Tobacco companies at the centre of a $50-billion lawsuit by the Ontario government had their hopes dashed on Friday when a judge dismissed their bid to have the case dropped.
The Superior Court of Justice rejected the application made by a group of seven foreign tobacco companies. The companies had argued that the court had no jurisdiction over them.
The court decision means the Ontario lawsuit will proceed. The province's statement of claim alleges that the defendant tobacco companies knew about the addictiveness of cigarettes and the health damage they caused but deceived the public by misrepresenting the risks.
The lawsuit also alleges that the companies failed to warn the public about the dangers of smoking and promoted cigarettes to children and teens.
"We are pleased with the Court's decision which paves the way for Ontario's lawsuit to continue," Attorney General John Gerretsen said in a statement
Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Health/20120106/ontario-court-lawsuit-tobacco-cancer-120106/#ixzz1ihr6WOIV
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Friday, January 6, 2012
Toothbrush lawsuit ends
Minutes before her trial resumed Wednesday, alleged toothbrush victim Saliha Alnoor and her brother, Abe, sat before a computer in the B.C. Supreme Courts building law library. They were looking for evidence that Colgate-Palmolive Canada Inc. manufactured and sold harmful dental products, just as the pair claimed. Lethal ones, too.
They found stories on the Internet about "exploding" toothbrushes and "poisonous" toothpastes. Tales of oral hygiene gone horribly wrong. Armed with printouts - and a 20-page technical report they commissioned, prepared by a professional engineer and titled Analysis of Toothbrush Failure - they walked into a courtroom upstairs, ready to do battle.
Ms. Alnoor had decided to sue Colgate. Five years ago, she was in her Surrey, B.C., home, cleaning her teeth with an Active Angle brush made by the large multinational. "The toothbrush handle broke during brushing and it tore my gums," she said in her statement of claim. "My gums started bleeding and I experienced excruciating pain." Ms. Alnoor passed out from the pain, she claimed. She was lucky to have family members around, she said, to make sure she "did not swallow and choke and drown in my blood while I was unconscious."
She was in pain "for weeks" and experienced swelling in her mouth. She could not eat solid food, nor floss or brush properly, she says. She required special medical treatment and dental implants. "As a result of this ordeal, I lost a lot of weight and I felt really sick and weak," reads her statement of claim.
Colgate's Active Angle is nothing less than a "killer toothbrush," Ms. Alnoor alleged in another document that she prepared and brought with her to court on Wednesday. The product didn't kill her, but no matter. "The Active Angle toothbrush suffered from serious mechanical design flaws which were known or ought to have been known by the defendant at all times material to this claim."
In a statement of defence, Colgate denied any wrongdoing and said if Ms. Alnoor suffered any injuries, they were her own fault.
Ms. Alnoor's trial began Tuesday. No evidence was heard. Proceedings kept bogging down with arguments and rulings, with adjournments, with polite reprimands and instructions to the plaintiff from the presiding judge, Madame Justice Catherine Wedge, whose patience was frequently tested.
Ms. Alnoor was not represented by counsel. She was getting a hard lesson in the law. She had only Abe, a local contractor, to help her. He sat with her in the courtroom and poked her in the ribs with an index finger, prodding her to at least try to persuade Madame Justice Wedge of one thing or another. Ms. Alnoor stood and tried, again and again, always in vain.
Outside the courtroom during breaks, Abe did most of the talking. A reporter asked why his sister was without proper counsel. Because the first lawyer she had hired "began acting strange." She found another one, "but he suggested we drop the claim," said Abe. The Alnoors dropped him, instead.
They had a problem with the judge, as well. "She is proColgate," Abe complained. "She is pro-business. Our supporters warned us this would happen, but we were naive."
Or plain foolish. Ms. Alnoor kept insisting that Colgate Canada president Scott Jeffery travel to Vancouver and appear as a witness. The Alnoors offered him $1,200 for travel expenses: an economy seat flight from Toronto, one night in a suburban motel and a return red-eye flight. "Why should he get special treatment?" Ms. Alnoor said outside the courtroom, during yet another adjournment. "He could take a Greyhound."
Ms. Alnoor tried to present the court with her Internet chronicles, the stories about purportedly dire Colgate product failures. The judge would have none of them. Consider all your options carefully, she told the plaintiff. Colgate had once offered Ms. Alnoor $500 as compensation for her troubles, and while that offer was no longer on the table, there was now an alternative: terminate the lawsuit. Walk away, and quit badmouthing Colgate.
Ms. Alnoor and her brother went to lunch and thought about it. They returned, and told Judge Wedge they would accept Colgate's proposal, that she drop her suit and pay none of the company's legal costs, about $30,000. The judge looked relieved. Everyone did. The nonsense was over.
"We spent $21,000 on lawyers and experts, but we have no regrets," said Abe, leaving the courtroom for the last time. "Now we know how justice works. Now we are much wiser."
Ms. Alnoor nodded. "I had to do it," she said. "I couldn't live with myself if I hadn't." And she flashed a lovely, pearly-white smile.
