The geek with a cynical view: September 2013

Monday, September 30, 2013

Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problems 30-2013

I

n the Boeing 787 Dreamliner's first year of service, at least four aircraft suffered from electrical system problems stemming from itslithium-ion batteries. Although teething problems are common within the first year of a new aircraft design's life, after a number of incidents including an electrical fire aboard an All Nippon Airways 787, and a similar fire found by maintenance workers on a landedJapan Airlines 787 at Boston's Logan International Airport, the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ordered a review into the design and manufacture of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, following five incidents in five days involving the aircraft, mostly involved with problems with the batteries and electrical systems. This was followed with a full grounding of the entire Boeing 787 fleet, the first such grounding since that of DC-10s in 1979.[1] It is reported that the plane has had two major battery thermal runawayevents in 52,000 flight hours, which was substantially below the 10 million flight hours predicted by Boeing, and had done so in a dangerous manner.[2]

Contents [hide]
1 Timeline
2 Groundings
3 Solution
4 See also
5 References
Timeline

In December 2012, Boeing CEO James McNerney told media outlets that the problems were no greater than those experienced by the company with the introduction of other new models, such as the Boeing 777.[3] However, on January 7, 2013, a battery overheated and started a fire in an empty 787 operated by Japan Airlines (JAL) at Boston's Logan International Airport.[4][5] On January 9, United Airlinesreported a problem in one of its six 787s with the wiring in the same area as the battery fire on JAL's airliner; subsequently, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board opened a safety probe.[6]

On January 11, 2013, the FAA announced a comprehensive review of the 787's critical systems, including the design, manufacture and assembly of the aircraft. U.S. Department of Transportation secretary Ray LaHood stated the administration was "looking for the root causes" behind the recent issues. The head of the FAA, Michael Huerta, said that so far nothing found "suggests [the 787] is not safe".[7] Japan's transport ministry have also launched an investigation in response.[8]

On January 16, 2013, an All Nippon Airways (ANA) 787 made an emergency landing at Takamatsu Airport on Shikoku Island after the flight crew received a computer warning that there was smoke inside one of the electrical compartments.[9][10] ANA said that there was an error message in the cockpit citing a battery malfunction. Passengers and crew were evacuated using the emergency slides.[11]According to The Register, there are no fire-suppression systems in the electrical compartments holding batteries, only smoke detectors.[12]

US-based aviation regulators' oversight into the 2007 safety approval and FAA certification of the 787 has now come under scrutiny, as a key US Senate committee prepares for a hearing into the procedures of aviation safety certification "in coming weeks". However, an FAA spokesperson defended their 2007 safety certification of the 787 by saying, "the whole aviation system is designed so that if the worst case happens, there are systems in place to prevent that from interfering with other systems on the plane".[13]

On February 12, 2013 the Wall Street Journal reported that "Aviation safety investigators are examining whether the formation of microscopic structures known as dendrites inside the Boeing Co. 787's lithium-ion batteries played a role in twin incidents that prompted the fleet to be grounded nearly a month ago."[14]
Groundings

On January 16, 2013, both major Japanese airlines ANA and JAL announced that they were voluntarily grounding or suspending flights for their fleets of 787s after multiple incidents involving different 787s, including emergency landings. These two carriers operate 24 of the 50 Dreamliners delivered to date.[15][16] The grounding could cost ANA over $1.1 million a day.[17]

Wikinews has related news:FAA orders review of Boeing 787 Dreamliners following week of incidents

On January 16, 2013, the FAA issued an emergency airworthiness directive ordering all U.S.-based airlines to ground their Boeing 787s until yet-to-be-determined modifications are made to the electrical system to reduce the risk of the battery overheating or catching fire.[18] This is the first time that the FAA has grounded an airliner type since 1979.[1] The FAA also announced plans to conduct an extensive review of the 787's critical systems. The focus of the review will be on the safety of the lithium-ion batteries [1] made of lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2). The 787 battery contract was signed in 2005,[19] when LiCoO2 batteries were the only type of lithium aerospace battery available, but since then newer and safer[20] types (such as LiFePO), which provide less reaction energy during thermal runaway, have become available.[21][22] FAA approved a 787 battery in 2007 with nine "special conditions".[23][24] A battery approved by FAA (through Mobile Power Solutions) was made by Rose Electronics using Kokam cells,[25] but the batteries installed in the 787 are made by Yuasa.[26]

Three All Nippon Airways 787 aircraft grounded at Tokyo on January 27, 2013

On January 20, the NTSB declared that overvoltage was not the cause of the Boston incident, as voltage did not exceed the battery limit of 32 V,[27] and the charging unit passed tests. The battery had signs of short circuiting and thermal runaway.[28] Despite this, on January 24 the NTSB announced that it had not yet pinpointed the cause of the Boston fire; the FAA will not allow U.S.-based Dreamliners to fly again until the problem is found and corrected. In a press briefing that day, NTSB Chairwoman Deborah Hersman said that the NTSB had found evidence of failure of multiple safety systems designed to prevent these battery problems, and stated that fire must never happen on an airplane.[29] The Japan Transport Safety Board (JTSB) has said on January 23 that the battery in ANA jets in Japan reached a maximum voltage of 31 V (lower than the 32 V limit like the Boston JAL 787), but had a sudden unexplained voltage drop[30] to near zero.[31] All cells had signs of thermal damage before thermal runaway.[32] ANA and JAL had replaced several 787 batteries before the mishaps.[31] As of January 29, 2013, JTSB approved the Yuasa factory quality control [33][34] while the American NTSB continues to look for defects in the Boston battery.[35]

Industry experts disagree on consequences of the grounding: Airbus is confident that Boeing will resolve the issue[36] and that no airlines will switch plane type,[37] while other experts see the problem as "costly"[38] and "could take upwards of a year".[39]

The only U.S.-based airline that operates the Dreamliner is United Airlines, which has six.[40] Chile's Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGAC) grounded LAN Airlines' three 787s.[41] The Indian Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) directed Air India to ground its six Dreamliners. The Japanese Transport Ministry made the ANA and JAL groundings official and indefinite following the FAA announcement.[42] The European Aviation Safety Agency has also followed the FAA's advice and grounded the only two European 787s operated by LOT Polish Airlines.[43] Qatar Airways has announced that they are grounding their five Dreamliners.[44] Ethiopian Air was the final operator to announce temporary groundings of its four Dreamliners.[45]

As of January 17, 2013, all 50 of the aircraft delivered to date have been grounded.[45][46][47] On January 18, Boeing announced that it was halting 787 deliveries until the battery problem is resolved.[48] On February 4, 2013, the FAA said it will permit Boeing to conduct test flights of 787 aircraft to gather additional data.[49]
Solution

