What immigrants do need is language skills. Min. Kenney rebuffed studies that have shown that recent immigrants to Canada are faring far worse than previous generations by saying it’s because they don’t have proficiency in English or French.
The fact that Canada’s immigration patterns in recent decades have shifted to substantially more racial minorities obviously does not play into the equation. Somehow the immigrants from eastern Europe and the Ukraine, which populated significant parts of central Canada where Kenney was raised, did not have the same problems, even though they did not learn English in their first generation either.
But to make it worse, these immigrants don’t even do what they need to be doing. Only 20% of them take language classes offered by the government.
So you see, if you’re an immigrant to Canada and you’re having a tough time, it’s really your fault, not the government’s. Min. Kenney seemed oblivious to the acute xenophobia towards these immigrants, and denied that there have been calls to bar certain groups from entry to Canada. He thought the British and Australian immigration models (andresponses) was something we should emulate.
Min. Kenney, are you not monitoring levels of intolerance in Canada? Or are you only concerned about helping your political constituency alone?
Kenney was unable to explain how he learned so much about immigrants and visible minorities who face discrimination while growing up in Saskatchewan. He conceded his social group consisted of all white-males as a youth, but attributed that to his involvement with the Liberal Party at the time. All of the minorities were obviously hiding out in the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.
Updates
Min. Kenney repeated the call for immigrants to speak English or French before immigrating to Canada at a conference in Calgary, clearing up any ambiguity that may have previously existed.
These policies are nothing more than a covert for of racism, seeking to perpetuate historic racist legislation in Canada that sought to bar ethnic minorities from entering Canada, and overturn progress made in recent years to remedy these policies.
More recent statements seem to indicate he is backpedalling in face of sharp criticism by the public. Despite blaming the media, Min. Kenney’s statements are recorded by the media and attendees at his talks this week.
Last night the United Nations played host to a delegation from many lightyears away. Cast members and producers of the sci fi program Battlestar Galactica — and one host of The View — attended a panel discussion with the UN Department of Public Information’s Creative Community Outreach Initiative. The new outreach program aims to expose global issues through partnership with international film and television industries.
Actors Edward James Olmos and Mary McDonnell, known to fans as Admiral William Adama and President Laura Roslin respectively, joined producers Ronald D. Moore and David Eicke, as well as moderator Whoopi Goldberg (… for some reason) in discussing human rights, terrorism, children and armed conflict, and reconciliation between civilians and faiths. The program has canvassed these themes repeatedly over its four seasons. The audience was shown clips from the show depicting the ostensible “good guys” torturing prisoners, executing collaborators, and resorting to military might over the rule of law. Each clip was followed by a discussion of real-world conflict and United Nations responses. The audience was composed largely of high school students.
Kiyo Akasaka, UN Under-Secretary-General for Public Information, said the panel showed “how skilful storytelling can elevate the profile of critical humanitarian issues.” The event offered the opportunity “to deliver a message about the many harsh realities that still exist worldwide.”
For its part, the UN contingent consisted of Radhika Coomaraswamy, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict; Craig Mokhiber of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights; Robert Orr, Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Planning; and Famatta Rose Osode, from the Permanent Mission of Liberia to the UN.
Olmos, a former UNICEF ambassador and an outspoken proponent of social justice for Latinos in the US, critized Mokhiber and the UN for “using the word ‘race’ as a cultural determinant”. He told the assembly, “There is only one race: the human race” before concluding with Admiral Adama’s terse sign-off when addressing his crew: “So say we all!” The audience gamely shouted it back to him.
The event precedes the series finale of the program, airing this Friday at 10:00PM, on the SCI FI channel in the US and on SPACE in Canada. (Canadian viewers can get caught up with season 4 online via SPACE’s website.)
Juan Carlos Brandt, chief of Nongovernmental Organizations in the UN’s Department of Public Information, joined Evan Solomon on Q this morning on CBC Radio to discuss the event. That interview is available here.
Well the editors are asking you for input for the next edition in this survey, so this is your opportunity to rant, rave, and otherwise express your frustrations about how Canadian citations don’t make sense.
Of particular interest is the possibility of electronic software that would format citations automatically. Web apps are the way to go, and in all others areas of research citation software is making research more efficient and accurate.
Note: This piece was subsequently published on March 26, 2009 in the StarPhoenix. Available online here
Due process is a long-standing Canadian principle. It is enshrined in our legal tradition as a safeguard against the denial of liberty. It is a part of our liberal democracy that distinctly separates us from the dictatorships scattered around the world today. Yet, certain Canadians are being apparently denied their basic rights as citizens.
