RSS FeedGreen Lantern?
This is a link to the latest post at my website. Here is the London Free Press story
I think this is very important for people to know… especially in Ontario. Read this, and you can save a life.
If you do not want to read the post, just know this.
In Ontario, please pull over and yield for vehicle with a flashing green light. They are voluntary first responders, usually in rural areas where the community operates with a volunteer fire department. By not yielding to them, you could be costing precious seconds or minutes to somebody in a life threatening situation.
This was the case tonight when I encountered after I yielded to a vehicle with a flashing green light and the vehicle in front of me did not. This was what he was going to:
Although there were little to no injuries, it is needless to say the result could have been a VERY different story. So PLEASE pull over for vehicle with green lights.
Case Comment – Gomboc Decision, 2010 SCC 55
Here is a link to my website for a case comment on the Gomboc that will be published in an upcoming issue of RegQuest.
Enjoy the reading.
Ryan Venables – Case Comment: UFCW Local 401 v. Old Dutch Foods [2009] ALRBD No. 56.
Follow the case comment link to the full case comment done by Ryan Venables
UWO Law Welcomes AIDWYC @ Western
AIDWYC. Does that mean anything to you?
I, Ryan Venables, am very please to announce that thanks to Jonathan Thoburn and Lisa Lutwak, a couple of very keen and persistent (that’s a good thing) 1L law students, that UWO law students are now going to have the opportunity to be reviewing cases in association with AIDWYC.
I think this is a perfect time to bring this story forward considering the recent news of the acquittal of Ivan Henry, who spent 26 years in a B.C. prison for a series of sexual assaults that he did not commit.
Don’t know AIDWYC? Well, keep reading, and soon you will. Here’s how this great partnership has come to be.
As the President for the Criminal Law Student’s Association this year, I was contacted by Jonathan, an incoming 1L, who was eager in starting up AIDWYC under the umbrella of the CLSA. He had already contacted the administration and was given the green light and it was suggested to him that while in its infancy, that AIDWYC @ Western be under the umbrella of the CLSA.
Since I had never heard of AIDWYC I had to do some digging. Here is what I found out. From the AIDWYC Website:
*****
AIDWYC is a non-profit organization that has developed a strong reputation as an advocate for individuals who have been wrongly convicted.
AIDWYC’s primary mandate is to review and support claims of innocence in homicide cases.
However, because individual exonerations do not eliminate the conditions which foster these miscarriages of justice, AIDWYC is also dedicated to addressing the causes of wrongful conviction by:
- Making representations to governments on reforms to the legal system
- Raising public awareness about miscarriages of justice
- Participating in public inquiries related to wrongful convictions
- Intervening in legal cases which seek to rectify miscarriages of justice
There is no system in place at present in Canada for an independent review of claims of wrongful conviction. AIDWYC fills this gap, attracting some of the top legal experts in Ontario to identify these cases and, where warranted, prepare an application for ministerial review to the Criminal Conviction Review Group of the Federal Department of Justice, known as a Criminal Code Section 696.1 application.
AIDWYC’s office is located in Toronto and much of our work is done in Ontario. However, we have dedicated volunteers throughout Canada and in the United States. AIDWYC welcomes applications from across the country. AIDWYC is currently reviewing over sixty claims of innocence and actively pursuing more than 40 cases.
All Canadian citizens stand to benefit from AIDWYC’s efforts to free those who have been wrongly convicted and to reform the justice system wrongfutem of justice, but everyduce or prevent wrongful convictions in the future. Canada has an excellent sysand safeguard its integrity. Wrongful convictions are not easily corrected. The resistance to AIDWYC’s efforts is formidable and the correction of miscarriages of justice is always hard-won.
*****
Successes? Robert Baltovich; James Drisk; Anthony Hanemaayer; Clayton Johnson; David Milgaard; Guy Paul Morin; William Mullins-Johnson; Gregory Parsons; Romeo Phillion; Sherry Sherrett-Robinson; Thomas Sophonow; Steven Truscott; Kyle Unger; Erin Walsh.
