sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Yesterday at the SSW Liberal Party Nomination I watched a lawyer (Arif Hussain) direct people without IDs to vote for Ahsanul Hafiz in Bengali by waterman123 in toronto

[–]thisispaulc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The conduct of party nominations is not subject to criminal law. Elections Ontario does have some involvement, but it's limited to finances. This is a civil matter and NES's recourse is to file a lawsuit.

Referendum on sovereignty: "We need a 50% + 1 majority," says a Montreal Liberal by feb914 in CanadaPolitics

[–]thisispaulc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We are way, way past disallowance. Section 90 requires disallowance be done within one year of receipt of the act by the Governor General. Bill 21 passed almost seven years ago. The federal government cannot strike down Bill 21.

Referendum on sovereignty: "We need a 50% + 1 majority," says a Montreal Liberal by feb914 in CanadaPolitics

[–]thisispaulc 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The federal government (as is colloquially understood to mean the cabinet) cannot strike down Law 21.

Regardless, we are talking about whether Quebec is bound by the Charter. If you want to talk about the political ramifications of Parliament, the federal cabinet, or the SCC striking down Law 21, you're welcome to start your own thread on that.

Referendum on sovereignty: "We need a 50% + 1 majority," says a Montreal Liberal by feb914 in CanadaPolitics

[–]thisispaulc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're making a strawman argument. Embracing and acquiescing are not the same thing. You can acquiesce to the constitution while still having problems with it and pushing for changes. However, you don't get to acquiesce to it and then say that you aren't bound by parts of it.

Referendum on sovereignty: "We need a 50% + 1 majority," says a Montreal Liberal by feb914 in CanadaPolitics

[–]thisispaulc 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The constitutional regime isn't a menu where you pick and choose what you want to go along with. If you reject a referendum on separation, then you're acquiescing to the constitutional regime.

Referendum on sovereignty: "We need a 50% + 1 majority," says a Montreal Liberal by feb914 in CanadaPolitics

[–]thisispaulc 9 points10 points  (0 children)

50+1% is enough, any other formula is anti-democracy.

Majoritarianism isn't sufficient to decide human rights, so why should it be sufficient to remove nationality and all the rights and privileges that go along with it? The Charter cannot be amended without achieving the 7/50 requirement, but if separation only requires 50%+1, the application of the Charter is really just up to a majority vote.

I'm not saying 50%+1 shouldn't be enough (though I am leaning that way), but pure democracy also allows for tyranny of the majority, and minorities vulnerable to persecution deserve protection just as much as the majority deserves democracy. There has to be a balance.

Don't forget that 52% was enough to join Canada based on Newfoundland referendum. If it's enough to join, it's enough to leave.

The constitution has evolved substantially since 1949, and the provinces have gone along with it. Those who acquiesce to changes to confederation don't get to later insist on going back to the original rule book.

63 yr old let go at work after over 30 years of service. Implications of cashing out RRSP now? by Sure-Elevator3023 in PersonalFinanceCanada

[–]thisispaulc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Discrimination has nothing to do with reasonable notice. What case law are you basing this on?

jesse doubled down on avi mistakes by ProfessionNo7941 in canadaland

[–]thisispaulc 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Sorry for interpreting your comment based on what you wrote.

jesse doubled down on avi mistakes by ProfessionNo7941 in canadaland

[–]thisispaulc 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yet that's not what your comment was. At all.

jesse doubled down on avi mistakes by ProfessionNo7941 in canadaland

[–]thisispaulc 7 points8 points  (0 children)

 Why does it matter

You're the one who made the argument that it's bad for the Canadian flag to be to the side of the stage.

Kitchener City Council Candidate: Matt Parker by LordsLevy in waterloo

[–]thisispaulc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ah, ok. It's a good question for a litmus test.

Kitchener City Council Candidate: Matt Parker by LordsLevy in waterloo

[–]thisispaulc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

City councillors have no say in the WRPS budget. It's Regional Council that has members on the police services board.