Consider the case of Abousfian Abdelrazik. Since 2003, Abdelrazik has languished in limbo in Khartoum, Sudan and currently lives in the lobby of the Canadian embassy. His ill-fated trip to Khartoum in 2003 to visit his ailing mother ended in secret detention under the country’s notorious domestic security agency, which newly de-classified documents show acted on the request of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS).
He was repeatedly detained for a total of nineteen months. No charges. No trial. No conviction. A Canadian citizen – arbitrarily detained at the behest of Canada, by a disreputable foreign regime whose president was indicted this month by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. Abdelrazik says he was tortured by his Sudanese captors, and has the scars to show it.
Sudan’s dismal human rights record speaks for itself. CSIS agents visited and interrogated Abdelrazik during his imprisonment. Documents reveal that Canadian diplomats in Khartoum were told to not provide him with his right to consular support during interrogations by Sudanese and American officials.
Today, Abdelrazik lives in virtual exile – denied the right to come back to Canada and to his family. Sudan says it has no reason to hold him and has cleared him of the suspicions laid out by CSIS. It even offered to fly him back to Canada.
Although the federal government has tried to get Abdelrazik removed from an international no-fly list, it has still raised road-blocks to prevent his return. When he did find ways to return, like arranging a flight out of Sudan, he was refused a passport. Why?
It is alarming to see Sudan more committed to releasing a Canadian than us. When we unlawfully outsource the detention and interrogation of one of our own to an authoritarian state, then we are going down a frightening path of injustice.
Another troubling case is that of Canadian Omar Khadr – a story well known to many of us. Captured as a child soldier in Afghanistan at the age of 15 and held for more than six years at the Guantanamo detention facility without conviction, Omar is the last Western citizen languishing in a place that exists outside the norms of law. His Canadian lawyer, Dennis Edney, has said Omar is a broken person.
Although U.S. president Barack Obama has frozen “trial” proceedings at Guantanamo and is slated to shut the facility down, we have yet to intervene and repatriate this young citizen. This stands in stark contrast to other Western nations like the United Kingdom and France, which have already repatriated their nationals.
For ourselves and our country, some important questions need to be asked. What has happened to the value of Canadian citizenship? Are we being parochial and selective in upholding the rights of our citizens?
And, perhaps most importantly, have we learned from the perilous mistakes that were brought to light during the Arar Inquiry? At this point, it does not seem like we have.
Our government must provide answers and address the unjust plight of Abdelrazik. Indeed, his case and that of Khadr demonstrate a harmful and dangerous erosion of fundamental justice and must not be taken lightly.
At the same time, our courts exist for a reason and they constitute the proper forum to mete out justice with transparency and due process. Canadian courts have successfully convicted those charged with terrorism under the Criminal Code. For example, Momin Khawaja of Ottawa was found guilty of such offences in October 2008 and and was recently sentenced to 10.5 years of jail time.
Yet, for over five years, no grounds or evidence have been offered regarding Abdelrazik. And for six years, the Americans have failed to create a just process for Khadr that is consistent with legal norms and international law.
There is no doubt that national security and collective safety are critical in times like these. But the inalienable rights and citizenship of every Canadian must be upheld and respected.
Let us stand by the timeless Canadian edifice that defines our values and separates us from the agents of chaos and the regimes of repression: the rule of law. In our cherished democracy, real security is the preservation of not only human life, but also of human dignity.
For an excellent primer on the financial crisis, watch the video below:
The Obama administration is currently seeking all legal means to prevent AIG from using federal bailout money to pay $165 million in contractual bonuses to its executives.
Today’s opinion column in the Wall Street Journal called the bonuses scandal a distraction:
[Obama] and the rest of the political class thus neatly deflected attention from the larger outrage, which is the five-month Beltway cover-up over who benefited most from the AIG bailout.
I certainly agree that the “larger outrage” is just that.
But the bonus scandal is not just a distraction. It’s not just a politically-motivated attempt to throw some water on the rage that burns inside taxpayers’ hearts.
It has a great deal of value beyond saving the federal coffers $165 million (which, admittedly, is not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things).
The real value in nullifying the bonuses is the message that it sends.
* * *
Alan Greenspan recently admitted that he had made a “mistake” in believing that banks, operating in their own self-interest, would never create such a poisonous economy that they would themselves collapse. Greenspan called the mistake:
“a flaw in [my] model … that defines how the world works.