Fast forward to today. AIDWYC @ Western is in the final stages of picking volunteers who will be assigned cases, reviewing them, and working hard to have the wrongfully convicted freed. It is hoped that as this project grows it will be able to come out from underneath the support of the CLSA and to form a group at Western Law akin to Pro Bono Student’s Canada.
Not only does this give fledgling lawyers a great way to get involved with a great cause, it will also give them practical experience that law student’s seem to lack coming out of school.
I personally look forward to seeing this great opportunity for students grow here at Western.
So We’re Still Undergrads?
Undergrad degree, check. LSAT, check. Fourteen thousand three hundred and twenty-six dollar tuition, check. Still considered an undergraduate, check. WHAT??!! Still considered an undergrad?
Welcome to The University of Western Ontario, where law, dental, medical, and business students in professional programs are all lumped in with undergraduate students. Knowing where we stand is easy part, finding out why and how to change it becomes much like a Tom & Jerry (wow did I just date myself?) cartoon of pointing fingers.
This article has been brewing (or perhaps festering) in my brain since the first week of my 1L year. Never before had I needed a parking pass during my undergrad days of the 90’s, however, entering school as a “mature” student, I now have a car. I went and purchased my parking pass only to find out that my tuition, nearly three times the undergrad rate, got me exactly nothing.
I attempted to fill out my parking pass, but stopped when it asked if I was an undergrad or graduate student. Hmm, no professional student designation? Figuring that I am in law school, I checked “graduate.” When I handed my form in I was met with a lovely lady who politely handed my application back and told me that law students are considered undergrads. As such I would have to fight to obtain a parking position in Springett.
“Don’t worry we’re adding a bunch of spots” I was told. So I carried on my merry way, drove to classes the next day, circled the parking lot like a buzzard, only to realize that ALL of the added spots were taken as well. I was late for class that day as I had a choice of parking behind Althouse (Teacher’s College) or at TD Waterhouse Stadium. I choice Althouse.
I asked around and never really received a satisfactory answer last year, and I resolved my parking situation like many law student’s do. But I’ll leave that out of print.
Fast forward to this year. I gave it another try, went and purchased my parking pass and asked again why we are considered undergraduates. The same lovely lady said “that’s the way it’s always been.” Hmm, quite unacceptable.
I said that most of my classes start at 2 o’clock, and she looked at me with a sorry face and said the undergrad lot is usually full by noon.
Now as I write this, we just finished our third week of class, and while the undergrad lot at Springett is full by noon, I would estimate there are AT LEAST 100 vacant spots in the Graduate/Faculty lot on ANY given day.
So again, why are we considered undergraduates? I decided to put my old detective hat on and hit the pavement to find out.
However, I’ve come up with another question in the meantime. Not only do we have a parking disadvantage, but also we have a health plan disadvantage.
If anybody has compared our undergraduate health plan to the graduate health plan, you will note that they have benefits for dental and vision. Two benefits that the undergraduate plan does not accommodate for.
While this may not be an issue to some, it is an issue for me. A quick insurance lesson: Many plans that your parents have provide coverage to you if you are in school fulltime and under 25. For student’s like me, that leaves no dental or vision coverage, both of which I would take advantage of.
For now, I will just role this secondary issue into with the first
As I set out to answer these questions my first stop USC office. I was met with “I don’t know, go and talk to the people at Info Source.”
Down the stairs I went, waited in line, and spoke with an employee who said they do not make the decisions go to the Registrar’s office, “they’re the ones who classify the students.”
Down the hall and into the nice shiny new Student Services building I proceeded.
Here, there was a compilation of three employees, who provided equally weak answers:
- “You are not considered a graduate because your program is an undergraduate degree.” Perhaps with law (but is that not why we just changed to J.D.? Again another article for another day), but not to so with medicine and dental.
- “The University Senate made that decision, go talk to them.” Which was probably the best answer out of the four.
- “Go and speak with the Society of Graduate Student’s to see if they will make an exception to let you in.” Riiiight, like that will happen.
- And the best, “because that’s what other universities classify law students as.” Oh, so we’re just followers now. Is that what higher education has amounted to? Herd mentality?
In the end, I still do not know why professional schools within The University of Western Ontario are considered undergraduates, and equally it does not sit well with me.
