Is Gender Based Abortion Legal? Swedish Court Says Women Can Get As you can see in the article the headline stated that a Swedish Court The word court should not have been used. If you look at the original Thank you |
Sunday, May 24, 2009
email to findlaw.com about a bad reference
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Good news for Globe and Mail, a division of CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc.
Référence : Prochains jugements sur demandes d'autorisation Date : 19 mai 2009
|
Source: http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/fr/news_release/2009/09-05-19.2a/09-05-19.2a.html
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA ‑‑ JUDGMENTS TO BE RENDERED IN LEAVE APPLICATIONS
OTTAWA, 2009-05-19. THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA ANNOUNCED TODAY THAT JUDGMENT IN THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WILL BE DELIVERED AT 9:45 A.M. EDT ON THURSDAY, MAY 21, 2009. THIS LIST IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
FROM: SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (613) 995‑4330
COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA ‑‑ PROCHAINS JUGEMENTS SUR DEMANDES D’AUTORISATION
OTTAWA, 2009-05-19. LA COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA ANNONCE QUE JUGEMENT SERA RENDU DANS LES DEMANDES D’AUTORISATION D’APPEL SUIVANTES LE JEUDI 21 MAI 2009, À 9 H 45 HAE. CETTE LISTE EST SUJETTE À MODIFICATIONS.
SOURCE: COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA (613) 995‑4330
COMMENTS/COMMENTAIRES: comments@scc-csc.gc.ca
Note for subscribers:
The summaries of the cases are available at http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca:
Click on Cases and on SCC Case Information, type in the Case Number and press Search. Click on the Case Number on the Search Result screen, and when the docket screen appears, click on “Summary” which will appear in the left column.
Alternatively, click on
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/news_release/2009/09-05-19.2a/09-05-19.2a.html
Note pour les abonnés :
Les sommaires des causes sont affichés à l’adresse http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca :
Cliquez sur « Dossiers », puis sur « Renseignements sur les dossiers ». Tapez le no de dossier et appuyez sur « Recherche ». Cliquez sur le no du dossier dans les Résultats de la recherche pour accéder au Registre. Cliquez enfin sur le lien menant au « Sommaire » qui figure dans la colonne de gauche.
Autre façon de procéder : Cliquer sur
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/fr/news_release/2009/09-05-19.2a/09-05-19.2a.html
1. Globe and Mail, a division of CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada et al. (Que.) (Civil) (By Leave) (32975)
2. Globe and Mail, a division of CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada et al. (Que.) (Civil) (By Leave) (33114)
32975 Globe and Mail, a division of CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada and Groupe Polygone Éditeurs Inc.
(Que.) (Civil) (By Leave)
Charter of Rights - Freedom of expression - Civil procedure - Appeals - Discontinuance of proceedings - Interlocutory judgments - Whether a judgment refusing a discontinuance is a final judgment giving rise to an appeal as of right to the Court of Appeal - Whether a party’s right to discontinue legal proceedings is as fundamental as its right to institute them - Whether s. 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes protection of the media’s confidential sources - Whether media outlet may be forced to disclose confidential sources by a court, given that an appeal as of right may not exist.
The Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities serves as the backdrop to this application.
In 2005, the Attorney General of Canada instituted claims in the amount of 63 million dollars against various defendants, including the Respondent Le Groupe Polygone Éditeurs (“Polygone”), seeking the resolution of certain contracts as well as the reimbursement of sums paid pursuant to those contracts. In its defence, the Respondent Polygone sought to prove that the federal government had knowledge of the affair prior to 2002, and that as a result, the government’s claims were prescribed.
At Polygone’s request, the Superior Court ordered that 22 individuals, mostly current and former government employees, state in writing and under oath, whether they had given any information to the Applicant Globe and Mail’s reporter on the issue. The Globe and Mail filed a motion in revocation of judgment to have that order set aside.
At the hearing before the Superior Court on the motion in revocation, the Globe and Mail objected to certain questions directed at its journalist. The Superior Court dismissed the objections. The Court of Appeal refused to grant leave to appeal on the issue. Rather than have its journalist answer the questions posed by Polygone in the motion in revocation proceedings, the Globe and Mail opted to discontinue those proceedings. The Superior Court refused to allow the discontinuance. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
| November 5, 2008 Superior Court of Quebec (de Grandpré J.) |
| Discontinuance of proceedings denied |
|
|
|
|
| December 15, 2008 Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montréal) (Otis, Forget and Côté JJ.A.) Neutral citation: 2008 QCCA 2464 |
| Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
|
| January 21, 2009 Supreme Court of Canada |
| Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
|
32975 Globe and Mail, une division de CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. c. Procureur général du Canada et Groupe Polygone Éditeurs Inc.
