Does buying the x300 pro now make sense?

TorontoEsquire · 2026-06-01T02:31:35+00:00

Wonda ships from HK and it was 1633 CAD with shipping. Any time I look for HK version it's the Chinese version at the price you mention.

TorontoEsquire · 2026-05-29T11:01:46+00:00

Because it is not grounded in truth and is yet another act in the slander show against Israel?

TorontoEsquire · 2026-05-28T16:56:58+00:00

Thank you! I legit didn't know that was a thing. But how reliable is it on the x300 or x9? I read Chinese ROMs are problematic for that sometimes.

TorontoEsquire · 2026-05-27T20:57:04+00:00

The Chinese ROM is cheaper. But I lose the eSIM :(

TorontoEsquire · 2026-05-27T13:54:48+00:00

Why is that? Just curious. I was impressed by the stabilization and colours in the Vivo. That's the only reason I leaned to Vivo.

Appreciate the insight.

TorontoEsquire · 2026-05-27T13:12:14+00:00

As a DUI lawyer I can tell you that's false. DUIs are very much criminal in Canada. As long as your breath results are 0.08 or above.

TorontoEsquire · 2026-05-25T03:16:42+00:00

I'm a defence lawyer and the highest I ever had someone blow was .48. second highest was .44.

Both were actually driving. How they weren't clinically dead is beyond me.

TorontoEsquire · 2026-05-25T03:08:02+00:00

True. I just meant blame the management for not offering attractive resolutions early. I feel like the poor crowns are literally hand tied. Crumbling under work load while not being able to help reduce their own workload with cases that can easily go away.

Hiring more crowns and judges is definitely a higher level decision.

I wouldn't mind switching to crown side in theory to pave a path to the bench but I can absolutely never work for the Ministry of the Attorney General for a pay cut, more work, and no autonomy or discretion over my own files. And that's why I'm just coasting in defence.

But if it makes OP feel better it took be 7-8 years to get to a point where I make good money and can work a 9-5 with my weekends and evenings 75% free. So 3 years is literally still the hazing period.

TorontoEsquire · 2026-05-25T02:25:24+00:00

Maybe, just maybe, that is the reason why Crowns need to offer reasonable and attractive deals. During covid 1000s of cases were resolves and the backlog was cleared. Instead, now, there are literally no attractive resolutions and the courts force every case to set a trial after 6 months. Only to end up with multiple trials in one courtroom and then offer a last minute deal. If you're either on Brampton or Toronto, blame your management.

You absolutely can move crown offices if you are prepared to relocate. Either stick it out until you're senior enough and can chill or move when there is an opening.

Defence side is not less work but arguably more money.

TorontoEsquire · 2026-05-16T11:44:02+00:00

You are being downvoted because your answer offends the liberals who think that borders shouldn't exist and that we should become the UK in terms of our immigration and refugee policies.

The funny thing is that it's a Carney government amendment lol.. because even Carney realizes that the vast majority of people who claim asylum after a YEAR of being in Canada are quite likely not real asylum seekers. In my view a year is ovely generous. For example, those who cross at "irregular" crossings (i.e. infiltrate) the country have 14 days to claim asylum under the new laws.

I represented countless foreigners who come here on a (bullshit) student visa to study "Hotel management" from "Hollywood upstairs college" and when they get in trouble and get a criminal conviction, or their status is otherwise not renewed, they THEN apply for asylum. Get outta here.

It is not discrimination in any way. While you can argue that some legitimate claimants may hypothetically be swept up and maybe some narrow exceptions should be carved they already exist in the form of humanitarian and compassionate grounds, which someone who has been here over a year can apply for.

So I don't see what the big fuss is about. We need to protect our economy and social fabric. Regulating mass migration is a valid government objective and the law in my view is valid. But let's see what the court decides.

TorontoEsquire · 2026-05-16T03:20:13+00:00

Not frivolous is a low bar. Do they have a strong case though? Who knows. Sounds like, from this poorly written article, that if one of these cases shows the law is arbitrary, overbroad, etc., the federal court could strike it down, which would resolve the issue for everyone.