The Federal Aviation Administration decided on April 19, 2013 to allow US Dreamliners return to service after changes were made to their battery systems.[50] Japanese authorities announced they were doing the same for their airplanes. The causes of the battery failures are still unknown.
See also

Sunday, September 29, 2013

Boeing 787 Operational problems 29-13

The Boeing 787 has been involved in multiple aviation incidents and operational problems. In December 2012, Boeing CEO James McNerney stated that the problems were no greater than those experienced with the introduction of other models such as the Boeing 777.^[289]^[290]

Operational problems

A JAL 787 experienced a fuel leak on January 8, 2013, and its flight from Boston was canceled.^[291] On January 9, United Airlines reported a problem in one of its six 787s with the wiring near the main batteries. After these incidents, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board subsequently opened a safety probe.^[292] Later, on January 11, 2013, another aircraft was found to have a fuel leak.^[293]

Also on January 11, 2013, the FAA announced a comprehensive review of the 787's critical systems, including the design, manufacture and assembly; U.S. Department of Transportation secretary Ray LaHood stated the administration was "looking for the root causes" behind the recent issues. The head of the FAA, Michael Huerta, said that so far nothing found "suggests [the 787] is not safe".^[294]

On January 13, 2013, a Japan Airlines 787 at Narita International Airport outside Tokyo, was found to also have a fuel leak during an inspection, the third time a fuel leak had been reported within a week. The aircraft reportedly was the same one that had a fuel leak in Boston on January 8.^[295] This leak was caused by a different valve; the causes of the leaks are unknown.^[296] Japan's transport ministry has also launched an investigation.^[297]

On July 12, 2013, a fire started on an empty Ethiopian Airlines 787 parked at Heathrow Airport before it was put out by the airport fire and rescue service. No injuries were reported.^[298]^[299] The fire caused extensive heat damage to the aircraft.^[300] The FAA and NTSB sent representatives to assist in the investigation.^[301] The initial investigation found no direct link with the aircraft's main batteries.^[302] Further investigations indicated that the fire was due to lithium-manganese dioxide batteries powering an emergency locator transmitter (ELT).^[303]^[304] The UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) issued a special bulletin on July 18, 2013 requesting the US FAA ensure that the locator is removed or disconnected in Boeing 787s, and to review the safety of lithium battery-powered ELT systems in other aircraft types.^[305]

On July 26, 2013, ANA said it had found wiring damage on two 787 locator beacons. United Airlines also reported that it had found a pinched wire in one 787 locator beacon.^[306] On August 14, 2013, the media reported a fire extinguisher fault affecting three ANA airplanes,^[307] which was caused by a supplier assembly error.^[308]

On September 28, 2013, Norwegian Long Haul decided to take one of its present two 787s out of service after the two aircraft broke down on more than six occasions in September.^[309] The company will lease an Airbus A340 for its long-haul operations while the 787 is returned to Boeing for repair.^[310]

Battery problems

Main article: Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problems

The Aft Electronics Bay that held the JAL 787 battery that caught fire

Japan Airlines 787 battery comparison; Left: typical original battery. Right: damaged battery.

On January 16, 2013, All Nippon Airways Flight NH-692, en route from Ube to Tokyo Haneda, had a battery problem warning followed by a burning smell while climbing from Ube about 35 nautical miles west of Takamatsu, Japan. The aircraft diverted to Takamatsu and was evacuated via the slides; three passengers received minor injuries during the evacuation. Inspection revealed a battery fire. A similar incident in a parked Japan Airlines 787 at Boston's Logan International Airport within the same week led the Federal Aviation Administration to ground all Boeing 787s in service at the time.^[311]

On January 16, 2013, both major Japanese airlines ANA and JAL announced that they were voluntarily grounding or suspending flights for their fleets of 787s after multiple incidents involving different 787s, including emergency landings. These two carriers operate 24 of the 50 Dreamliners delivered to date.^[312]^[313] The grounding is reported to have cost ANA some 9 billion yen in lost sales.^[314]^[315]

On January 16, 2013, the FAA issued an emergency airworthiness directive ordering all U.S.-based airlines to ground their Boeing 787s until yet-to-be-determined modifications were made to the electrical system to reduce the risk of the battery overheating or catching fire.^[316] This was the first time that the FAA has grounded an airliner type since 1979.^[317] Industry experts disagreed on consequences of the grounding: Airbus was confident that Boeing would resolve the issue^[318] and that no airlines will switch plane type,^[319] while other experts saw the problem as "costly"^[320] and "could take upwards of a year".^[321]

The FAA also announced plans to conduct an extensive review of the 787's critical systems. The focus of the review will be on the safety of the lithium-ion batteries^[317] made of lithium cobalt oxide (LiCo). The 787 battery contract was signed in 2005,^[193] when LiCo batteries were the only type of lithium aerospace battery available, but since then newer and safer^[322] types (such as LiFePO), which provide less reaction energy during thermal runaway, have become available.^[191]^[323] FAA approved a 787 battery in 2007 with nine "special conditions".^[324]^[325] A battery approved by FAA (through Mobile Power Solutions) was made by Rose Electronics using Kokam cells;^[326] the batteries installed in the 787 are made by Yuasa.^[189]

On January 20, the NTSB declared that overvoltage was not the cause of the Boston incident, as voltage did not exceed the battery limit of 32 V,^[327] and the charging unit passed tests. The battery had signs of short circuiting and thermal runaway.^[328] Despite this, the NTSB announced on January 24 that it had not yet pinpointed the cause of the Boston fire; the FAA will not allow U.S.-based Dreamliners to fly again until the problem is found and corrected. In a press briefing that day, NTSB Chairwoman Deborah Hersman said that the NTSB had found evidence of failure of multiple safety systems designed to prevent these battery problems, and stated that fire must never happen on an airplane.^[329]

The Japan Transport Safety Board (JTSB) has said on January 23 that the battery in ANA jets in Japan reached a maximum voltage of 31 V (below the 32 V limit like the Boston JAL 787), but had a sudden unexplained voltage drop^[330] to near zero.^[331] All cells had signs of thermal damage before thermal runaway.^[332] ANA and JAL had replaced several 787 batteries before the mishaps.^[331] As of January 29, 2013, JTSB approved the Yuasa factory quality control^[333]^[334] while the NTSB continues to look for defects in the Boston battery.^[335] The two major battery thermal runaway events in 100,000 flight hours was much higher than the rate of one in 10 million flight hours that Boeing predicted.^[311]