(Qué.) (Civile) (Sur autorisation)
Charte des droits - Liberté d’expression - Procédure civile - Appels - Désistement d’instance - Jugements interlocutoires - Un jugement qui refuse un désistement est-il un jugement final donnant naissance à un appel de plein droit à la Cour d’appel? - Le droit d’une partie de se désister d’une instance judiciaire est-il aussi fondamental que son droit de l’introduire? - L’article 2 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés comprend-il la protection des sources confidentielles des médias? - Un média peut-il être contraint par un tribunal de divulguer des sources confidentielles, vu qu’il n’existe peut-être pas d’appel de plein droit?
La Commission d’enquête sur le programme de commandites et les activités publicitaires sert de toile de fond de la présente demande.
En 2005, le procureur général du Canada a introduit des demandes de 63 millions de dollars contre divers défendeurs, y compris l’intimée Le Groupe Polygone Éditeurs (« Polygone »), sollicitant la résolution de certains contrats et le remboursement de sommes payées en vertu de ces contrats. Dans sa défense, l’intimée Polygone a cherché à prouver que le gouvernement fédéral avait connaissance de l’affaire avant 2002, de sorte que les demandes du gouvernement étaient prescrites.
À la demande de Polygone, la Cour supérieure a ordonné à 22 personnes, surtout des employés et des ex-employés du gouvernement, de déclarer par écrit et sous serment, s’ils avaient communiqué au journaliste du demandeur Globe and Mail des renseignements sur la question. Le Globe and Mail a présenté une requête en révocation de jugement pour faire annuler cette ordonnance.
À l’audience en Cour supérieure sur la requête en révocation, le Globe and Mail s’est opposé à certaines questions posées à son journaliste. La Cour supérieure a rejeté ces objections. La Cour d’appel a refusé d’accorder l’autorisation d’appel sur la question. Plutôt que de faire en sorte que son journaliste réponde aux questions posées par Polygone dans la requête en révocation, le Globe and Mail a choisi de se désister de cette instance. La Cour supérieure a refusé d’autoriser le désistement. La Cour d’appel a rejeté l’appel.
| 5 novembre 2008 Cour supérieure du Québec (juge de Grandpré) |
| Désistement d’instance rejeté |
|
|
|
|
| 15 décembre 2008 Cour d’appel du Québec (Montréal) (juges Otis, Forget et Côté) Référence neutre : 2008 QCCA 2464 |
| Appel rejeté |
|
|
|
|
| 21 janvier 2009 Cour suprême du Canada |
| Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
|
|
|
|
33114 Globe and Mail, a division of CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada and Groupe Polygone Éditeurs Inc.
(Que.) (Civil) (By Leave)
Quebec Charter - Freedom of expression - Freedom of the press - Confidentiality of media sources - Civil procedure - Admissibility of evidence - Exclusion of evidence disclosing identity of confidential source - Does s. 3 of the Quebec Charter protect the media’s right to the confidentiality of its sources? - Does art. 2858 of the Civil Code, in conjunction with s. 3 of the Quebec Charter, require a judge to exclude or reject evidence disclosing the identity of a confidential source, the admission of which would tend to bring the administration of justice in to disrepute? - Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q., c. C-12, s. 3 - Civil Code of Quebec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, art. 2858.
The Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities serves as the backdrop to this application. In 2005, the Attorney General of Canada instituted claims in the amount of 63 million dollars against various defendants, including the Respondent Polygone, seeking the resolution of certain contracts as well as the reimbursement of sums paid pursuant to those contracts. The trial in this civil recovery action is scheduled to begin in October 2009 before the Superior Court of Quebec. In its defence, Polygone seeks to prove that the federal government had knowledge of the affair prior to 2002, and that as a result, the government’s claims are prescribed. Specifically, Polygone seeks to prove that a government employee had leaked information to a journalist employed by the Applicant, Globe and Mail, prior to the year 2002. At Polygone’s request, the Superior Court ordered that certain individuals, mostly current and former government employees, state in writing and under oath, whether they had given any information to the Globe and Mail’s reporter on the issue. The Globe and Mail filed a motion in revocation of judgment to have that order set aside. It argued, among other things, that the order violated its right to freedom of expression, particularly its right to protect its confidential sources. At the hearing before the Superior Court on the motion in revocation, the Globe and Mail objected to certain questions directed at its journalist on the basis that his sources were confidential. The Superior Court dismissed the objections. It is from this decision that the Globe and Mail now seeks leave to appeal to this Court.
| August 26, 2008 Superior Court of Quebec (de Grandpré J.) |
| Objections formulated during cross‑examination dismissed |
|
|
|
|
| April 6, 2009 Supreme Court of Canada |
| Application for leave to appeal and motion for extension of time filed |
|
|
|
|
| April 30, 2009 Supreme Court of Canada |
| Motion to expedite application for leave to appeal granted |
|
|
|
|
33114 Globe and Mail, une division de CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. c. Procureur général du Canada et Groupe Polygone Éditeurs Inc.
(Qc) (Civile) (Sur autorisation)
Charte québécoise - Liberté d’expression - Liberté de presse - Confidentialité des sources médiatiques - Procédure civile - Admissibilité de la preuve - Exclusion de la preuve révélant l’identité d’une source confidentielle - L’article 3 de la Charte québécoise protège-t-il le droit d’un média à la confidentialité de ses sources? - L’article 2858 du Code civil, en corrélation avec l’art. 3 de la Charte québécoise, oblige-t-il le juge à exclure ou rejeter une preuve qui révèle l’identité d’une source confidentielle, dont l’admission tendrait à déconsidérer l’administration de la justice? - Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q., ch. C-12, art. 3 - Code civil du Québec, L.Q. 1991, ch. 64, art. 2858.
La Commission d’enquête sur le programme de commandites et les activités publicitaires sert de toile de fond de la présente demande. En 2005, le procureur général du Canada a introduit des demandes de 63 millions de dollars contre divers défendeurs, y compris l’intimée Le Groupe Polygone Éditeurs (« Polygone »), sollicitant la résolution de certains contrats et le remboursement de sommes payées en vertu de ces contrats. Le procès dans cette affaire en recouvrement au civil doit commencer en octobre 2009 en Cour supérieure du Québec. Dans sa défense, Polygone cherche à prouver que le gouvernement fédéral avait connaissance de l’affaire avant 2002, de sorte que les demandes du gouvernement sont prescrites. Plus particulièrement, Polygone cherche à prouver qu’un employé du gouvernement a divulgué des renseignements à un journaliste au service du demandeur, le Globe and Mail, avant l’année 2002. À la demande de Polygone, la Cour supérieure a ordonné à certaines personnes, surtout des employés et des ex-employés du gouvernement, de déclarer par écrit et sous serment, s’ils avaient communiqué au journaliste du Globe and Mail des renseignements sur la question. Le Globe and Mail a présenté une requête en révocation de jugement pour faire annuler cette ordonnance. Il a plaidé, entre autres, que l’ordonnance violait son droit à la liberté d’expression, particulièrement son droit de protéger ses sources confidentielles. À l’audience en Cour supérieure sur la requête en révocation, le Globe and Mail s’est opposé à certaines questions posées à son journaliste, plaidant que ses sources étaient confidentielles. La Cour supérieure a rejeté ces objections. C’est de cette décision que le Globe and Mail sollicite maintenant l’autorisation d’appel à cette Cour.
| 26 août 2008 Cour supérieure du Québec (juge de Grandpré) |
| Objections formulées pendant le contre-interrogatoire rejetées |
|
|
|
|
| 6 avril 2009 Cour suprême du Canada |
| Demande d’autorisation d’appel et requête en prorogation de délai déposées |
|
|
|
|
| 30 avril 2009 Cour suprême du Canada |
| Requête visant à accélérer la procédure de demande d’autorisation d’appel accueillie |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Ok i am Mad at The Supreme Court of Canada!
This will come up again &
again!
Supreme Court of Canada won't hear Afghan detainee case
Last Updated: Thursday, May 21, 2009 | 11:14 AM ET Comments122Recommend45
CBC News
The Supreme Court of Canada said Thursday it will not hear arguments that captives handed over to Afghan authorities by Canadian troops should be protected by the Charter of Rights.
As is its custom, the court did not give reasons for its decision.
The issue sparked controversy two years ago when published reports detailed claims from Afghan prisoners who said they were tortured at the hands of local authorities after being handed over by Canadian soldiers.
Lawyer Amir Attaran, a University of Ottawa professor, has acted as co-counsel for Amnesty International Canada and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, which brought the case.
"We've seen absolutely zero evidence that Afghanistan has stopped torturing detainees," Attaran said Wednesday.
Alex Neve, the secretary general of Amnesty International, said a soldier standing on Canadian soil is clearly prohibited from handing over a captive to someone who may torture that prisoner.
