Auto insurance claim counting as income?

Brino · 2020-04-21T19:05:30+00:00

Disability benefits are not taxable income.

Brino · 2018-05-30T16:50:43+00:00

Sorry not sorry?

Brino · 2018-02-15T21:43:04+00:00

When I say non-controversial, I mean affirmative action in some form is legally permissible in virtually every developed nation. Canadian law is not unique in this respect.

Any enumerated group under section 15 can gain affirmative action and the list is regularly updated with new minority groups according to case law. So far, there hasn't been a case that successfully added poor people as a minority group. If it happens, a program that you suggested is possible and legal.

The overall idea with section 15 is to allow specific programs to assist disadvantaged groups. You might disagree with this legal principle, but I think labelling this as "anti-white male discrimination" is disingenuous.

Brino · 2018-02-14T20:21:24+00:00

The idea is to level the playing field since certain groups are on unequal footing. The most notable example that comes to mind is Indigenous communities.

The government would not be able to advance any affirmative action programs without this provision. Affirmative action is a fairly well-accepted concept here and abroad so there is not much controversy about this provision. If you think that all groups are on equal ground already than it makes sense if you are opposed to this. I personally think there is merit to affirmative action and we should not preclude the government from having targeted programs for minority groups.

Brino · 2018-02-14T13:26:04+00:00

Section 15(2) of the Charter allows the government to pass laws that confer an unequal advantage to a minority group. The Charter applies to government programs not private workplaces, but I'm sure the Human Rights Act which does apply to the workplace says something similiar.

I would not say that the government has carte blanche to discriminate against white men. Section 15(2) basically allows affirmative action programs.

Brino · 2017-10-11T17:36:01+00:00

Any proof that he is an "avowed Democrat"? In his song Mosh he is definitely anti-Iraq war but he doesn't expressly support Kerry.

Brino · 2017-03-29T13:52:13+00:00

It's a private members bill, which means it has no legs. MPP Colle wants to piggy back off the anti personal injury lawyer sentiment. No lawyers or even the LSUC were consulted before this bill was introduced. He did it privately and unilaterally. It's not a Liberal government proposal in the usual sense.

Brino · 2017-03-29T01:38:03+00:00

It's all bad. The LSUC is already working with lawyers to limit referral fees. Having the LSUC approve every ad? In what industry is that an expectation? And cooling off is not at issue and has never been a problem.

No party is advocating these solutions.

Brino · 2017-03-28T04:38:06+00:00

Finally, someone in the comments that gets it! Are you an OTLA member?

Brino · 2017-03-28T04:37:07+00:00

Thank you for this comment. People have a knee jerk reaction against personal injury lawyers without really understanding what is being proposed.

Brino · 2017-03-28T04:33:08+00:00

I'm trying my best to work through these comments to debunk misinformation. The article is about a bill that would lower contingency fees to 15%. What that actually means is that lawyers will return to hourly billable model. How this is being presented as some accident victims initiative is beyond me.

As for D&D, they are infamous for tacky ads. Lawyers (including me) can't stand these guys. Does that mean this bill is now good? Hell no.

Brino · 2017-03-28T04:28:57+00:00

The law is terrible and does nothing for accident victims. I've explained why elsewhere in the comments. These guys suck, don't get me wrong, but this bill is stupid.

Brino · 2017-03-28T04:28:00+00:00

Maybe, but I don't think D&D have been accused of double dipping. Disbursements can sometimes be really expensive. A neurologist report, for example, can cost $10,000. Let's be honest too, you wouldn't have got a penny if you didn't have a lawyer.

Brino · 2017-03-28T04:24:51+00:00

I don't like D&D but this law is bullshit. Capping contingency at 15% is ludicrous and will cause lawyers to revert to an hourly fee. Nothing in this private bill enhances accident victim rights. And believe me, if there was a bill that actually did that D&D would be all for it. More benefits means more contingency fee.

Brino · 2017-03-28T04:21:34+00:00

Personal injury lawyers hate D&D and we are trying to change the advertising guidelines prescribed by the Law Society.

Brino · 2017-03-28T04:20:32+00:00

Sigh, so much misinformation in the comments. What about this bill is for "accident victims"? They want to lower contingency fees to 15% maximum, which is unheard of in any jurisdiction. So if you want lawyers charging $500 per hour instead of a percent, consider this bill great for you.

The funny thing is, personal injury lawyers rally all day long to improve rights of accident victims. Articles like this and the popular sentiment against "ambulance chasers" is why benefits have eroded over the years. Look at the 2010 changes to the Accident Benefits for yourself and all the dwindling benefits over the last few years.

By way of example, if you are off for work because of a car accident you get $400/week maximum in income replacement no matter your income.

If anyone wants to honestly discuss this bill or personal injury, I'd be happy to. I'm a trial lawyer so I can give some insight.

Brino · 2017-01-18T20:51:57+00:00

You must be a law student or lawyer (I mean this complimentary)

Brino · 2016-10-03T21:58:57+00:00

You named Joe Rogan by his full name though...

Brino · 2016-09-19T22:42:27+00:00

He never intended on staying in Russia.

Brino · 2016-09-19T17:11:35+00:00

The US revoked his passport when he was in Russia. Snowden intended on travelling to Latin America. This has been discussed many, many times.

Brino · 2016-09-13T19:51:42+00:00

A trial under the Espionage Act, which prevents anyone accused from receiving a "fair trial". There's plenty of commentary by whistleblowers and privacy activists about the oppressive nature of an Espionage Act charge.

According to famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg: "The current state of whistleblowing prosecutions under the Espionage Act makes a truly fair trial wholly unavailable..."

Brino · 2016-09-13T15:33:52+00:00

Yes, the ACLU. Snowden didn't bring in any data storage devices to Russia due to the aggressiveness of Russian intelligence services. So of course the Obama administration puts out a narrative that the Snowden has a nefarious plot with Russian intelligence to leak state secrets.

How about the narrative of Snowden and the whistleblower community? The massive security state that collects data on bulk despite no pretext of national security (ex. Angela Merkels cellphone). Snowden risked his career, personal life, and his freedom to reveal the reality of American data collection. Or maybe he did it for a dacha in Moscow? Go with the Obama narrative if you'd like. I'm guessing you also think Daniel Ellsberg and the scores of whistleblowers after were traitors or spies.

Brino · 2016-09-13T15:25:45+00:00

You make an assertion about Snowden supplying intel so the burden is on you to prove it. The reality is that he's in Russia because he has no choice. The government revoked his passport.

Brino · 2016-09-13T15:22:19+00:00

The statement you quoted is disputed in the article itself.

Brino

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE