RSS FeedYork U Rapist Appears Unrepentant
(Left) Daniel Katsnelson in 2005, slightly before the assaults occurred. (Middle, Right) The defendant, now known as Daniel Kaye, in more recent photos.
Want to get lucky with a couple of Jewish guys?
Those are words that will probably haunt several York students for the rest of their lives.
On Sept. 6, 2007, many York University students were enjoying Frosh Week. Some who weren’t even students were enjoying themselves a little bit too much.
Daniel Katsnelson and Justin Connort graduated from York in 2006, but were still engaging in the festivities by drinking close to the campus. They made their way to Vanier College around 2:45am, where they entering a total of six bedrooms under the pretense of helping a drunken friend.
Katsnelson has now changed his name to Daniel Kaye. The 25 year-old man lived with his grandparents in an apartment in Thornill, near Bathurst and Steeles, not far from where the assaults occurred. Police eventually identified Katsnelson from surveillance footage.
The exact chronology remains unclear based on media reports, but we do know there were several victims.
The man now known as Daniel Kaye proceeded to forcibly have sexual intercourse with a 17 year-old victim from behind after stating the now-famous line above. The experience was so memorably for Kaye that he captured it on photo. The pair only left when the victim, bleeding from her injuries, resisted a second attempt by Kaye,
F– this, let’s get out of here.
She continued to bleed for a week.
Not satiated, they continued to look for other victims in other rooms. He asked one woman to “make out” with him because,
I have never made out with a black girl.
They continued to search for victims for 90 min., before forcibly raping another 18 year-old student. Before this day she had never had intercourse. Yes, she was a virgin.
But what has shocked the public the most is the apparent lack of remorse of the young man.He even hoped his victims gained something positive from the experience, like learning to keep their doors locked. Presumably to keep people like him out.
When he pleaded guilty back in January he said,
The past two years have been hell for me.
If he thinks that is hell, he deserves to be in hell. His suffering is nothing compared to what I have gone through.
One of his victims dropped out of school as a result. Another laments the permanent trauma she continues to suffer from.
The first victim stated,
I have been given a life sentence through no fault of my own.
The second said,
I feel like damaged goods. I have lost my sense of independence. I am sure I will never be the same.
Connort pleaded guilty at the sentencing hearing last Friday, and was given 3 years in prison. The Crown is asking for 10 years prison for Kaye, registration in the National Sex Offender Registry, and providing a DNA sample. His lawyer is asking for only 3-5 years.
We expect sentencing by April 16.
Former airline hijacker, Windsor law graduate
Former terrorist wants to be lawyer
John Goddard writes for the Toronto Star:
Parminder Singh Saini, 46, blames youth and naïveté for his role in a violent airline hijacking 25 years ago in his native India and says he is rehabilitated.
Mr. Saini was admitted into Canada in 1995 on a fake passport. A few months later, the authorities declared him a national security threat and ordered him deported. As he was fighting this order, Mr. Saini completed a BA at York and a law degree at Windsor. He has already finished his articles. Mr. Saini’s case is now before the Law Society of Upper Canada.
“Over the course of the last 15 years, (Canadian) courts and tribunals have declared that he is a danger to the public and security in Canada and that he shouldn’t remain,” law society counsel Susan Heakes told the hearing this month into whether to accept Saini’s licence application to practise law.
Using a Norwich Order to Reveal Gmail Accounts
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice released its decision on an application in York University v. Bell Canada Enterprises this Friday. The case is based on an allegedly defamatory e-mail about the President of York University, Mamdouh Shoukri, saying he had “perpetrated an outrageous fraud.”
A group calling itself “York Faculty Concerned About the Future of York University” protested the appointment of Martin Singer of the new Faculty of Liberal Arts and Professional Studies, questioning his credentials and attaching a letter from other academics who did disclose their names.
But the University is more interested in the identity of the unsigned e-mail, presumably by York faculty, sent from a Gmail account, yfcfyu@gmail.com.
G.R. Strathy J. approved a Norwich order against Bell Canada Enterprises and Rogers Communications Inc. to disclose the identity of the account owners. A previous order had been approved against Google back in May, which identified the two ISPs as the holders of the information.
A Norwich order is a pre-action discovery mechanism that is described by Spence J. in Isofoton S.A. v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank,
Requests for Norwich relief are largely unfamiliar to Canadian courts. A Norwich order essentially compels a third party to provide the applicant with information where the applicant believes it has been wronged and needs the third party’s assistance to determine the circumstances of the wrongdoing and allow the applicant to pursue its legal remedies.