They found stories on the Internet about "exploding" toothbrushes and "poisonous" toothpastes. Tales of oral hygiene gone horribly wrong. Armed with printouts - and a 20-page technical report they commissioned, prepared by a professional engineer and titled Analysis of Toothbrush Failure - they walked into a courtroom upstairs, ready to do battle.
Ms. Alnoor had decided to sue Colgate. Five years ago, she was in her Surrey, B.C., home, cleaning her teeth with an Active Angle brush made by the large multinational. "The toothbrush handle broke during brushing and it tore my gums," she said in her statement of claim. "My gums started bleeding and I experienced excruciating pain." Ms. Alnoor passed out from the pain, she claimed. She was lucky to have family members around, she said, to make sure she "did not swallow and choke and drown in my blood while I was unconscious."
She was in pain "for weeks" and experienced swelling in her mouth. She could not eat solid food, nor floss or brush properly, she says. She required special medical treatment and dental implants. "As a result of this ordeal, I lost a lot of weight and I felt really sick and weak," reads her statement of claim.
Colgate's Active Angle is nothing less than a "killer toothbrush," Ms. Alnoor alleged in another document that she prepared and brought with her to court on Wednesday. The product didn't kill her, but no matter. "The Active Angle toothbrush suffered from serious mechanical design flaws which were known or ought to have been known by the defendant at all times material to this claim."
In a statement of defence, Colgate denied any wrongdoing and said if Ms. Alnoor suffered any injuries, they were her own fault.
Ms. Alnoor's trial began Tuesday. No evidence was heard. Proceedings kept bogging down with arguments and rulings, with adjournments, with polite reprimands and instructions to the plaintiff from the presiding judge, Madame Justice Catherine Wedge, whose patience was frequently tested.
Ms. Alnoor was not represented by counsel. She was getting a hard lesson in the law. She had only Abe, a local contractor, to help her. He sat with her in the courtroom and poked her in the ribs with an index finger, prodding her to at least try to persuade Madame Justice Wedge of one thing or another. Ms. Alnoor stood and tried, again and again, always in vain.
Outside the courtroom during breaks, Abe did most of the talking. A reporter asked why his sister was without proper counsel. Because the first lawyer she had hired "began acting strange." She found another one, "but he suggested we drop the claim," said Abe. The Alnoors dropped him, instead.
They had a problem with the judge, as well. "She is proColgate," Abe complained. "She is pro-business. Our supporters warned us this would happen, but we were naive."
Or plain foolish. Ms. Alnoor kept insisting that Colgate Canada president Scott Jeffery travel to Vancouver and appear as a witness. The Alnoors offered him $1,200 for travel expenses: an economy seat flight from Toronto, one night in a suburban motel and a return red-eye flight. "Why should he get special treatment?" Ms. Alnoor said outside the courtroom, during yet another adjournment. "He could take a Greyhound."
Ms. Alnoor tried to present the court with her Internet chronicles, the stories about purportedly dire Colgate product failures. The judge would have none of them. Consider all your options carefully, she told the plaintiff. Colgate had once offered Ms. Alnoor $500 as compensation for her troubles, and while that offer was no longer on the table, there was now an alternative: terminate the lawsuit. Walk away, and quit badmouthing Colgate.
Ms. Alnoor and her brother went to lunch and thought about it. They returned, and told Judge Wedge they would accept Colgate's proposal, that she drop her suit and pay none of the company's legal costs, about $30,000. The judge looked relieved. Everyone did. The nonsense was over.
"We spent $21,000 on lawyers and experts, but we have no regrets," said Abe, leaving the courtroom for the last time. "Now we know how justice works. Now we are much wiser."
Ms. Alnoor nodded. "I had to do it," she said. "I couldn't live with myself if I hadn't." And she flashed a lovely, pearly-white smile.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Saliha Alnoor, V Colgate-Palmolive. B.C.
VANCOUVER — The trial of a B.C. woman claiming she was injured by a defective toothbrush began Tuesday in B.C. Supreme Court.
Saliha Alnoor, of Surrey, says that an Active Angle toothbrush manufactured by Colgate-Palmolive fractured when she was brushing her teeth in November 2006.
In her opening statement, Alnoor said that her gums bled profusely and she lost consciousness.
Alnoor claimed that the Colgate toothbrush was defective and said that she has suffered permanent injuries and has paid more than $6,000 in dental costs to repair the damage, with another $94,000 in treatments.
She told the judge that the failure of the company to produce Colgate-Canada president Scott Jeffery as an "adverse" witness should result in a favourable judgment.
The company has filed a statement of defence in which it denies all allegations.
Colgate said if any injuries were suffered, they were caused by the negligence of the plaintiff.
Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/court+begins+hearing+defective+toothbrush+case/5941786/story.html#ixzz1iX3qFU79
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
The Harper government spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in its unsuccessful legal battle against Insite, Vancouver's supervised injection site, according to newly released documents.
VANCOUVER — The Harper government spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in its unsuccessful legal battle against Insite, Vancouver's supervised injection site, according to newly released documents.