"Why should that be any different simply because the soldier has left the country? They're still a Canadian soldier operating according to Canadian law, deployed in Afghanistan pursuant to a decision of the Canadian Parliament."
The Federal Court of Canada, in a decision upheld on appeal, ruled the charter does not automatically follow soldiers overseas and that foreign prisoners must rely on international law.
More than 2,800 Canadian soldiers are serving in Afghanistan as part of the NATO mission.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
this is what a Stick pusher is.
Stick pusher
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A stick pusher is a device installed in some fixed-wing aircraft to prevent the aircraft from entering an aerodynamic stall. Some large fixed-wing aircraft display poor post-stall handling characteristics or are vulnerable to deep stall. To prevent such an aircraft approaching the stall the aircraft designer may install a hydraulic or electro-mechanical device that pushes forward on the elevator control system whenever the aircraft’s angle of attack reaches the pre-determined value, and then ceases to push when the angle of attack falls sufficiently. A system for this purpose is known as a stick pusher.
The safety requirements applicable to fixed-wing aircraft in the transport category, and also to many military aircraft, are very demanding in the area of pre-stall handling qualities and stall recovery. Some of these aircraft are unable to comply with these safety requirements relying solely on the natural aerodynamic qualities of the aircraft. In order to comply with the requirements aircraft designers may install a system that will constantly monitor the critical parameters and will automatically activate to reduce the angle of attack when necessary to avoid a stall. The critical parameters include the angle of attack, airspeed, wing flap setting and load factor. Action by the pilot is not required to recognise the problem or react to it.
Aircraft designers who install stick pushers recognise that there is the risk that a stick pusher may activate erroneously when not required to do so. The designer must make provision for the flight crew to deal with unwanted activation of a stick pusher. In some aircraft equipped with stick pushers, the stick pusher can be overpowered by the pilot. In other aircraft, the stick pusher system can be manually disabled by the pilot.
Stick pushers should not be confused with stick shakers. A stick shaker is a stall warning device whereas a stick pusher is a stall avoidance device.
See also
Monday, May 11, 2009
Not a good day for the FAA!!
By ANDY PASZTOR
The captain of a commuter plane that crashed Feb. 12 near Buffalo, N.Y., had flunked numerous flight tests during his career and was never adequately taught how to respond to the emergency that led to the airplane's fatal descent, according to people close to the investigation.
All 49 people aboard were killed, as well as one person in a house below, when the plane crashed just a few miles short of the Buffalo airport en route from Newark, N.J. The Bombardier Q400 turboprop in the crash, which will be the subject of a National Transportation Safety Board hearing Tuesday, was operated by commuter carrier Colgan Air Inc., a division of Pinnacle Airlines Corp.
Capt. Marvin Renslow had never been properly trained by the company to respond to a warning system designed to prevent the plane from going into a stall, according to people familiar with the investigation. As the speed slowed to a dangerous level, setting off the stall-prevention system, he did the opposite of the proper procedure, which led to the crash, these people said.
Additionally, his 24-year-old co-pilot, Rebecca Shaw, had complained before takeoff about being congested and said she probably should have called in sick, according to people who have listened to the cockpit voice recording.
To get more info see this!
Friday, May 8, 2009
Government appeals Khadr court ruling now the fun starts
Government appeals Khadr court ruling
Last Updated: Friday, May 8, 2009 | 9:36 PM ET Comments148Recommend28
CBC News
The government is appealing a Federal Court judge's ruling that Canada must press the United States for the return of Omar Khadr from the Guantanamo Bay detention centre, officials confirmed Friday.
Federal officials have filed an appeal of Justice James O'Reilly's ruling that Canada must "present a request to the United States for Mr. Khadr's repatriation as soon as practicable."
Khadr is accused of killing a U.S. soldier with a hand grenade during a gunfight in Afghanistan in 2002. Khadr, now 22, was 15 at the time he was detained in Afghanistan.
In the Federal Court decision issued last month, the judge pointed out that Khadr is the last citizen of any Western country held at the Guantanamo Bay detention centre. Other countries have repatriated their citizens.
The U.S. and Canadian governments are signatories to a United Nations protocol that states fighters under age 18 are to be considered child soldiers and must be released and helped to reintegrate into society.
Like all Guantanamo prosecutions, Khadr's case is on hold pending a review by U.S. President Barack Obama's administration.
With files from The Canadian Press----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK so this is going to be going to the supreme Court of Canada
not good for the government but it will make the Conservative Party of Canada, look like a morons!! but that's OK with me!!!!!