The 5 elements identified in this case for granting such an order include:
(i) Whether the applicant has provided evidence sufficient to raise a valid, bona fide or reasonable claim;
(ii) Whether the applicant has established a relationship with the third party from whom the information is sought such that it establishes that the third party is somehow involved in the acts complained of;
(iii) Whether the third party is the only practicable source of the information available;
(iv) Whether the third party can be indemnified for costs to which the third party may be exposed because of the disclosure, some [authorities] refer to the associated expenses of complying with the orders, while others speak of damages; and
(v) Whether the interests of justice favour the obtaining of disclosure.
[emphasis added]
The privacy interests of the alleged wrongdoer were overcome by the last element, the interests of justice, because of the applicant’s equitable right to information. Spence J. pointed to Alberta v. Leahy and Bankers Trust Orders (from Bankers Trust Co. v. Shapira) indicating that court orders can override confidential information, even for financial records, and Glaxo-Wellcome PLC v. M.N.R. that the privacy interests of alleged wrongdoers is somewhat diminished.
What is troubling about the latter citation is that the rationale used by the Federal Court of Appeal was that the information could not be considered especially sensitive since it had passed through several hands. Although the York case does demonstrate that multiple parties may be involved in identifying a defendant, many privacy watchdogs would be concerned that IP information loses its privacy value simply because it is shared.
However, Spence J. did point to other reasons why the privacy expectation may be overridden, because the information is limited by terms of the order for specific purposes and the use of this information is not absolute. Additionally, a strong case of fraud removes the possibility of a frivolous or vexatious application of the order.
G.R. Strathy J. also discussed the necessity of granting the order for York by citing GEA Group AG v. Ventra Group Co,
…there is no suggestion in the established jurisprudence that [necessity] is a stand-alone requirement for the granting of a Norwich order…
In my opinion, the precise placement of the necessity requirement in the inventory of factors to be considered on a Norwich application is of little moment. The important point is that a Norwich order is an equitable, discretionary and flexible remedy. It is also an intrusive and extraordinary remedy that must be exercised with caution. It is therefore incumbent on the applicant for a Norwich order to demonstrate that the discovery sought is required to permit a prospective action to proceed, although the firm commitment to commence proceedings is not itself a condition precedent to this form of equitable relief.
…The crucial point is that the necessity for a Norwich order must be established on the facts of the given case to justify the invocation of what is intended to be an exceptional, though flexible, equitable remedy.
G.R. Strathy J. then pointed to a number of other ways that this information could be obtained without the Norwich order, including the pre-action disclosure in the now-infamous Cohen v. Google Inc. Although both ISPs had privacy policies for the customers, these could be overridden by s. 7(3)(c) of PIPEDA to comply with a court of law.
Given the recently ruling, and assuming it’s not overturned in the future, it’s likely were going to see more Norwich orders used for the purposes of identifying Internet activity.
Osgoode Gets Down to Business
With all the negative press surrounding the York strike in recent weeks, it’s a welcome change to hear that something productive is going on at the northern Toronto university: Osgoode Hall is teaming up with fellow York faculty Schulich School of Business to create the Jay and Barbara Hennick Centre for Business and Law, an interdisciplinary learning centre which will aim to produce lawyers with sound business sense.
The initiative was made possible by a $3 million donation from Jay Hennick, the Toronto-based founder and CEO of FirstService Corporation, a real-estate service company with more than US$1.5 billion in annualized revenues.
Mr. Hennick, who attained a B.A. from York and LL.B. at the University of Ottawa, had previously donated $500,000 to his legal alma mater to establish the UofO’s Jay Hennick LL.B/MBA Program.
Unlike a joint J.D./MBA (formerly LL.B./MBA) format, the Hennick Centre will grant a business/law degree in just three years, as opposed to the joint degree’s four.
Additionally, the Centre plans to launch a business certificate program for already-practising lawyers, similar to the executive MBA currently offered at many business schools.
The Hennick Centre is allegedly modeled after a similar program at NYU, and, by taking advantage of faculty integration, aims to move beyond a current system which creates “good technicians grounded in the law, but who lack business judgment.”
The framework for this project has been being laid since at least June 2008, and the advisory board is still adding to its roster of big-business lawyers and entrepreneurs.
A formal launch for the Hennick Centre will take place tomorrow, Friday, February 6th 2008 at the Hilton Toronto Hotel. The reception will feature former Ontario Premier Mike Harris introducing the keynote speaker, current Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. Perhaps if Mr. Flaherty (originally a small-town personal injury lawyer) had been able to take advantage of such an innovative program in his day, he would be exercising better business judgement while managing one of the world’s largest economies.
Could Osgoode Law Students Sue Over Strike?