…
I still do not fully understand why it happened.”
Well I have a pretty simple theory.
Greenspan’s mistake was failing to recognize that there is no such thing as corporate self-interest. It’s an illusory concept.
When it comes down to it, the corporation is run by a board of directors, each of whom acts in their own personal self-interest.
That personal self-interest can generally be summed up as: making as much money as possible as quickly as possible.
When these personal interests overlap with what we perceive as the “interests” of the corporation, we are fine and dandy. The corporation makes money and the shareholders make money. The system flourishes. The economy grows.
The system becomes poisonous when the board of directors is willing to sacrifice the corporation for short-term gain. That’s precisely what happened here.
It’s not that the “banks” would never allow “themselves” to collapse. There is no “themselves.” There are just the individual directors that were perfectly willing to allow the banks and insurance companies to collapse if it meant a quick dollar in their pockets.
They milked and milked their golden calf for all the money it could give. When finally the milk ran out, they dispatched it to the slaughterhouse. This despite the fact that shareholders were relying on that cow. So were insurance policyholders. But these people never factored into the executives’ self-interest equations.
* * *
Some argue that to deny contractually-obligated bonuses would be a mistake. They say that doing so would cause these executives to leave their posts for greener pastures. In short, it would mean that talented individuals would find other jobs at precisely the time when we need the best people at the helm.
And it’s true. These people do have remarkable talent.
But they also have few – if any – scruples when it comes to using that talent.
They have demonstrated their astonishing ability – and willingness – to take legally dubious and ethically debaucherous steps to enrich themselves, personally, at the expense of the companies they work for and the economy as a whole.
At best, these men and women have shown reckless disregard for their shareholders. They have failed in their fiduciary duty of loyalty to millions of hardworking Americans (and Canadians) who hold stock in their company.
They have shown a duty of loyalty to one thing only: their own wallets.
Are these the people we want to keep at their posts?
* * *
This brings me full circle to my original point. There’s more to the denial of these bonuses than just distraction. It’s a warning message.
Under our old system, these directors had nothing to lose. They knew that they would earn huge bonuses while the bubble was expanding. They made millions. And they knew that in the near future, when the bubble was set to burst, they would STILL get their contractually obligated bonuses.
And now AIG wants to fulfill that depraved fantasy.
Retroactively canceling the bonuses (e.g. through legislation) would send the message that acting in personal self-interest without regard for the corporation’s interests – let alone the wider economy’s interests – will get you nothing in the end.
That’s probably precisely the message we want to send to the next generation of corporate executives.
The scholars, captains of industry and champions of justice who compose Law is Cool‘s readership will have long since scoured their online social networks for photos or other items tending to compromise their integrity — reports of “the dark side of social networking” are thick on the ground. But a recent court decision may renew paranoia that privacy is an artefact of the twentieth century, doomed to join its contemporaries (pagers, Chris Tucker, student activism, literacy, the Ark of the Covenant) in oblivion.
Plaintiff John Leduc claims that injuries sustained in a car accident in 2004 have lessened his enjoyment of life. The court found that Leduc may be cross-examined on the contents of his Facebook account where such contents are relevant to his claim — despite the fact that security settings on his account restricted access to his profile to only his close friends.
If Leduc’s Facebook account contained evidence of him
exerting himself,
stopping to smell roses,
“seizing the day” in any fashion, or
otherwise engaged in merriment,
such evidence might undermine his claim. Pictures of him sitting on the roof of his car watching the sun set over a northern lake, or snowboarding through thick powder with the caption “Go for it!” beneath him, would be especially damning.
The decision overturns a Superior Court case management master’s ruling that forcing Leduc to produce the contents of his Facebook account amounted to a “fishing expedition”, since there was nothing — except Leduc’s opposition to disclosure — to suggest that any compromising photos in fact existed. Leduc’s profile consisted only of his name and picture.
A search of Facebook for accounts registered to “John Leduc” yielded 129 results — many of whom appeared to be enjoying themselves.
With American law firms shedding lawyers by the hour, things sound all doom and gloom down there. But CNN has picked up on a positive side effect of the firm layoffs: it’s an unprecedented opportunity for many lawyers to take up public-interest work.
“There is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity coming out of a difficult situation,” said Esther Lardent, president of the Pro Bono Institute in Washington D.C., who began discussions this month with at least 15 corporate firms nationwide about placing unemployed attorneys in public interest firms.
Who knows, maybe this recession will even boost the legal profession’s reputation.