I raise this question, not because I think law students (or any professional school) are better than undergraduates. But if the answers above are any indication, how can you justify charging almost 15 000 per year in tuition when university officials see this program as an undergraduate program?
As a strike vote looms between faculty and the university, I can surely guarantee the UWO Faculty Association (UWOFA) will not accept such arguments as “the Provincial government said no raises this year, so no raises,” as a bargaining position in the upcoming contract negotiations, so why should we?
Ontario Prostitution Laws Struck
I have to admit that when I first heard on AM980 that Justice Susan Himel stuck the prostitution laws for Ontario, I was a bit dismayed. Many people who think of prostitution think of the typical “street-walker” on the corner soliciting “john’s” for a quickie in the back of a pickup, and (hopefully) getting arrested in a COPS style raid.
Now that I’ve had a little opportunity to digest the news, here is what I think. Although a quick caveat, I have not read the actual decision.
First off. What is a common bawdy-house?
s. 197
“common bawdy-house” means a place that is (a) kept or occupied, or (b) resorted to by one or more persons
for the purpose of prostitution or the practice of acts of indecency;
Second, what are the relevant prostitution laws in for Canada?
s. 210. (1) Every one who keeps a common bawdy-house is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
(2) Every one who
- is an inmate of a common bawdy-house,
- is found, without lawful excuse, in a common bawdy-house, or
- as owner, landlord, lessor, tenant, occupier, agent or otherwise having charge or control of any place, knowingly permits the place or any part thereof to be let or used for the purposes of a common bawdy-house, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction
212. (1) Every one who
(a) procures, attempts to procure or solicits a person to have illicit sexual intercourse with another person, whether in or out of Canada,
(b) inveigles or entices a person who is not a prostitute to a common bawdy-house for the purpose of illicit sexual intercourse or prosti- tution,
(c) knowingly conceals a person in a com- mon bawdy-house,
(d) procures or attempts to procure a person to become, whether in or out of Canada, a prostitute,
(e) procures or attempts to procure a person to leave the usual place of abode of that per- son in Canada, if that place is not a common bawdy-house, with intent that the person may become an inmate or frequenter of a common bawdy-house, whether in or out of Canada,
(f) on the arrival of a person in Canada, di- rects or causes that person to be directed or takes or causes that person to be taken, to a common bawdy-house,
(g) procures a person to enter or leave Cana- da, for the purpose of prostitution,
(h) for the purposes of gain, exercises con- trol, direction or influence over the move- ments of a person in such manner as to show that he is aiding, abetting or compelling that person to engage in or carry on prostitution with any person or generally,
(i) applies or administers to a person or cau- ses that person to take any drug, intoxicating liquor, matter or thing with intent to stupefy or overpower that person in order thereby to enable any person to have illicit sexual inter- course with that person, or
(j) lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
213. (1) Every person who in a public place or in any place open to public view
(a) stops or attempts to stop any motor vehi- cle,
(b) impedes the free flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic or ingress to or egress from premises adjacent to that place, or
(c) stops or attempts to stop any person or in any manner communicates or attempts to communicate with any person
for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or of obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(2) In this section, “public place” includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied, and any motor vehicle located in a public place or in any place open to public view.
Okay, with the logistics out of the way, lets look at my opinion. I am glad to see that Justice Himel reserved judgement for 30 days to allow for an opportunity for the Provincial Crown to appeal, which is what they did the very next day. From my understanding Justice Himel’s reasoning, in agreement with the litigants Terri-Lynn Bedford, Valerie Scott, and Amy Lebovitch, indicated that the laws needed to be struck from the Canadian Criminal Code because they created real safety concerns for current sex-trade workers. The Globe and Mail article indicated “in her [Justice Himel] 131-page ruling which took her a year to produce, Judge Himel found that laws set up to protect prostitutes actually endanger their safety, forcing them to furtively engage in hasty transactions conducted in shady locations.” The rationale behind this is now sex-trade workers will be able to get off of the street and into what was “formerly” known as a common bawdy-house which in their opinion would be a controlled environment that would allow for protection from predators such as Robert Pickton.