Most of our readers would be aware of the ongoing strike at York University led by CUPE 3903. York administrators have also indicated serious financial difficulties.
What people may not have realized is that the strike also affects law students at Osgoode Hall.
A second-year Osgoode student, Thomas Wisdom, shares the challenges some of his peers are facing,
First- and second-year students with summer jobs: A lot of people are ecstatic about the fact that they will be gainfully employed at law firms in the summer months… [but] they face the frustration of renegotiation start dates with their employers.
Daniel Simard, also in his second year, points out how graduating students are also impacted,
…third year students could potentially be detrimentally impacted if they have to complete their studies well into the month of May; the period perennially allotted for the fulfillment and preparation of licensing requirements mandated by the Law Society of Upper Canada, including Bar Admissions.
Parents and students have also expressed that the reputation of York University, and by extension, Osgoode Hall, may be affected.
But do all these concerns give a right to sue? The Globe & Mail mentioned yesterday that some of the families are considering a class-action lawsuit against both York University and the union.
See the rest of the post at Slaw; Simon Fodden points out that classes have resumed at Osgoode, but could a cause of action be made in the future, depending on the fallout from these students’ legal careers?
Classes Resume at Osgoode Hall
Today York University’s Executive Committee of Senate approved the Remediation Plan put forth by Dean Monahan which will permit Osgoode Hall to resume classes on December 1 for all LL.B courses not instructed by members of CUPE 3903.
In making its decision the Executive Committee took into consideration various factors including Law Society requirements for certification and the impact of a continued strike on the ability to access the licensing process in Ontario and elsewhere.
Additionally, Osgoode Hall oversees many clinical programs which provide services to low income communities and families which would also be detrimentally impacted if classes did not resume shortly.
All students who do not wish to participate in classes during the continuation of the strike will be fully accommodated and receive the protections set out in the Senate policy.
The Privileged and the Impoverished: Now One and the Same?
The Problem with a Striking Union Claiming Poverty
The first full week of the York University lockout has begun and York Administration and CUPE 3903 appear to be miles apart. Among its demands, CUPE 3903 is asking for a marked increase in wages (an 11% increase over two years). Lofty ambitions indeed.
To preface this discussion, consider the following facts. The average wage increase for public employees was 2.6% in 2006. Currently the York administration is offering 3903 a wage increase in line with this average.
3903 is comprised of three units, and in its strike demand asserts that the units comprised of teaching and graduate assistants should receive wages (including grant-in aid and minimum summer guarantee) above the poverty line. 3903 uses the LICO measure as a poverty line indictor ($22, 653).
Let me be clear in stating that this assertion is not only incredibly insensitive but also misleading.
To clarify, 3903 expects a high-quality graduate education, to obtain a graduate degree (at no net cost to them) and to be paid $22,653 for their part-time work in the process.
Discussion of this topic could take many different paths. I could perhaps discuss the problems with using LICO as an indictor for poverty, or discuss the various problems and barriers when negotiating with a Union (which also includes contract faculty) which represents many varied interests. While tempted, my main assertion is that one must not confuse or conflate the respective purposes of education and employment.
Pursuing a graduate degree requires both academic excellence and some financial liquidity. While there is room for flexibility on both, graduate students are well aware that in order to study further, one must forego the prospect of full-time employment in most cases.
Graduate students receive income which not only covers the expense for their education but also leaves a lot of money left over for personal living expenses. Additionally, they receive a comprehensive benefits plan and frozen tuition that reflects fees from approximately ten years ago (after tuition rebate). How many other students can say they receive benefits remotely close to these?
Factors Indicative of Poverty
3903 claims they are living below the poverty line. The Ontario government and other anti-poverty agencies confirm that low wages is a key factor to families living in deepening poverty. To remedy this, Ontario’s Poverty Reduction Strategy is to increase over time the minimum wage to $10.25 and to provide health and dental benefits to low wage workers. In contrast, 3903 members make well over $23.00 an hour and receive a benefits package that is unparalleled by many sectors.
According to the 2007 Report Card on poverty in Ontario, another key factor is the increased use of food banks by those under the poverty line. Have any members of 3903 begun to frequent these establishments?
This report also discusses the use of social assistance by many families who are under-employed or don’t have a job at all. Have 3903 members considered applying to receive Ontario Works? Since the Union asserts that their income is ‘below the poverty line’ meeting the financial criteria will be a cinch (sarcasm intended). They will have to establish, however, that they need money for food and shelter immediately, oh, and will also have to be willing to take part in activities to help them find a job.
N.B. You are ineligible to apply for Ontario Works if you are a single student receiving a student loan. The rationale behind this is probably that education is considered a critical pathway out of poverty that increases skill levels and access to better paying jobs. See A Poverty Reduction Strategy for Ontario for more.