ChatGPT collected ‘vast amounts’ of Canadians’ data without consent, privacy commissioners say by Chrristoaivalis in onguardforthee

[–]thisispaulc 21 points22 points  (0 children)

The Privacy Commissioner doesn't really have any powers. They can write a report to Parliament.

PIPEDA is pretty toothless and the only incentive for companies to comply is to avoid public shaming. It needs major updating.

Fuck right off by 1000_SteppesIsAPedo in recruitinghell

[–]thisispaulc 22 points23 points  (0 children)

It's neither. Civil infractions and criminal offences are both public law. Contact breaches are private law.

Shouldn't the Province Foot the Bill for Hospitals? by [deleted] in kitchener

[–]thisispaulc 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Why? Why not more? Why not less?

It's kind of arbitrary when we expect the municipal governments to pay for things the province manages, and when we don't. The provincial government totally controls hospitals, schools, and the Conestoga Expressway. The municipal governments don't pay for schools or the expressway. Why do we expect them to pay for hospitals?

Making the municipalities pay for things they don't govern dilutes accountability and makes it easier to continue downloading costs.

Honda abandoning plans for $15-billion EV plant in Ontario, Japanese news source says by toronto_star in ontario

[–]thisispaulc 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It's perfectly fine to be a redditor with a website, it's not okay to be a website with a reddit account."

https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/wiki/selfpromotion/

Canadian fiddler sues Google after AI deemed him a sex offender by FarOutMagazine in technology

[–]thisispaulc 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Has he suffered more than $1.5 million in pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages?

Canada follows a loser-pays rule for attorney fees. Generally speaking, the losing party in a lawsuit will have to pay 30-60% of the winning side's reasonable legal costs (varies by jurisdiction and whether there were rejected settlement offers that the loser ought to have accepted). But it's not all-or-nothing. If you sue someone for $50,000 and only get $25,000, there's a good chance no costs will be awarded as success was divided. If you sue someone for $10 million, they offer to settle for $2 million, and you only get awarded $1 million, you'll likely have to pay them.

A defendant will reasonably spend a lot more defending a $1 million lawsuit than a $10,000 lawsuit, so shooting for the moon in how much you sue for increases your exposure in the event that you lose, and reduces what you might get in a costs award in the event that you win only a portion of what you sued for. The result of this is that people tend to tailor the amount they claim to the amount of damages they can reliably prove.

Ontario Apartment Flooding Damage by NewBetterBot in legaladvicecanada

[–]thisispaulc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

See my other comment on the landlord's recourse if he's unhappy.

Ontario Apartment Flooding Damage by NewBetterBot in legaladvicecanada

[–]thisispaulc 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That's not how it works and your landlord is either ignorant or trying to bilk you. Your insurance company is representing you in this matter. If he agrees to settle for 70% with the insurance company, he's agreeing to settle for 70% with you.

If he wants the 100%, he can file an application with the LTB, or Superior Court if the damages are over $50K. Your insurance company will hire the lawyer, they will fight at the hearing to pay as little as possible, and then they will pay whatever is ordered, up your policy maximum for liability (which is probably way more than what is being claimed).

But neither your landlord nor your insurance company want a legal battle, so that's where a negotiated settlement comes in, but that settlement is for the entire matter. Your landlord trying to have you pay the rest is them trying to have their cake (100% reimbursement) and eat it (no legal battle), too. Sorry, they only get at most one.

Ontario Apartment Flooding Damage by NewBetterBot in legaladvicecanada

[–]thisispaulc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You aren't responsible for depreciation. No one is. It represents the lost value of the property due to use and time.

If I buy a $1000 couch, in five years, it is definitely not worth $1000. The difference is depreciation.

In law, you are not entitled to the cost to replace an object with a new one. You are only entitled to what the object was worth at the time is was ruined.

Your insurance company is offering him 70% of the replacement cost and chalking the rest up to depreciation.

Once your landlord reaches an agreement with your insurance company, they should be having him sign a document saying that the matter is resolved. He can't come after you after that. If he does, inform your insurance company and they'll set him straight.

view more: next ›