The only U.S.-based airline that operated the Dreamliner at the time was United Airlines, which had six.^[336] Chile's Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGAC) grounded LAN Airlines' three 787s.^[337] The Indian Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) directed Air India to ground its six Dreamliners. The Japanese Transport Ministry made the ANA and JAL groundings official and indefinite following the FAA announcement.^[11] The European Aviation Safety Agency has also followed the FAA's advice and grounded the only two European 787s operated by LOT Polish Airlines.^[338] Qatar Airways has announced that they are grounding their five Dreamliners.^[339] Ethiopian Air was the final operator to announce temporary groundings of its four Dreamliners.^[340] By January 17, 2013, all 50 of the aircraft delivered to date had been grounded.^[340]^[341]^[342]

On January 18, Boeing announced that it was halting 787 deliveries until the battery problem is resolved.^[343] On February 7, 2013, the FAA gave approval for Boeing to conduct 787 test flights to gather additional data.^[344]^[345] In February 2013, FAA oversight into the 2007 safety approval and certification of the 787 have come under scrutiny.^[346]

On March 7, 2013, the National Transportation Safety Board released an interim factual report about the 787 battery fire at Boston's Logan Airport on January 7, 2013. The investigation^[347] stated that "heavy smoke and fire coming from the front of the APU battery case". Firefighters "tried fire extinguishing, but smoke and flame (flame size about 3 inches) did not stop".^[348]^[349]

Boeing completed its final tests on a revised battery design on April 5, 2013. Qatar Airways said it expected to have its Dreamliners back in revenue service by the end of April.^[350] The FAA approved Boeing's revised battery design with three additional, overlapping protection methods on April 19, 2013. The FAA published a directive on April 25 to provide instructions for retrofitting battery hardware before the 787s can return to flight.^[351]^[352] The repairs are expected to be completed in weeks.^[353]

Following the FAA approval in the United States,^[354] Japan gave permission for passenger airlines to resume Boeing 787 flights in the country effective April 26, 2013.^[355] On April 27, 2013, Ethiopian Airlines took a 787 on the model's first commercial flight after battery system modifications.^[352]^[354]^[356]

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Commissioner of Canada Elections Announces the Laying of Canada Elections : Act Charges Dean Del Mastro and Richard McCarthy are charged

Commissioner of Canada Elections Announcesthe Laying of Canada Elections Act Charges

OTTAWA, September 26, 2013

Pursuant to a decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Commissioner of Canada Elections, Mr. Yves Côté, has announced his office has laid four charges under the Canada Elections Act, a federal statute.
The charges were filed on September 26, 2013 in the Ontario Court of Justice in Peterborough.
Dean Del Mastro and Richard McCarthy are charged with:
- incurring election expenses in an amount more than the election expenses limit, contrary to subsection 443(1) of the Act, thereby committing an offence contrary to subsections 497(3)(p) and 500(5) of the Act;
- providing the Chief Electoral Officer an electoral campaign return that omitted to report a contribution of $21,000.00, omitted to report an election expense of $21,000.00 and instead reported an election expense of $1,575.00, and in so doing provided a document referred to in subsection 451(1) of the Act that each knew or ought reasonably to have known contained a material statement that was false or misleading, contrary to paragraph 463(1)(a) of the Act, thereby committing an offence contrary to subsections 497(3)(v) and 500(5) of the Act;
- providing to the Chief Electoral Officer an electoral campaign return that omitted to report a contribution of $21,000.00, omitted to report an election expense of $21,000.00 and instead reported an election expense of $1,575.00, and in so doing knowingly provided a document referred to in subsection 451(1) of the Act that did not substantially set out the information required by subsection 451(2), contrary to paragraph 463(1)(b) of the Act, thereby committing an offence contrary to subsections 497(3)(v) and 500(5) of the Act.
Dean Del Mastro is also charged with:
- wilfully exceeding the contribution limit for a candidate in his own election campaign, thereby committing an offence contrary to subsections 497(3)(f.13) and 500(5) of the Act.
The Commissioner of Canada Elections is responsible for ensuring that the Canada Elections Act and Referendum Actare complied with and enforced. The Chief Electoral Officer appoints the Commissioner under theCanada Elections Act.

"In our electoral system, it is fundamentally important that the spending and contribution limits enacted by Parliament be respected. It is also essential that the reports and information provided to Elections Canada be accurate and truthful," said Mr. Côté. "The level-playing field principle and the requirement for transparency call for nothing less. We will continue to be vigilant to ensure that these rules are observed."

Charge no. 1

That Dean Del Mastro, being a candidate in the 40th federal general election in the electoral district of Peterborough, and Richard McCarthy, being the official agent of candidate Dean Del Mastro in the 40th federal general election in the electoral district of Peterborough, did wilfully, between September 14, 2008 and October 14, 2008, at or near the City of Peterborough, the City of Ottawa and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, incur election expenses in an amount that was more than the election expenses limit of $92,655.79 calculated under section 440 of the Canada Elections Act for the electoral district of Peterborough in that election, contrary to subsection 443(1) of the said Act; thereby committing an offence contrary to subsections 497(3)(p) and 500(5) of the Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9, as amended;

Charge no. 2

And further, that Dean Del Mastro, being a candidate in the 40th federal general election in the electoral district of Peterborough, between September 14, 2008 and October 14, 2008, at or near the City of Peterborough, the City of Ottawa and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did pay an election expense of $21,000.00 out of his own funds, thereby making a contribution and, in so doing, wilfully exceeded the contribution limit of $2,100.00 for a candidate in his own election campaign as calculated under subsections 405(1), 405(4)(a) and section 405.1 of the Canada Elections Act, contrary to subsection 405(1) of the said Act; thereby committing an offence contrary subsections 497(3)(f.13) and 500(5) of the Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9, as amended;

Charge no. 3

And further, that Dean Del Mastro, being a candidate in the 40th federal general election in the electoral district of Peterborough, and Richard McCarthy, being the official agent of candidate Dean Del Mastro in the 40th federal general election in the electoral district of Peterborough, did, between February 9, 2009 and February 13, 2009, at or near the City of Peterborough, the City of Ottawa and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, provide to the Chief Electoral Officer an electoral campaign return that omitted to report a contribution of $21,000.00 from Dean Del Mastro to his campaign, omitted to report an election expense of $21,000.00 and instead reported an election expense of $1,575.00, and in so doing did provide to the Chief Electoral Officer a document referred to in subsection 451(1) of the Canada Elections Act that each of them knew or ought reasonably to have known contained a material statement that was false or misleading, contrary to paragraph463(1)(a) of the said Act; thereby committing an offence contrary to subsections 497(3)(v) and 500(5) of the Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9, as amended;