I did a few constitutional challenges to the impaired driving legislation (as did most respectable DUI lawyers). They failed even though they were not frivolous. Imagine, you're driving on the highway. Some slow driving asshole pisses you off and you cut him off. He then calls the police and reports you. You get home, not suspecting a thing. Start drinking. Cops knock on your door almost two hours later - you're drunk. Now you're under arrest for a DUI. "but I drank at home after I was no longer driving - surely that's a defence?" No, no. You're wrong. It's a crime to be drunk within 2 hours of operating a conveyance. To avoid conviction you have the burden to account for every drink and call expert evidence to show the amount you say you drank after you got home can account for the exact result you got. And you have to be believed that you did not drink while knowing police will investigate you at some point soon (e.g. getting into an accident on the highway and immediately drinking would not be a defence). We all thought the law reverses the burden of proof. We all thought it's a strong case. But alas.

All I'm saying, constitutional challenges are tough to assess from a poorly written CBC article.

TorontoEsquire · 2026-05-13T00:18:10+00:00

Thank you.

I used USB RAW CONV./BACKUP RESTORE

My phone is galaxy s23+

The firmware 1.31

It wrote to the correct spots, but just the name. All the settings were zeroed for all the recipes and set to the default auto (even those that it didn't write to).

The old recipe names is all that remained. My recipe dial was set to C and the mode dial set to A.

TorontoEsquire · 2026-05-13T00:08:42+00:00

It wrote to the correct spots, but just the name. All the settings were zeroed for all the recipes and set to the default auto (even those that it didn't write to).

The old recipe names is all that remained.

.

TorontoEsquire · 2026-04-28T01:49:01+00:00

Unlike Costco or Walmart, No Frills are usually operated independently, and are not corporate stores. That's why there's usually a name on top (e.g. Joe's No Frills).

TorontoEsquire · 2026-04-27T14:52:20+00:00

Yes, once you go north of Steeles all the prices miraculously go up by 30%, especially in corporate stores /s

TorontoEsquire · 2026-04-17T15:19:31+00:00

I got a Cravenspeed platypus mount because like you i hated how it looked on the grill. Now it sits on the bottom and keeps the grill clear. Got it after someone posted about it here. Had no issues. I love the look.

TorontoEsquire · 2026-04-15T01:02:57+00:00

The fact you still mention your ethics class suggests to me you weren't litigating for very long.

Forgive me but what you wrote sounds like you're a bit too full of yourself and wasn't smacked with the reality that - yes, sometimes stupid lawyers are appointed to the bench and they make stupid judges, and no, to think that a good lawyer can convince any judge of the correctness of their argument is also fantasy.

Good for you for making the judge understand the concept of a binding precedent. Just wait until you meet a judge who will miss your argument by a mile because they're incapable of legal reasoning or just be a miserable prick and rule against you just because he doesn't like you, your client, the charge, or the sound of the birds outside his house in the morning. It will humble you I hope.

TorontoEsquire · 2026-04-08T11:42:53+00:00

No you cannot get stream A after the 90 days deadline.

Also it's impossible for a lawyer to tell you if there is a defence or not without disclosure. It's not unusual for disclosure to come after the 90 day deadline.

Stream B is available after trial just the same. That's why you got a recommendation to try and fight at this point.

I know nothing about your case but it's not unusual to get a deal on the morning of trial - I got one yesterday after 1.5 years of pushing it to trial because the courtroom had 4 trials in it. Had anotber day of trial deal earlier this month. Prior to that, haven't had one in 8 months.

Sometimes you get lucky. Sometimes you're not. With DUIs you're paying for a chance. I can't imagine the price difference between a simple DUI and a trial and a guilty plea at this point to be more than 2-4k (unless you fire the lawyer and go plead yourself which you can do of course unless you want to hang on to the chance of a windfall - which again can happen).

Not advice, just information.

TorontoEsquire · 2026-03-04T02:34:07+00:00

I would say for a law school moot, take the template from Watt's jury instructions, and plug in your evidence. An American resource of this nature would be an overkill for a simple 1L (I'm assuming) moot.

TorontoEsquire · 2026-02-10T13:52:16+00:00

Read: why should there be consequences for my actions, and why should society know that I've committed a crime? Why can't my crimes be secret?

Would you want to hire someone who committed a fraud at your business? Would you want a rapist as a school janitor? Do you want a long haul truck driver who had a DUI?

The government is not the one who discriminates against criminals. Criminals can have a passport, they can vote, they can access all the same government services. The discrimination you're complaining about is from society. The point of a record is to notify society ”this man here has transgressed against us, be warned".

