Those following the BC criminal trial of Dave Basi, Bobby Virk and Aneal Basi might not have been surprised to hear that Special Prosecutor William Bernardino worked out a plea deal that brought an end to the criminal proceedings arising from Basi and Virk’s alleged breach of trust concerning the sale of BC Rail. That the deal came before the trial was set to resume with testimony from key political insiders, including former finance minister Gary Collins and Premier Gordon Campbell, was necessarily shrugged off as coincidence. The timing of the deal, coming just before Premier Campbell was set to hit the airwaves with a televised full-throated defence of the HST — and his government’s decision to implement the tax despite having unequivocally promised not to during the previous election campaign — was pure happenstance. After all, Bernardino’s integrity is above reproach. That’s why we have special prosecutors that are fully independent from government and all of its political wants and needs. (more…)
Given that the obvious alternative to reaching a deal was an embarrassingly public airing of the BC Liberals’ dirty laundry in open court, we can’t help but wonder whether waiving Basi’s legal fees was a politically driven call. It certainly wasn’t an economically or principle-driven one.
ShareTweet As reported in The Globe and Mail, the municipal council in Richmond, British Columbia has voted to ban puppy sales at pet stores. Motivating the bylaw was a feeling that the retail sale of puppies was fuelling sales by puppy mills as well as impulse purchases that eventually led to buyer’s remorse. Impulse purchases […]
As reported in The Globe and Mail, the municipal council in Richmond, British Columbia has voted to ban puppy sales at pet stores. Motivating the bylaw was a feeling that the retail sale of puppies was fuelling sales by puppy mills as well as impulse purchases that eventually led to buyer’s remorse.
Impulse purchases and buyer’s remorse? Seriously. This is why we don’t give credit cards to eight year-olds. If parents (or lonely adults) are being bamboozled en masse into buying puppies as they stroll past pet store windows at the mall — as if they were mindlessly picking up a pack of gum at the checkout aisle — we’d like to know about it. While we imagine there is no shortage of children who walk past these displays and instantly decide they must have a puppy (please, please, please, I’ll be really good I promise and feed it and walk it always, promise!), common sense suggests that parents on the receiving end can usually postpone any decision-making with a “Let me think about it”, “Ask your mom/dad”, or a “Let’s see how well you behave for the next week/month/year.” And if it’s really the case that kids are breaking down into screaming fits and refusing to leave the store without a puppy, we suspect a bylaw of this ilk will hardly make a dent in improving the lives of said kids’ lucky parents. (more…)
ShareTweet Despite the CBC’s attention-grabbing headline in its article, “Prostitution laws struck down by Ont. court“, absolutely nothing has changed — yet — with Canada’s anti-prostitution laws. Here’s a quick refresher on why the Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s decision in R. v. Bedford hasn’t yet resulted in a free-for-all in our nation’s red light […]
(Michael Turschic/CBC)
Despite the CBC’s attention-grabbing headline in its article, “Prostitution laws struck down by Ont. court“, absolutely nothing has changed — yet — with Canada’s anti-prostitution laws. Here’s a quick refresher on why the Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s decision in R. v. Bedford hasn’t yet resulted in a free-for-all in our nation’s red light districts.
Firstly, as is now the norm in any court challenge to the constitutionality of a law, the Court’s declaration of invalidity has been suspended for 30 days to allow the government time to work through certain “kinks”, such as the possibility that “unlicensed brothels may be operated in a way that may not be in the public interest”. (As an aside, we note the Court took the surprising position that delaying the declaration of invalidity for a longer period would somehow contribute to the danger faced by prostitutes, even though it cited the fact that the laws in question “are rarely enforced” as a reason not to strike down the law without leaving time to enact something in its place.)
Second, and let’s be absolutely clear here, despite the name of the Court this decision does not have binding effect throughout Canada. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice is the court of first instance in this matter. If someone else was charged with a similar offence elsewhere in Ontario, a judge of the same level court might (but need not necessarily) apply the same result for reasons of consistency. But there’s nothing forcing trial judges in other provinces from reaching the exact opposite conclusion on the same issue.
Even if this decision were upheld on appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal, the decision would at best be “persuasive” to judges in other provinces. It would take a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada — something that isn’t likely to happen for at least several years — or corresponding judgments in the courts of appeal in other provinces, for the effect of the “striking down” of this legislation to be felt outside of Ontario. That’s right, even though prostitutes in BC are subject to the same Criminal Code of Canada as prostitutes in Ontario, the interpretation of these provisions can diverge from province to province.
And that’s assuming the 30 day stay of the decision isn’t extended by further court order.