(Credit to David Carson for initially tweeting this story)
If you didn’t know already Canadians take their beer very seriously. And I don’t just mean on the consumption side.
Brewing in Canada is a very serious business indeed.
This is where the story of Dead Frog Brewery and Sleeman Breweries Ltd. comes in. It is a litigation story of David vs. Goliath, where David might just lose this time – it is a litigation story after all. It is a suit centered on the intellectual property.
The David in this story, Dead Frog, is a micro-brewery – oh sorry, craft brewery to use industry speak – from Aldergroove, British Columbia (B.C.). This pint sized – pun well intended – member of the industry is showing no signs of capitulating, if anything Dead Frog is showing signs that it is sporting for a fight.
The Goliath in this story, Sleeman, is an industry giant – though admittedly not the largest – from Guelph, Ontario. The keg sized – here again, well intended – is the one that initiated the suit and seems dead set on defending what it sees as its rights. And what is it all about?
It is a battle over a bottle.
The thing is both Dead Frog and Sleeman use clear glass bottles for their beers. However, Sleeman, the more established brewery, is well known for its clear glass bottles. Sleeman initiated suit last June in B.C. alleging that Dead Frog is illegally using its clear glass bottle design.
Dead Frog for its part has responded with a statement of defence and counterclaim and as far as it is concerned Sleeman does not have a monopoly on clear glass bottles. Moreover, the beer loving public is highly unlikely to get the two designs confused as the logos embossed on the bottles are very different – a dead frog vs. a beaver – also given the prominence of the Dead Frog name and slogan on its bottles there should be no confusion.
Now I wasn’t going to comment on the merits of the case but given the above differences and the images I saw at Great Canadian Pubs and Beer of the two bottles side by side, I think I need to. What is Sleeman doing? The embossed dead frog is in no way close to their beaver design.
Even if Sleeman had a strong case – which I don’t see how it does – litigation could be a poor business decision. As this case progress’s it will no doubt pick up more press and Sleemans could, even if it is in the right legally, be seen as a bully. Although beer drinkers are well known for their brand loyalty, they are also well know for their sense of beer justice and they could sentence Sleemans to a period of isolation. Why, oh why, in these tough economic times would any one want, or even provoke the potential, for such a thing?
I must admit that I have never tied Dead Frog, in fact I had never even heard of it until this suit but I am sure it is a fine brew. However, how else do you explain a 300% growth rate while only in its second year of operation. It must be a fine brew indeed – at least some beer drinkers think so. Sleeman on the other had I am fully acquainted and fully enjoy – honey brown.
This suit is a lose, lose, lose situation. Even if Sleeman wins on the legal merits it will lose by being labeled a bully. Even if Dead Frog wins on the legal merits it will lose – the price of defending the case will come at the expense of continuing its fantastic growth rates. And no matter whom the winner is the beer drinker will be the ultimate loser.
I’m surprised how long it’s been since I last wrote; my life has been a whirlwind of activity for the past several weeks. Let me bring you up to speed.
I’d like to start with ‘Obiter Dicta,’ Western Law’s annual charity talent show. The phrase ‘Obiter Dicta’ originates from the legal term for parts of written judgments that aren’t legally binding: it is Latin for ‘by the way.’ Western Law has a lot of talent, and it was a lot of fun to watch the various musical and comedy acts. Each class also makes a video and displays it to the rest of the school. The night is a lot of fun and always one of the big highlights of the year. I even went up on stage to play my guitar for the audience, and I don’t normally like to do that.
What I noticed most during the show were the third year students. For them, the night marked the very last ‘Obiter Dicta’ that they would attend. Near the end of the night, there was a great sense of nostalgia in the air, especially as the student council president got up and blew the audience away with his own law-school cover of Vanilla Ice’s Ice, Ice Baby. Not long ago, I asked a friend of mine who is articling in Toronto whether he’s enjoying working. He looked away for just a moment and responded, “Yes, I really am. But at the same time, my advice to you is to enjoy every moment of law school. It just won’t happen again.” I am sure that at the talent show, the third years were thinking something similar, just as I am sure that those words will be on my mind next year, at my last ‘Obiter Dicta.’
