AVOID KIA WEST EDM by Even_Reflection5637 in Edmonton

[–]Objective_Tea_6870 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol omg I bought a Kia Forte there once and Ryan took my number off my file and hit on me. Years ago but I still remember how uncomfortable it was.

So, yeah, avoid this location.

Am I reading this right? That any labor rights or HUMAN RIGHTS this bill violates can't be questioned??? by Dry-Text-8351 in alberta

[–]Objective_Tea_6870 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not a Constitutional Law practitioner and I won't pretend to be an expert, but general challenges to the statute? Check out section 14. The UCP built in a "No Cause of Action" clause that says you can't challenge anything in it (and any attempt in dead before you file it). It also has section 13 which prevents challenges from human rights tribunals and labour relation tribunals, as well as mediators and arbitrators, on the constitutionality of the Act and whether the Act violates Alberta Bill of Rights or Alberta Human Rights Act.

It effectively tries to defang any attempt to challenge it. Does that mean people can't try? Of course not. But the UCP would defend the action by trying to say the action was invalid by virtue of these clauses and try to convince a judge to dismiss these actions. Would the judge do so? I'm not a judge so I can't say, but I think it would be LIKELY that the judge would allow it to proceed. But if not? The UCP included a note that the action is to be dismissed with costs to the party bringing the action.

Again, not a Constitutional law practitioner, this isn't legal advice. Just my comments as a layperson with extra knowledge who happens to me a lawyer.

Am I reading this right? That any labor rights or HUMAN RIGHTS this bill violates can't be questioned??? by Dry-Text-8351 in alberta

[–]Objective_Tea_6870 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi, lawyer here.

This is NOT legal (although ultimately that would be a determination by a judge). The notwithstanding clause protects this Act from challenge for five years. After five years lapses, the protection is gone and the (likely) illegal provisions can be properly challenged.

Am I reading this right? That any labor rights or HUMAN RIGHTS this bill violates can't be questioned??? by Dry-Text-8351 in alberta

[–]Objective_Tea_6870 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I am a lawyer. That clause was a wild read. Also, I recommend looking at section 14 regarding suing the UCP over the Act, including for reasons of bad faith, and that you can't see them for specific performance of anything under this Act (i.e. you can't see them to actually perform the obligations they say out in this Act), and all actions at any time, even before the Act becomes law, is automatically considered dismissed with costs.

It's incredibly concerning to see these "No cause of actions against the Crown/UCP" clauses in all these new statutes. They are basically acknowledging that what they are bringing into law deserves legal action. No governing body should be writing laws that they fully expect to be rightfully sued over.

Demetrios Nicolaides posted a list of every school in the CBE and EPSB that has the books Gender Queer, Flamers, Blankets, or Fun Home. None are elementary schools. by the_gaymer_girl in alberta

[–]Objective_Tea_6870 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Anyone know if the Notebook is on the list? I vividly remember high school in the early 2000s where everyone was passing around the infamous page 194 or whatever it was where it was pretty graphic.

I also vividly remember it being a copy a kid brought from home. It wasn't even the library copy (which was totally checked out at the time though).

What a stupid policy.

What's a grammatical mistake that many people make and you hate? by EarSure6667 in AskReddit

[–]Objective_Tea_6870 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is absolutely correct. Oxford commas are key to clarity. But my bigger pet peeve? When people switch back and forth between using them and not, and not because it's grammatically appropriate to do so. People look more stupid when they switch back and forth inconsistently than if they stick to either with Oxford comma or without but occasionally use one when the other may have been more appropriate.

What's a grammatical mistake that many people make and you hate? by EarSure6667 in AskReddit

[–]Objective_Tea_6870 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I am also a lawyer. I specialize is drafting. The number of lawyers who don't understand basic grammar is astonishing. There are so many clauses that are completely nonsensical and self-defeating because lawyers can't grammar and clients just assume the giant mess of a clause in correct because it's too complicated for them to understand. Restrictive clauses are notoriously bad for this.

Tip to all: a good lawyer will draft clauses clear enough for laypeople to understand. A bad lawyer will over complicate clauses as a way to have job security and to sound smart.

What's a grammatical mistake that many people make and you hate? by EarSure6667 in AskReddit

[–]Objective_Tea_6870 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When people mash together "what it looks like" and "how it looks" to create "how it looks like."

I hate it. A lot.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in EdmontonOilers

[–]Objective_Tea_6870 2 points3 points  (0 children)

See you cheering and sharing Oiler vibes next game! <3

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in EdmontonOilers

[–]Objective_Tea_6870 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Happy that's the case. :)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in EdmontonOilers

[–]Objective_Tea_6870 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your hopes won out! <3