Additionally, it is hoped (by the litigants) that this will also move the sex-trade indoors and remove some of the visible signs that are currently on display.
Well, I have to admit that in my policing career I did not have the opportunity to enforce Canada’s prostitution laws on any “street-walkers,” I can say that the trade is flourishing in illegal massage parlours and strip clubs. I do not agree with the rationale that this law will protect sex-trade workers from potential Robert Pickton’s for a couple simple reasons:
1. Massage Parlours and strip clubs have notoriously been areas were the solicitation of sex is an ongoing “problem” and striking these laws down does nothing to curb the problem. If anything, it can put the “girls” in more jeopardy as massage parlours and strip clubs are generally owned by individual members of organized crime factions – specifically Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs like the Hells Angels. As I see it if sex acts become legal and are able to be performed in strip clubs and massage parlours, we are feeding the “girls” to the MOST dangerous criminal elements in society.
2. It believed that girls who currently walk the streets will be able to obtain protection in the safety of massage clubs or other “brothel” type establishments. While this is laudable on its thought, in practicality it does not work. The girls who (again in my opinion) walk the street are generally addicted to drugs, have mental health concerns, and have turned to the streets because there is nowhere else for them to go. The people who would start up a potential brothel or massage parlour generally pass over the girls who are older, not “attractive” enough, and have drug and mental health issues. Where will the protection be for these sex-trade workers?
3. Where will the protection be against unfair labour practises? In all seriousness, will they unionize? How is this going to be monitored, will they be taxed? Will by-laws be involved?
Additionally, evidence presented urged Judge Himel to also reflect on the fact that prostitution is inherently degrading and unhealthy, and should not be encouraged as a “career choice” for young women through a slack legal regime. With all due respect to the learned Justice Himel, I do not think any 6 year old girl dreams about the nitty gritty of “Pretty Woman.”
One misleading inaccuracy in the article includes: Several cities – including Toronto, Victoria, Windsor, Calgary and Edmonton – charge fees to licence body-rub establishments despite the general understanding that many sell sexual services. While they do in fact license “body-rub” establishments, they are not (as the article would lead you to believe) licensing massage parlours for sexual services. What they are licensing is a massage establishment which begins and ends at the massage.
In the end, SHOULD these laws be struck, I suspect it will be many years before this makes its way through the Ontario Court of Appeal and then on to the Supreme Court of Canada. However, once this legal drama makes its way through its appeal process, in the end if it is struck from our laws (which for the record, I do not believe it should be – see above) there are other issues and areas of law (Administrative Law, Employment/Labour Law, Municipal Law…etc) that will need immediate addressing.
Legal Domestic Dispute Is Brewing…
I have to admit that I called this one. As my wife and I were watching CBC’s Dragon’s Den an interesting segment began. Before I go into the relevant legal issues in this case, some background is required.
One of the “Dragons” is Jim Treliving is, among other numerous ventures, a co-owner of Mr. Lube.
Fast forward to the episode that I was watching. Out comes Jessica Gilbank, who is the owner of Ms. Lube by Mechanchik. She is the owner of an oil changing garage that employs women, because she found it hard for female mechanic apprentices to break into the male dominated field.
Although I know little about copyright law, Treliving clearly indicated in the episode that he did not even want to participate in the segment because he clearly felt that Ms. Lube was infringing on the Mr. Lube brand.
Fast forward again to this week, where my prediction came true. The Globe and Mail has reported that Mr. Lube has filed a $250 000 lawsuit alleging that the use of the name Ms. Lube should be prohibited based on copyright law.
As this legal domestic dispute unfolds we shall see how the court rules.
What is more interesting to me is how this may affect the CBC and potential “contestants” on Dragon’s Den. For this, too we will have to wait and see as the next season of Dragon’s Den is currently filming.
Former NHL’er Ramage Has Appeal
Former St. Louis Blue and Toronto Maple Leaf has had his second day in court. This time to appeal a conviction that led to a four year sentence for Impaired Driving Causing Death in connection with the accident that claimed another former NHL’er, Keith Magnuson.
The appeal will focus around two specific issues:
1. Was Ramage’s Charter rights violated through the collection of his urine at the hospital?
2. Should the court find that they were not violated, is the four-year sentence imposed by the Ontario Superior Court too harsh?
The court appears to be already leaning toward reducing the sentence through the words of Justice David Doherty who indicated
I think it’s fair to say we’re all concerned about the length of sentence.
To me this is an interesting case and one that affects me personally. I worked with many (if not all) of the officers involved in this case, however, this specific incident was before my time. No police officer likes losing a case because of an error that they committed (i.e. Charter breach), however, although the defence has suggested the officer wilfully breached Mr. Ramage’s rights. It is more likely the officer was acting in good faith with respect to the investigation.
But this begs the question. If an officer, who acting in good faith, breaches an accused person or suspect’s rights, in situations such as this, is justice better served in upholding a conviction or upholding a what would ultimately be a minor Charter violation.
You may wonder why I say minor? Because ultimately, although a breach may have occurred, a warrant surely would have been granted to obtain bodily fluids.
Discuss.
“Dentist” Charged…
Tips have led to charges against a London man today after London Police discovered what appears to be an unlicensed dental practice in the city’s south end. Humberto Solano Rosania is charged with assault causing bodily harm and fraud stemming from an investigation that commenced because of community tips.
I have spoken with an insider, who wishes to remain anonymous, in the London dental community who indicates that this does not surprise them. They indicate that this was probably a person who was a practicing dentist in another country who failed to obtain licensing here in Canada.
The London Free Press article indicates that the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario are cooperating with the investigation.
It is unknown if Rosania is actually licensed with the RSDSO, and if he has applied for licensing in the past.
Georgian Luger Dies as Olympics Commence…
I am going to start this off by saying it is with a sense of sadness that I write this piece.
Twenty-one year old Georgian luger, Nodar Kumaritashvili, died in a training run today at the Whistler Sliding Centre in Whister, B.C. It has been reported that he was travelling in excess of 140 km/h before the incident occurred.
A report by the Toronto Star said “he didn’t have a chance.”
I have seen the video (after doing some hunting around), and the impact was horrifying to put it mildly.
However, since this is a law site. Perhaps this may be too soon, but this incident is definitely going to need some analyzation. The Toronto Star also reports that this specific luge course has a particularly “nasty reputation.”
CTV luge analyst Chris Wightman said experienced lugers aren’t having problems on the course but that less experienced riders are finding it hugely challenging.
Had Vancouver Olympic Committee (VANOC) and the International Luge Federation ensured that this was a safe course? Was the fact that he had previously crashed on Wednesday play a factor into whether an action is brought against the committee?
Questions like these will reveal themselves in the coming days, but for the time being, our thoughts here (and I’m sure I speak for everyone) are with the family, friends, and luging community.
RIP Nodar.
Accused Colonel knew Bernardo…
In an interesting article by the London Free Press, it has been revealed that accused murderer Col. Russell Williams not only attended the same University and classes, but that they were “pals” and hung out together on numerous occasions.
Last week Col. Williams was charged with two counts of first degree murder, sexual assaults, home invasion, and it has been alleged that he committed approximately four dozen break and enters with the intention of obtaining lingerie.
As this case moves forward, nobody really knows where the fallout of this alleged serial predator (because let’s face it, this is what he is) will stop.
Let us focus on the victims and the family of those who have been victimized.
UWO Student’s Charges Stayed…
In an interesting twist, the Crown has decided to stay all charges against fourth year UWO student Irnes Zeljkovic.
Zeljkovic’s incident involving UWO Campus and London Police made national headlines late last year when he was arrested in what some described as nothing more than police brutality. I qualified the arrest both here and on CFRB 1010′s Jim Richard’s Show by saying that I thought all aspects minus the baton strikes were acceptable.
Although no details were released about what transpired in court, Zeljkovic’s lawyer, Phillip Millar of Cohen Highley plans on talking with UWO officials first about his client’s reinstatement and then one can only assume about a potential settlement regarding the arrest.
Also last year, UWO officials hired former OPP Commissioner Gwen Boniface to investigate the incident. To date, no information has been release with respect to her independent investigation.