Charge no. 4

And further, that Dean Del Mastro, being a candidate in the 40th federal general election in the electoral district of Peterborough, and Richard McCarthy, being the official agent of candidate Dean Del Mastro in the 40th federal general election in the electoral district of Peterborough, did, between February 9, 2009 and February 13, 2009, at or near the City of Peterborough, the City of Ottawa and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, provide to the Chief Electoral Officer an electoral campaign return that omitted to report a contribution of $21,000.00 from Dean Del Mastro to his campaign, omitted to report an election expense of $21,000.00 and instead reported an election expense of $1,575.00, and in so doing did knowingly provide to the Chief Electoral Officer a document referred to in subsection 451(1) of the Canada Elections Act that did not substantially set out the information required by subsection 451(2), contrary to paragraph 463(1)(b) of the said Act; thereby committing an offence contrary to subsections 497(3)(v) and 500(5) of the Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9, as amended.

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Researchers from the Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital of the McGill University Health Centre (The Neuro), McGill University and Université de Montréal have published a study showing that memory pathology in older mice with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) can be reversed with treatment. The researchers discovered

Researchers from the Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital of the McGill University Health Centre (The Neuro), McGill University and Université de Montréal have published a study showing that memory pathology in older mice with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) can be reversed with treatment. The researchers discovered that blocking the activity of a specific receptor in the brain of mice with advanced AD recovers memory and cerebrovascular function. The results, published in the Journal of Neuroinflammation, also suggest an underlying mechanism of AD as a potential target for new therapies.

“The exciting and important aspect of this study is that even animals with advanced pathology can be rescued with this molecule,” says Dr. Edith Hamel, neuroscientist at The Neuro and lead investigator on the paper in collaboration with Dr. Réjean Couture in the Department of Physiology at Université de Montréal. “We have rarely seen this type of reversal of AD symptoms before in our mouse model at this advanced age – when mice have been developing AD for one year.”

The researchers found an increased level of a receptor known as bradykinin B1 receptor (B1R) in the brain of mice with AD, a receptor involved in inflammation. “By administering a molecule that selectively blocks the action of this receptor, we observed important improvements in both cognitive and cerebrovascular function,” says Dr. Baptiste Lacoste, research fellow at The Neuro during the period of the study. “Alzheimer’s disease destroys nerve cells and also compromises the function of blood vessels in the brain. Not only were there improvements in learning and memory, but also marked recovery in blood flow and vascular reactivity, meaning the ability of cerebral vessels to dilate or constrict when necessary.”

Proper functioning of blood vessels in the brain is vital to providing nutrients and oxygen to nerve cells, and vascular diseases represent important risk factors for developing AD at an advanced age.

“Another interesting result that has not been seen before in our mouse model is a reduction by over 50 per cent of toxic amyloid-beta peptide,” adds Dr. Hamel. “In Alzheimer’s disease, protein fragments called amyloid-beta have a deleterious effect on the blood and nervous systems. Normally, these protein fragments are broken down and removed. In Alzheimer’s disease, the protein fragments clump together — a factor believed to contribute to neuronal and vascular dysfunction. We are not sure if these decreases contribute to the functional recovery, but we hope that our findings will aid in clarifying this issue and identifying new targets for therapeutic approaches.”

The results show that an increase in B1R is associated with amyloid-beta plaques in Alzheimer’s disease mice with impaired memory, and that chronic blockade of B1R significantly improves learning, memory, cerebrovascular function, and several other pathological AD hallmarks in mice with a fully developed pathology. Together, these findings confirm a role of B1R in AD pathogenesis and the role of neuroinflammation as an underlying mechanism in AD. The next step would be to further investigate potential blockers of the bradykinin B1R as a potential treatment for AD in humans.

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and a postdoctoral fellowship award from the Alzheimer Society of Canada, and can be found at www.jneuroinflammation.com/content/10/1/57/abstract.

Monday, September 23, 2013

School must stop using the cloud service : A school in Sollentuna

School must stop using the cloud service

September 17, 2013

A school in Sollentuna using cloud service, Google Apps for Education must either sign an agreement with Google, which comply with the Personal Data Act, or stop using the cloud service.

Data Inspection Board has reviewed Rudbecksskolan in Sollentuna using cloud service Google Apps for Education in their business. All teachers and students have to open an account with Google to get access to the tools needed for schoolwork.

The Authority notes that the school has not taken a specific so-called personal data assistant contracts with cloud service provider Google. The agreement has no particular instructions and limitations on the cloud service provider to handle the personal data occurs. The agreement also lacks data on safety Google is obliged to take to protect personal data being handled.

Data Inspectorate submits therefore that the school either as soon sign a personal data assistant contracts that meet the rules of the Data Protection Act, or stop using the cloud service.

- In the right school environment where such privacy-sensitive personal data relating to children and young people may be, it is especially important that those responsible really makes sure that personal data are handled in a legal manner, says Ingela Alverfors who led the review.

Read Data Services Authority in pdf format

Continued against the municipality to use cloud services

Continued against the municipality to use cloud services

June 10, 2013

The contract Salem municipality would subscribe to use Google's cloud service is not enough, says Information Commissioner.Either the shortcomings of the agreement addressed or municipality must stop using the cloud service.

2011 criticized the Data Inspection Salem municipality for its use of a cloud service from Google. The criticism concerned the lack of agreement meant that it did not comply with the rules of the Data Protection Act. The agreement gave Google too much space to process personal data for their own purposes. Moreover, did not the subcontractors who are involved and what happens to personal data when the contract ends.

Salem Municipality was requested to draw up a new agreement. Data Inspection Board has reviewed the new agreement, noting that the previous shortcomings persist.

- Therefore, we must once again submit to the municipality to either remedy the shortcomings of the agreement or to stop using the cloud service, says Ingela Alverfors, lawyer at the Swedish Data Inspection Board.

Read Data Services Authority in pdf format

Sunday, September 22, 2013

Sweden's Data Inspection Board (Datainspektionen) has told a Stockholmschool that they must either desist from using a Google cloud service

Sweden's Data Inspection Board (Datainspektionen) has told a Stockholmschool that they must either desist from using a Google cloud service or sign an agreement with the US firm which complies with the Personal Data Act.