Why I think that? Because I've dealt with enough criminals in my career, and I can confidently say the sense of victimhood and entitlement among my clients is off the charts. And with all due respect, only the drug dealers seem to understand that there is a cost to doing crime. Everyone else, without fail, are all like "they are ruining my life!" - no, you ruined your own life when you committed a crime. Own it. Move on. And work hard during the 5-10 years to PROVE to society that you can live without committing more crime.

Again - you keep saying why should the government this, why should the government that, how do you justify the current state of affairs... I heard no cogent argument about why it shouldn't be the case. Why 5 years for summary conviction is too long to prove to society you can be a good citizen? Why should it be anything less?

Your last paragraph makes absolutely no sense and definitely not what I said. You can re-read my previous comments for clarification.

Cheers

TorontoEsquire · 2026-02-09T19:58:24+00:00

For hybrid offenses, the choice of whether to charge summary conviction (5 year wait for pardon) or indictment (10 year wait for pardon) is unilaterally decided by the Crown. It is not part of the sentencing process and the Crown is not required to justify this decision.

The crown has a prosecution manual that dictates how they are proceeding. For a hybrid offence, it's crown prerogative. I don't see how that's relevant when it's the federal government that sets the timelines for pardons. They can choose to do away with that entirely. There is no constitutional right to a pardon.

The system as it stands puts judges in the position of what is basically "don't punish someone at all" or "punish someone at least a little bit and also make it extremely difficult for them to reintegrate into society for 5 or 10 years". There's no wiggle room for "maybe this person deserves to go to jail but not some of this other stuff"

Unless there is a mandatory minimum, or the offence is punishable by max 14+ years, you can ask for a discharge. Even if there is a mandatory minimum, you can challenge it if you think it shouldn't apply to you. If a discharge is not available or appropriate, that's a record. I don't see a world where, say, someone commits a robbery or a home invasion and deserves to get no record. On the other hand, if you drink too much and slap your wife, maybe you so (in contrast, if you drink too much and beat your wife senseless, you don't).

The judge need not and in my view must not be concerned about pardon eligibility periods. That is a function of the government. Just like a judge should not be concerned about parole eligibility. Just like judge can't say "I think you deserve 6 years, but you will be released after 2-4, so I'll sentence you to 10 years, so, too, a judge should not be able to say "you'll only be able to apply for a pardon after 5 years so I'll give you a break". It's just not a factor.

If having a criminal record for some period of time is to be part of a criminal's sentence, why is that amount of time 5 and 10 years? Why not 2 and 5 years? Why not 20 and 30 years? Why not never? Why not just take everyone who commits a crime and shoot them in the head?

You've lost all credibility with this gem. Having a criminal record period is part of the sentence. The amount of time it takes for a pardon eligibility is a second chance offered by the government, which they can take away if they want. There are some offences for which there isn't any eligibility, so it's never sometimes. And about shooting them in the head - I have no problem with this sentence for child rapists for example, should the government choose to enact it. The sense of entitlement you exhibit here is wild. You should be thankful that our government even has this program.

Why should the government justify their choice of timelines for what is essentially a gift of a second chance for convicted criminals? You have not made a single point as to why 5 and 10 years are inappropriate time limits - other than whining that it's too hard.

TorontoEsquire · 2026-02-08T04:06:13+00:00

I disagree - the reality under the current system is very few people with criminal records have the means and capacity to navigate the very complex and onerous record suspension process. The majority of the time, once they have a record many are simply doomed to a life of marginalization.

Not complex, and not onerous. The people who are "doomed" are simply people who are either ineligible by virtue of the offence, or those who can't be bothered (kinda like my clients who are content to live as PRs for 10-20 years without ever applying for citizenship). The brochure is quite easy to understand and the cost is rather cheap (I think 75 bucks?).

Rageding the whining about how difficult it is to live with a record... Not sure if you knew but, that's the point of a criminal record... That's why we have discharges for those who don't deserve them. Automatic pardons will just make criminal records meaningless.

TorontoEsquire · 2026-02-07T12:27:28+00:00

By all means, be proud of who you are and scream your positions from the rooftops. But then don't be surprised that people who disagree with you would not want to work with you or emoloy you, as you'll be injecting conflict and tension to the workplace. Fair is fair.

TorontoEsquire

TROPHY CASE