Between 2006 and 2011, the Conservatives spent $637,158 in a bid to shut down the Downtown Eastside clinic — funds that represented more than 20 per cent of Insite's annual $3-million operating budget.
The clinic, opened in 2003, has long been a burr under the saddle of a federal government that has fiercely resisted embracing the harm-reduction philosophy which underpins the clinic's operations.
The federal legal bill comes courtesy of a Justice Department reply to an access to information request, submitted last October by the Vancouver Sun. The request followed a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court in favour of keeping the clinic open.
In a unanimous decision, the judges ruled that not allowing the clinic to operate under an exemption from drug laws would violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Harper regime between 2006 and 2008 reluctantly had granted the facility an exemption from drug laws, allowing it to operate. But between 2008 and last autumn's court ruling, it waged legal action to close down the clinic.
This, despite the fact Insite has had the long-standing support of both the Vancouver and B.C. governments. Polls show the clinic also has the support of about 70 per cent of Vancouverites.
And it has shown itself to be effective in reducing harm. In 2009, nearly 500 overdoses occurred at the clinic but no deaths. In 2010, 221 overdoses occurred with no deaths.
A 2011 study in the British medical journal The Lancet found overdose deaths have dropped 35 per cent in the area of the clinic since it opened.
However, Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq has explained that her government prefers to focus its efforts on prevention and treatment.
Insite's main goal is neither of these. With 12 injection booths and a staff that includes nurses, counsellors and mental health and social workers, the clinic attempts to reduce harm that users do to themselves, particularly by way of overdosing.
The clinic does not supply any drugs; rather, it provides a safe, medically supervised location and clean needles for addicts to administer their drugs. Importantly, it also provides counselling for those wishing to get off drugs.
Last year, the clinic was responsible for 5,268 referrals to various social and health agencies and 458 drug users were admitted to detox programs. Surely, this is the most worthwhile part of what the clinic does.
As the clinic's website states: "Through Insite, clients develop trusting relationships with our health care and social workers, making them more likely to pursue withdrawal management, addiction counselling and other addiction treatment services."
The government's vigorous legal battle against the clinic — even in the face of community acceptance and research showing the centre's effectiveness in reducing fatalities — shows an unproductive stubborn streak. The same bull-headed approach was in evidence in the Conservatives' determination in 2010 to get rid of the long-form census, against widespread advice, and their refusal last fall to reconsider an expensive, punitive omnibus crime bill at a time when crime rates have been falling in Canada.
The Harper government certainly allowed its ideological leanings to get in the way of rational decision-making in the case of Insite. The result was an unnecessary expenditure of a bucket full of public cash at a time when Ottawa is working hard to reduce spending in order to balance the federal budget.
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Yaffe+600K+spent+close+injection+site+underscores+Tory+stubbornness/5941238/story.html#ixzz1iTjfJFks
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
More extreme weather heading toward Sweden: Share3 A new low pressure area with strong winds and precipitation is on the way toward Sweden. It will pass over central Sweden
More extreme weather heading toward Sweden
Online: http://www.thelocal.se/38294/20120102/
A new low pressure area with strong winds and precipitation is on the way toward Sweden. It will pass over central Sweden on Wednesday and will bring rain and snow over most of the country, as well as a risk of gale force winds in the south and along the coast.
"There will be a complete storm on the North Sea and then, the night to Wednesday, we will see gale force winds in all of Götaland. There is a risk of more trees falling," said Åsa Rasmussen, meteorologist for Sveriges Television (SVT) on Monday.
The Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, SMHI, is preparing to issue warnings for the coming storm.
"There'll be warnings, but we don't issue these until 24 hours before something is expected to happen, so they are yet to come," said Lisa Frost, forecaster at SMHI to news agency TT on Monday afternoon.
She is expecting warnings to be issued during Monday evening or during the night to Tuesday.
"My guess is that there will be a Class 1 warning for Götaland, but for parts of the west coast and down towards Skåne, I think it will be a Class 2 warning," said Frost to TT.
But Danish forecasters are more worried about the readings.
"It is a very strong low pressure area, which can be best described as an 'atmospheric bomb' as the pressure drops so suddenly. We're talking of gale force winds up to 35-40 metres per second," said Danish meteorologist Andreas Nyholm to Danish paper Ekstrabladet.
However, Nyholm doesn't think that the storm will hit Scandinavia with the same force that Dagmar did. He is joined in that opinion by Frost at SMHI.
Sweden has not had winds as strong as those recorded during recent weeks for years.
"Some of our stations measured the strongest winds in at least 15 years," said Andersson to DN.
Between Christmas and New Year the weather calmed down slightly in the wake of storm Dagmar but by then northern parts of the country had suffered extensive forest damage caused by the strong winds.
The National Board of Forestry (Skogsstyrelsen) has been taking stock of damages done to Swedish woods over the Christmas period and while work continues it has to do so with more bad weather en route for Sweden.
“We hope to have some preliminary figures ready this week,” Johanna From, regional director at the agency told TT.
The Swedish National Railway (Statens Järnvägar, SJ) is also still working at establishing the extent of the damages done to its network in the aftermath of the storms.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)