It is especially important in a school environment, where there is sensitive private personal data relating to children and young people, that those responsible really make sure that personal data is handled in a legal manner," said Ingela Alverfors at the Data Inspection Board in a statement.
The school in question is the Rudbeck school in Sollentuna in northern Stockholm which uses the Google Apps for Education service which requires all teachers and pupils to open a Google account.

The Data Inspection Board has established that the school lacks an agreement with the US firm to cover the protection and management of personal information. The agreement would cover instructions and stipulate limits for handling data.

The school has therefore been instructed to establish such an agreement with Google in order to ensure the privacy and integrity of the students in its care. If the school declines to do so then they have been told to stop using the service.

Saturday, September 21, 2013

Mobility rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms do not give a Canadian citizen the automatic right to serve his or her prison sentence in Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled today.

Mobility rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms do not give a Canadian citizen the automatic right to serve his or her prison sentence in Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled today.

In Divito v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), the top court dismissed an appeal from Pierino Divito who argued his mobility rights were violated when then-Public Safety minister Vic Toews rejected his attempts to serve the remainder of his U.S. prison sentence in Canada. Toews claimed Divito’s connections to organized crime could pose a threat to Canadians.

Divito was sentenced on drug charges in connection with a massive Canadian drug bust in 1994. After serving two-thirds of his sentence in Canada, he was extradited to the United States on separate drug charges. He filed two applications to be transferred back to a Canadian prison, but to no avail. Divito, 76, has since finished serving his sentence and is now living in Montreal.

The SCC unanimously dismissed the appeal but was split on whether there was a technical violation of s. 6 of the Charter.

Aaron Harnett, a criminal defence lawyer in Toronto, calls Divito’s argument “a stretch.”

“All justices of the Supreme Court found that a Canadian serving a sentence abroad has no right to demand the Canadian government allow him to come back and serve his sentence in Canada. It didn’t even come close,” he tells Legal Feeds.

In the decision, Justice Rosalie Abella wrote: “The ability of prisoners to serve their sentence in Canada is therefore a creation of legislation. Independent of the [International Transfer of Offenders Act], there is no right to serve a foreign prison sentence in Canada. In my view, although the ITOA contemplates a mechanism by which a citizen may return to Canada in the limited context of continuing incarceration for the purpose of serving their foreign sentence, s. 6(1) does not confer a right on Canadian citizens to serve their foreign sentences in Canada.

“Independent of the ITOA, there is no right to serve a foreign prison sentence in Canada. The ITOA was not intended to create a right for Canadian citizens to require Canada to administer their foreign sentence. Nor does it impose a duty on the Canadian government to permit all such citizens to serve their foreign sentences in Canada,” she added.

Harnett says he doesn’t expect the ruling to have much effect on other cases.

“It is unlikely to have a widespread, negative impact on Canadians who are seeking to transfer their sentences to Canada. The reason is the mechanism that is in place for the exercise of discretion is one that is subject to judicial review and the minister’s discretion still has to be exercised taking into account Charter values,” he says.

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Date: 20130916 Docket: T-616-12 Citation: 2013 FC 953