The Union argues that the University provides funding and dissuades students from procuring external employment as is reflected in their contract. Taking that point to be true, it is virtually impossible to enforce and is a minor deterrent at best (for those in need of extra funds). Further, during the summer term they can very manageably work 20 hours/week, if not full-time, while completing their research, thereby significantly supplementing their income
My application of poverty indicators to 3903 may seem too extreme to address this Union’s demands. I must stress, however, that this is the reality of poverty in Ontario.
I invite those who read this post to weigh in on what they believe poverty to be. It is clear, that a review of the employment conditions of 3903 does NOT reflect true poverty. Graduate students are supposedly among the best and brightest in Ontario and will most likely receive higher than average incomes. By claiming poverty, they are distorting what society perceives poverty to be. In turn, this may lead to a desensitized view of the real and pressing issues of poverty in Ontario. Dissatisfaction with wages does not amount to poverty, and as such this line of argument should be rescinded from the message of CUPE 3903 immediately.
Sunira Chaudhri Second Year Law Student at Osgoode Hall
Yet Another Strike at York University (and Osgoode Hall)?
On November 6 at 12:01am, the York University community could experience its third strike (pun intended) in just over a decade. All three Unit Members represented by CUPE 3903, which include approximately 950 contract faculty, 1850 teaching assistants and 550 graduate members will be legally allowed to picket around the campus first thing Thursday morning.
The Union remains steadfast in its unrealistic demand of 30% wage increases and full tuition fee waiver (for a complete description of the terms see here). These outlandish demands couldn’t come at a more inopportune time.
The University’s Board of Governors just this past June called for a 2% budget cut in each year of the three year plan. Coupled with widespread effects of the global financial crisis, the financial situation of the university is less than prosperous.
So how does this impact Osgoode Hall Law School?
Unfortunately, like nearly every other program and faculty at York (with the exception of Schulich School of Business’s MBA program), Osgoode Hall will have to suspend classes.
Administration, faculty and student government are hurriedly brainstorming contingency plans in light of a protracted halt to law school classes. Although no line has been drawn, in the event of a lengthy strike, third year students could potentially be detrimentally impacted if they have to complete their studies well into the month of May; the period perennially allotted for the fulfillment and preparation of licensing requirements mandated by the Law Society of Upper Canada, including Bar Admissions.
Unlike the majority of my peers, I am in the unique position which allows me to be a member of CUPE 3903 as a teaching or graduate assistant. I enjoy full-time graduate status as a student of the joint LL.B and Masters of Environmental Studies program. And although I am currently unemployed, I have been a member of the Union.
Through my previous experience I have this to say
During my first full year as a graduate student, if you tally my entrance scholarship, GA position and external funding, I made well over $15,000 as a student of higher education (after paying for 3 semesters of tuition). I had great flexibility with my working hours and a health care plan that rivaled government employees. An additionally perk was that my position fostered networking and socializing with faculty and professors and looked purddy (sic) on my resume.
It had to be my most comfortable employment position and if you reduced it to an hourly wage my most financially friendly. I was more than grateful for the work, yet I accepted it for what it was, a source of internal funding.
Now for what really irks me
I am a supporter of unions (in most instances) and freedom of association, but in this instance 45,000 students are being used as a bargaining chip in the bad faith negotiation strategy of CUPE 3903. I make this claim with insider information coupled with the Union’s persistent refusal to enter into binding arbitration.
The support staff of York University is already the highest paid in the province yet they still feel it appropriate to use their Charter right of association to press for increased wages. Unions weren’t established to be used as a sword of these sorts; they were formulated to shield workers from managerial and corporate exploitation. Alternatively, they should not be allowed to ransack the careers of 45,000 students for their avaricious desires.
On a serendipitous conversation with a fellow graduate student and member of the Union, I asked: How come the other graduate students aren’t concerned about the interests of the majority of students? The response: they simply don’t care. Interesting that the very employees that are paid to teach have no consideration for their pupils and fellow peers.
They counter that they have broad support for student groups and organizations, yet I was never asked for my thoughts. Moreover, much of their student support is merely an instinctual and thoughtless show of student solidarity. When subjected to make up classes, the proposition of being held back a year, and inconvenience of rearranging substantial plans, many will likely cross the aisle after an intelligent and rational assessment of the Union’s demands.
Unlike the normal undergraduate student who anxiously entertains the idea of time off without any serious repercussions, law students are required to look beyond the school year and foresee the potential adverse effects to their legal careers as a result of the actions of this ‘militant union’.