I didn’t have too much time to think about it because I had final exams shortly after. I think I may have mentioned this in a previous blog, but at Western, a joint-degree student’s second year is split between the faculty of law and the Richard Ivey School of Business. I took one night off to attend “Obiter Dicta,” and then I went back to studying for my business exams: marketing, operations, and information technology. Business exams at Ivey all have a very large strategy component to them. In some ways, it is frustrating because as a student you spend so much time studying concepts, only to spend half an exam discussing strategy. On the other hand, I get it: Ivey’s director of recruitment told me once that they try to admit students who seem like they would make good CEOs. The underlying philosophy is clear: Ivey wants its grads not only to understand business concepts, but also to have the ability to apply those concepts to a certain set of facts and make a well-informed decision. I wrote the exams while doing my best to keep that idea in mind.
Exams weren’t the end of the module, either. The next week – last week – my class took part in a marketing simulation, done through a computer program. Teams of students made decisions about what attributes to give products and how best to market those products. The teams were then pitted against each other to grab market share in two hypothetical target segments: one mature, and one new. The simulation required a great amount of decision-making, and an even greater amount of teamwork. It was a lot of fun, a lot of stress, and ultimately (in my opinion) a significant part of the learning experience at Ivey.
Speaking of marketing let me tell you about ICP. All Ivey students are required to work in teams on a pro-bono Ivey Consulting Project (ICP) for a real client; my team developed a marketing plan for a local London business. It was a project that we had been working on since the fall of 2008, but in the last few weeks the work really picked up. On Monday, we handed in our final report. I am pretty satisfied with the results; when we began the project I thought I knew what our recommendations would be. As the project continued, it was incredible to see which ideas were wrong, which ones were right, and which ones were right but for the wrong reasons.
Around the time that SABRE happened, I got an email saying that I was accepted to study abroad next fall at the University of Limerick, in Ireland. I was very happy when I got the news because Ireland was my first choice for exchange. I had visited Dublin before, and had a fantastic time. Did you know that Guinness tastes better over there? Also, going on exchange to Ireland means a great opportunity to spend a few weekends visiting the rest of Europe. I’m really looking forward to the fall semester.
And now I am on reading week. To be honest, I needed the break, but I’m already getting a little restless. I’ve been so busy recently that I didn’t notice how much fun I had. As I tread ever closer to the end of my life as a student, I know that I will remember my friend’s words more. So far, at least, I’m enjoying every moment.
On May 19, 2008 a British Colombian woman had a near fatal allergic reaction after she ate a Starbucks Peach Parfait.
Knowing of her nut allergy she carefully read the listed ingredients checking for nuts – no nuts were listed. Not satisfied with that she then asked a Starbucks employee and was reassured that the item was nut free. It clearly was not.
The lady, a Ms. Kristin Gradiner, is now seeking to be compensated for her lost earnings for the two months she had to take off to recovery and for the cost of special glasses she is now forced to wear as a result of eye damage suffered because of the incident. This is all the compensation she is seeking for now, according to the CBC - she might just be entitled to claim much more. It is currently unclear whether Ms. Gardine has retained legal counsel.
The compensation that she is actually seeking is much better than what was offered by Starbucks – a coffee card. Yes, a coffee card.
A Starbucks coffee card and oh yeah a ‘sorry for the inconvenience’ was what Ms. Gardiner was offered when she called the Seattle headquarters of the coffee chain.
As our tag line reads, Commercial Awareness Is Global, this situation is a classic case of lack of awareness, to say nothing of sympathy or empathy, at a critical juncture of a major company’s stricture. – Customer Service.
Customer service, from the baristas that serve the coffee to the help/ complaints telephone lines, is the major point of contact which the majority of customers will encounter. When it fails the company fails.
Such failure should not be tolerated by any company, especially Starbucks. Its industry and business model is so customer satisfaction driven; its reputation as a warm and friendly place to come and enjoy a cup of coffee has been called into question; and given the tough economic time we are currently in, it can little afford to damage its reputation through poor customer relations.
Law Is Cool is an open forum for ideas, intended to stimulate discussion. The views expressed in posts and comments are those of the individual contributor and may not be reflective of the views of other authors or readers.
The contents of this site are intended for educational purposes only and must not be construed as legal advice.
We encourage everyone requiring legal advice to consult with a licensed lawyer.
RSS Feed
On Mar. 18, 2009, Hon. Jason Kenney, Min. of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, spoke at Huron College at UWO.
The scholars, captains of industry and champions of justice who compose Law is Cool‘s readership will have long since scoured their online social networks for photos or other items tending to compromise their integrity — reports of “the dark side of social networking” are thick on the ground. But a recent court decision may renew paranoia that privacy is an artefact of the twentieth century, doomed to join its contemporaries (pagers, Chris Tucker, student activism, literacy, the Ark of the Covenant) in oblivion.