Date: 20130916
Docket: T-616-12
T-619-12
T-620-12
T-621-12
T-633-12
T-634-12
T-635-12
Citation: 2013 FC 953
Ottawa, Ontario, September 16, 2013
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Mosley
BETWEEN:
T-616-12
LEANNE BIELLI
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
MARC MAYRAND
(THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER),
URMA ELLIS (RETURNING OFFICER
FOR DON VALLEY EAST), JOE DANIEL,
YASMIN RATANSI, MARY TRAPANI
HYNES, AKIL SADIKALI KIDD
RespondentsPage: 2
AND BETWEEN: T-619-12
SANDRA MCEWING AND BILL KERR
Applicants
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
MARC MAYRAND
(THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER),
JOHANNA GAIL DENESIUK (RETURNING
OFFICER FOR WINNIPEG SOUTH
CENTRE), JOYCE BATEMAN,
ANITA NEVILLE,
DENNIS LEWYCKY, JOSHUA MCNEIL,
LYNDON B. FROESE, MATT HENDERSON
Respondents
AND BETWEEN:
T-620-12
KAY BURKHART
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
MARC MAYRAND
(THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER),
DIANNE CELESTINE ZIMMERMAN
(RETURNING OFFICER FOR
SASKATOON-ROSETOWN-BIGGAR),
KELLY BLOCK, LEE REANEY,
VICKI STRELIOFF, NETTIE WIEBE
RespondentsPage: 3
AND BETWEEN:
T-621-12
JEFF REID
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
MARC MAYRAND
(THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER),
LAUREL DUPONT
(RETURNING OFFICER FOR
ELMWOOD-TRANSCONA),
JIM MALOWAY, ILONA NIEMCZYK,
LAWRENCE TOET, ELLEN YOUNG
Respondents
AND BETWEEN:
T-633-12
KEN FERANCE
AND
PEGGY WALSH CRAIG
Applicants
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
MARC MAYRAND
(THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER),
DIANNE JAMES MALLORY
(RETURNING OFFICER FOR
NIPISSING-TIMISKAMING),
JAY ASPIN, SCOTT EDWARD DALEY,
RONA ECKERT, ANTHONY ROTA
RespondentsPage: 4
AND BETWEEN:
T-634-12
YVONNE KAFKA
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
MARC MAYRAND
(THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER),
ALEXANDER GORDON (RETURNING
OFFICER FOR VANCOUVER
ISLAND NORTH), JOHN DUNCAN,
MIKE HOLLAND, RONNA-RAE LEONARD,
SUE MOEN, FRANK MARTIN,
JASON DRAPER
Respondents
AND BETWEEN:
T-635-12
THOMAS JOHN PARLEE
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
MARC MAYRAND
(THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER),
SUSAN J. EDELMAN
(RETURNING OFFICER FOR YUKON),
RYAN LEEF, LARRY BAGNELL,
KEVIN BARR, JOHN STREICKER
RespondentsPage: 5
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The Court issued judgment on May 23, 2013 in files T-619-12, T-620-12, T-621-12, T-633-
12, T-634-12 and T-635-12 dismissing applications to annul the results of the 2011 General
Election in six ridings won by the respondent Members of Parliament Joyce Bateman, Kelly Block,
Lawrence Toet, Jay Aspin, John Duncan and Ryan Leef.
[2] In addition to dismissing the applications, the Court awarded the respondent Members of
Parliament costs for the hearing in an amount to be fixed in accordance with the directions given in
the reasons for judgment and awarded the applicants costs for the motions in which they were
successful on a solicitor and client basis. The other responding parties were to bear their own costs.
[3] A seventh application, in file T-616-12, was dismissed on October 26, 2012 with costs
reserved to the applications judge upon the disposition of the other applications.
[4] In the Reasons for Judgment (2013 FC 525) the Court made the following comments
pertaining to the question of costs:
259 The right of citizen electors to seek to annul election results that they reasonably
believe to be tainted by fraud is, in my view, a matter of high public interest and analogous
to Charter litigation. A concern that has frequently been raised is that such litigation should
not be beyond the reach of the ordinary citizen. The courts have gone so far as to require that
a portion of the costs of such cases be paid by the opposing successful parties: M v H,
[1996] OJ No 2597 (QL) (Ct J (Gen Div)) at paras 17, 30; Lavigne, above, at para 106.
260 I am mindful of the fact that in this instance the applicants have received guarantees of
indemnification by a non-governmental organization which has been raising funds for that
purpose. But it is also apparent that the respondent MPs are supported by the resources of
the party to which they belong, resources which are underwritten by taxpayers.
261 These proceedings have had partisan overtones from the outset. That was particularly
evident in the submissions of the respondent MPs. In reviewing the procedural history and Page: 6
the evidence and considering the arguments advanced by the parties at the hearing, it has
seemed to me that the applicants sought to achieve and hold the high ground of promoting
the integrity of the electoral process while the respondent MPs engaged in trench warfare in
an effort to prevent this case from coming to a hearing on the merits.
262 Despite the obvious public interest in getting to the bottom of the allegations, the CPC
made little effort to assist with the investigation at the outset despite early requests. I note
that counsel for the CPC was informed while the election was taking place that the calls
about polling station changes were improper. While it was begrudgingly conceded during
oral argument that what occurred was “absolutely outrageous”, the record indicates that the
stance taken by the respondent MPs from the outset was to block these proceedings by any
means.
263 The preliminary stages were marked by numerous objections to the evidence adduced
by the applicants. The respondent MPs sought to strike the applications on the ground that
they were frivolous and vexatious, to have them dismissed as champertous and to require
excessive security for costs, in transparent attempts to derail this case.
264 There have been interlocutory decisions made by the case management prothonotaries
during the proceedings with related costs awards. The applicants are, in my view, entitled to
be awarded costs on each of the pre-hearing motions in which they have been successful on
a solicitor and client basis to be paid jointly and severally by the respondent MPs. This
applies also to the champerty motion and the motion to exclude the Graves evidence which
was brought initially in relation to the Don Valley East application and then deemed to
apply to each of the other applications.
265 Apart from the motion costs, and with the above considerations in mind, I am inclined
to order a modest fixed amount for the costs of the hearing. Absent an agreement as to the
amount, the respondent MPs may make written submissions limited to ten pages within
thirty days of the date of this judgment. The applicants will then have fifteen days in which
to respond and the respondent MPs another five days to reply. I will then award a fixed sum
in an amount I consider appropriate given the foregoing comments. The other respondents
will bear their own costs.
[5] The respondent Members of Parliament submit that they should be awarded compensation
in the amount of $120,000 based on the lowest tariff rate, or $60,000 if based on one-half of the
lowest tariff rate, for the costs of preparing and filing written submissions, and the cost of two
lawyers preparing for one week and attending at court. They also seek disbursements of
$235,907.56. The largest part of the claim for disbursements relates to payment for the services of
an expert witness, Dr. Ruth Corbin, in the amount of $166,363.79. The bulk of this would have been Page: 7
incurred prior to the hearing. Disbursements claimed for the hearing, without further explanation,
are $54,202.35. The balance relates to travel and accommodation costs prior to the hearing
($9,134.84), cross examination transcripts ($6,064.71), delivery costs ($112.49) and a driver’s
license search ($29.38).
[6] Noting that the applicants have not served any submissions concerning their costs on the
motions with respect to which they were successful, the respondent Members of Parliament submit
that their costs ought to be awarded and offset against the costs to be awarded to the applicants on a
solicitor and client basis for their success on the motions. The Court has no basis at present, apart
from the amount of time spent on the motions at the hearing, upon which to determine what those
costs may be.
[7] The applicants submit that in making a determination as to costs, access to justice should be
the Court’s paramount consideration, recognizing the public interest nature of the case and the
principle that the ability of citizens to bring such matters before the courts should not be deterred.
They ask that the Court consider whether, in light of its findings of fact in this matter and the
fundamental constitutional issue at stake, this is an appropriate case for the Court to decline to
award any costs. In the alternative, the applicants submit, that should the Court remain inclined to
award “a modest fixed amount for the cost of the hearing” the amount should be small and
considered modest from the point of view of individual citizens so as not to deter electors from
seeking to defend their democratic franchise. Page: 8
[8] With respect to the quantum of costs proposed by the respondent Members of Parliament,
the applicants submit that the amounts claimed are unjustified and inconsistent with the modest
fixed amount yardstick. By their calculation, total legal fees under the Column I of Tariff B
guidelines would be no more than $7,995.Any award for disbursements should exclude the
$54, 202.35 claimed for “hearing costs” and the entire amount claimed as expert witness costs in
light of the Court’s findings with regard to the nature and presentation of Dr. Corbin’s evidence and
the lack of any detailed account upon which the reasonableness of the claim could be assessed.
[9] As stated by Justice Paul Perell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Incredible
Electronics Inc v Canada (Attorney General), [2006] 80 OR (3d) 723 [Incredible Electronics] at
para 63:
As a matter of general principle, costs compensate the successful
litigant for the expense to which he or she has been put by the suit
having been improperly resisted or improperly brought: Ryan v.
McGregor, [1925] O.J. No. 126, 58 O.L.R. 213 (App. Div.). The
court's discretion to award costs is designed to further three
fundamental purposes in the administration of justice: (1) to
indemnify successful litigants for the costs of litigation, although not
necessarily completely; (2) to encourage settlements; and (3) to
discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour by litigants in their
conduct of the proceedings: British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v.
Okanagan Indian Band, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 371, [2003] S.C.J. No. 76;
Fong v. Chan (1999), 46 O.R. (3d) 330, [1999] O.J. No. 4600 (C.A.);
Fellowes, McNeil v. Kansa General International Insurance Co.
(1997), 37 O.R. (3d) 464, [1997] O.J. No. 5130 (Gen. Div.);
Skidmore v. Blackmore, [1995] B.C.J. No. 305, 122 D.L.R. (4th)
330 (C.A.).
[10] This is not a case in which the applications were improperly brought or where the applicants
engaged in inappropriate behaviour in their conduct of the proceedings. In contrast, as noted above,
I found that the respondent MPs “engaged in trench warfare in an effort to prevent this case from Page: 9
coming to a hearing on the merits” and adopted a stance aimed at blocking the applications “by any
means”. Settlement was not at any time a realistic outcome in light of the nature of the allegations
and the evidence that attempts had been made by parties unknown to interfere with the democratic
process.
[11] The Supreme Court has affirmed the importance of access to justice in public interest cases
and the duty of the courts to craft costs orders that support and promote this goal. As stated by
Justice Lebel for the majority in British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v Okanagan Indian Band
2003 SCC 71, [2003] 3 SCR 371, [2003] SCJ No 76 (QL), at para 27, courts should exercise the
power to award costs in a manner that:
…helps to ensure that ordinary citizens have access to the justice
system when they seek to resolve matters of consequence to the
community as a whole.
[12] Rule 400(1) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, confers full discretionary power on
the Court to determine the amount and allocation of costs. Rule 400(3) provides a list of factors the
Court may consider in awarding costs, including: the result of the proceeding; the importance and
complexity of the issues, the amount of work involved; whether the public interest in having the
proceedings litigated justifies a particular award of costs; and any conduct that tended to
unnecessarily lengthen the duration of the proceeding. Rule 400(4) allows the Court to award a
lump sum in lieu of, or in addition to, any assessed costs. Rule 400(6)(c) provides that the Court's
discretion includes the power to "award all or part of costs on a solicitor-and-client basis."
[13] Criteria for determining the circumstances where costs should not be awarded against a
person who commences public interest litigation were identified by the Ontario Law Reform Page: 10
Commission in its Report on the Law of Standing (Toronto: Ministry of the Attorney General,
1989):
a) The proceeding involves issues the importance of which extends
beyond the immediate interests of the parties involved.
b) The person has no personal, proprietary or pecuniary interest in
the outcome of the proceeding, or, if he or she has an interest, it
clearly does not justify the proceeding economically.
c) The issues have not been previously determined by a court in a
proceeding against the same defendant.
d) The defendant has a clearly superior capacity to bear the costs of
the proceeding.
e) The plaintiff has not engaged in vexatious, frivolous or abusive
conduct.
[14] These factors have been approved in a number of Canadian jurisdictions including the
Federal Court: see Harris v Canada, 2001 FCT 1408 at para 222; Guide Outfitters Association v
British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2005 BCCA 368 at para 8; Miller v
Boxall, 2007 SKQB 9 at para 5; Hastings Park Conservancy v Vancouver (City), 2007 BCSC 147 at
para 4; Victoria (City) v Adams, 2009 BCCA 563 [Victoria (City)] at para 185; R v Griffin, 2009
ABQB 696 at para 183; Georgia Strait Alliance v Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans)
[2011] FCJ No 587 (QL) (TD) at para 3.11, appeal allowed in part but not on the question of costs,
2012 FCA 40 Georgia Strait Alliance.
[15] In the Georgia Strait Alliance decision, Justice James Russell concluded at paragraph 3.14
that an order for costs on a solicitor and client basis was justified because of the “unjustifiably
evasive and obstructive approach” undertaken by the respondents in the case that “unnecessarily
lengthened and complicated the proceedings”. Similarly, in this matter I concluded that an order for
costs on a solicitor and client basis against the respondent Members of Parliament was justified Page: 11
because of the manner in which they had defended against the applications including the bringing of
motions that unnecessarily lengthened and complicated the proceedings.
[16] Adapting the principled approach set out in the Ontario Law Reform Commission report to
any case in which the court was being asked to depart from the normal rules as to costs, the British
Columbia Court of Appeal distilled the test into four elements at paragraph 188 of Victoria (City),
above:
1. The case involves matters of public importance that transcend the
immediate interests of the named parties, and which [had] not been
previously resolved;
2. The [claimant] has no personal, proprietary or pecuniary interest in the
outcome of the litigation that would justify the proceeding economically;
3. [The party opposing the claimant] has a superior capacity to bear the cost
of the proceeding; and
4. The [claimant] has not conducted the litigation in an abusive,
vexatious or frivolous manner.
[17] According to Perell J. in Incredible Electronics, above, where a litigant is seeking relief
from adverse costs liability these factors should be resolved by a single question namely, whether
the party is a genuine public interest litigant. Justice Perell stated at paragraph 83:
In my opinion, in the case at bar, the proposition that public interest
litigation requires special treatment should guide the exercise of my
discretion. Put differently, in my opinion, the applicants should not
be subject to the normal two-way costs regime if they can satisfy the
court that they are special interest litigants.
[18] I am satisfied that the applicants in this matter were genuine public interest litigants
motivated by a higher purpose. These proceedings fell squarely within the criteria endorsed by in
Harris and the other decisions cited above. The applications involved issues, the importance of
which extended beyond the immediate interests of the parties involved. The applicants had no Page: 12
personal, proprietary or pecuniary interest in the outcome that would have justified the proceedings
economically. They stood to gain nothing other than the vindication of their electoral rights. The
issues had not been previously determined by a court in proceedings against the same defendants
and the applicants did not engage in vexatious, frivolous or abusive conduct. This was not a case of
unwarranted election challenges. There was a factual foundation, albeit one which I ultimately
found fell short of meeting the statutory threshold required to annul the election results in their
ridings.
[19] The question of whether the applicants or the respondent MPs have a clearly superior
capacity to bear the costs of the proceedings is a neutral factor in this matter. Much was made of the
involvement of a third party organization, the Council of Canadians, in raising funds to indemnify
the applicants from an adverse costs award. As I noted, however, at para 260 of the Reasons for
Judgment, it was also apparent that the respondent Members of Parliament were supported by the
extensive resources of the political party to which they belong - resources which are underwritten
by Canadian taxpayers. That argument was not challenged during the hearing nor was anything
provided to me in the costs submissions to call it into question.
[20] The respondent Members of Parliament are, therefore, in a position analogous to that of
government respondents and defendants who have not been awarded costs in cases where they have
been successful in the result. See for example Harrison v University of British of Columbia, [1986]
BCJ No 2201 (QL), 30 DLR (4th) 206 (SC), additional reasons on costs [1986] BCJ No 1172 (QL),
[1987] 2 WWR 378 (SC), rev’d [1988] BCJ No 13 (QL), 21 BCLR (2d) 145 (CA), aff’d [1990] 3
SCR 451, [1990] SCJ No 123 (QL); Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v Page: 13
Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 4, [2004] 1 SCR 76; Sierra Club of Western Canada v
British Columbia (Attorney General), [1991] BCJ No 2613 (QL), 83 DLR (4th) 708 (SC).
[21] This is not a case such as Opitz v Wrzesnewskyj, 2012 SCC 55, [2012] SCJ No 55 (QL)
[Opitz], where a losing candidate challenged an election result based on clerical errors in voter
registration. In that case, the parties bore their own costs at first instance and on the appeal. Here,
the allegations were far more serious, being of electoral fraud. It would be incongruous, in my view,
to impose a greater burden upon the applicants who stepped forward to present those allegations,
than that considered appropriate in a contest between two candidates in which the challenger had
clear personal interests, including an economic interest, in the outcome.
[22] The applicants have argued that to impose any significant measure of costs against them
would have a chilling effect on electors who might be the victims of voter fraud in the future. I
agree. The fact that a third party has stepped forward to indemnify the applicants in this case can not
be counted upon as a solution for any case that might arise again. The respondent Members of
Parliament had the financial support of a major political party to conduct an aggressive no holds
barred defence against the applications and are not in jeopardy of absorbing the costs themselves. I
note also that Parliament has seen fit to fix a modest amount ($1,000) as the security for costs to be
paid when an election challenge is filed to discourage nuisance applications.
[23] I do not accept the respondent MPs’ contention that a ruling that unsuccessful applicants
should be relieved of the obligation to pay costs would clearly increase the “litigation margin”, of
which the Supreme Court warned in Opitz, with a resulting decrease of confidence by the public in Page: 14
the finality of elections. The Canada Elections Act, LC 2000 c.9 provides a mechanism in s 531(1)
for the early dismissal of applications that are “vexatious, frivolous or not made in good faith”.
[24] Having considered the matter further, I have reached the conclusion that the “modest fixed
amount for the costs of the hearing” that should be awarded the respondent MPs is the amount paid
into court for the seven applications, $7,000, plus disbursements of $6,206. I make no award for the
other costs incurred by the respondent MPs in preparation for and conduct of the hearing.
[25] In their reply submissions, the respondent MPs noted that it was to be expected that their
much higher costs on a lower scale and the applicants’ much lower costs on a higher (solicitor
client) scale would roughly balance each other. That was the Court’s intent. Given the conclusions
reached above, there is no longer any need to consider the award of solicitor and client costs to the
applicants for their success on the motions. Page: 15
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
1. the respondent Members of Parliament are awarded costs of $7,000 for the
hearing and disbursements of $6,206.
2. the amounts paid into court by the applicants may be released to the respondent
Members of Parliament in partial payment of the costs award; and
3. the Court will not determine an amount of costs to be paid on a solicitor and client
basis to the applicants for their success on the motions in this matter.
“Richard G. Mosley”
Judge FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-616-12, T-619-12 (T-620-12, T-621-12,
T-633-12, T-634-12, T-635-12)
STYLE OF CAUSE: LEEANNE BIELLI
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
MARC MAYRAND (THE CHIEF ELECTORAL
OFFICER), URMA ELLIS (RETURNING
OFFICER FOR DON VALLEY EAST),
JOE DANIEL, YASMIN RATANSI,
MARY TRANPANI HYNES,
AKIL SADIKALI, RYAN KIDD
AND BETWEEN: SANDRA MCEWING AND BILL KERR
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
MARC MAYRAND (THE CHIEF ELECTORAL
OFFICER), JOHANNA GAIL DENESIUK
RETURNING OFFICER FOR WINNIPEG
SOUTH CENTRE) JOYCE BATEMAN,
ANITA NEVILLE, DENNIS LEWYCKY,
JOSHUA MCNEIL, LYNDON B. FROESE,
MATT HENDERSON
AND BETWEEN KAY BURKHART
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
MARC MAYRAND (THE CHIEF ELECTORAL
OFFICER), DIANNE CELESTINE ZIMMERMAN
(RETURNING OFFICER FOR SASKATOON-
ROSETOWN-BIGGAR), KELLY BLOCK,
LEE REANEY, VICKI STRELIOFF, NETTIE WIEBE Page: 2
AND BETWEEN JEFF REID
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
MARC MAYRAND (THE CHIEF ELECTORAL
OFFICER), LAUREL DUPONT (RETURNING
OFFICER FOR ELMWOOD-TRANSCONA),
JIM MALOWAY, ILONA NIEMCZYK,
LAWRENCE TOET, ELLEN YOUNG
AND BETWEEN KEN FERANCE
AND PEGGY WALSH
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
MARC MAYRAND (THE CHIEF ELECTORAL
OFFICER), DIANNE JAMES MALLORY
(RETURNING OFFICER FOR NIPISSING-
TIMISKAMING), JAY ASPIN, SCOTT
EDWARD DALEY, RONA ECKERT,
ANTHONY ROTA
AND BETWEEN YVONNE KAFKA
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
MARC MAYRAND (THE CHIEF ELECTORAL
OFFICER), ALEXANDER GORDON
(RETURNING OFFICER FOR VANCOUVER
ISLAND NORTH), JOHN DUNCAN,
MIKE HOLLAND, RONNA-RAE LEONARD,
SUE MOEN, FRANK MARTIN, JASON DRAPER Page: 3
AND BETWEEN THOMAS JOHN PARLEE
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
MARC MAYRAND (THE CHIEF ELECTORAL
OFFICER), SUSAN J. ELELMAN (RETURNING
OFFICER FOR YUKON), RYAN LEEF,
LARRY BAGNELL, KEVIN BARR,
JOHN STREICKER
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: June 25, 2013 (costs submissions in writing)
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER: MOSLEY J.
DATED: September 16, 2013
APPEARANCES:
Steven Shrybman
Peter Engelmann
Benjamin Piper
FOR THE APPLICANTS
Barbara McIsaac
Marc Chenier
FOR THE RESPONDENT
(Marc Mayrand, Chief Electoral Officer)
Arthur Hamilton
Ted Frankel
Jeremy Martin
FOR THE RESPONDENT
(Responding Parliamentarians)
W. Thomas Barlow
Nick Shkordoff
FOR THE RESPONDENT
(Responding Market Group Inc) Page: 4
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
SACK GOLDBLATT
MITCHELL LLP
Ottawa, Ontario
FOR THE APPLICANTS
BORDEN LADNER
GERVAIS LLP
Ottawa, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT
(Marc Mayrand, Chief Electoral Officer)
CASSELS, BROCK &
BLACKWELL LLP
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT
(Responding Parliamentarians)
FASKEN MARTINEAU
DUMOULIN LLP
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT
(Responding Market Group Inc)

The geek with a cynical view