Saturday, July 17, 2010
Friday, July 16, 2010
CRTC refuses Sun TV’s bid for preferred status .
CRTC refuses Sun TV’s bid for preferred status on dial
Regulator tells Quebecor it won’t make exception on decision to hold new Category 1 licenses until October, 2011
Published on Thursday, Jul. 15, 2010 6:31PM EDT
Last updated on Thursday, Jul. 15, 2010 7:05PM EDT
.In its application to operate the Sun TV News channel, Quebecor Inc. argued its all-news specialty station was poised to create “a completely new genre in Canada.” Now, it appears the federal broadcast regulator disagrees.
In a private letter sent to Quebecor on July 5, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission rejected Quebecor’s request for a rare must-carry license. It would have guaranteed distribution by all cable and satellite firms – and the subscriber fees that come along with that distribution.
The license Quebecor requested – known as a Category 1, soon to be Category A – is rarely granted, and in March of this year, the CRTC announced that it would not consider any new applications for those licenses before October, 2011.
Quebecor applied anyway, asking for special consideration. Its reasoning, according to the letter, was that Sun TV News would be “an Information & Analysis channel,” and therefore different than its all-news competitors.
The CRTC rebuffed that claim. In the letter, Peter Foster, the director general of television policy and applications, suggested that there was little to distinguish Sun TV from other all-news services, since “news and analysis are sub-categories of the information programming category … news would be broadcast throughout the day … [and] in promotional material, the proposed service is referred to as the Sun TV News Channel.”
Quebecor now has two options. It can apply for a standard Category 2 specialty service, which is relatively easy to obtain: it simply creates a digital specialty channel, and the onus is on the people running the channel to negotiate distribution with cable and satellite companies.
“Therefore, it would appear to be a relatively straightforward process for your proposal to be amended to be an application for a licence to operate a competitive news service, which could be considered without delay,” Mr. Foster wrote.
The other option is for Sun TV to remain an over-the-air broadcast station, and simply change its programming to the proposed all-news format. Distributors could choose to pick up that signal – the station has transmitters in London and Toronto – and potentially carry it across the country. However, it would not receive any of the fees given to specialty channels.
But Kory Teneycke, the head of the project, said Quebecor will not pursue the second option.
“We’re looking for a cable specialty license. That’s what our initial application is for, and that’s what we’re aiming for,” he said.
Quebecor will soon submit “an amended application,” Mr. Teneycke said. He would not comment on the details of that application, or whether the company would request a standard Category 2 license.
“We’re not particularly fazed by that letter. We’re focused on moving forward,” Mr. Teneycke said. “We’re confident that we’ll have a license in time for our projected launch, and one that will satisfy our needs on the business side.”
The channel is set to launch on Jan. 1, 2011
Regulator tells Quebecor it won’t make exception on decision to hold new Category 1 licenses until October, 2011
Published on Thursday, Jul. 15, 2010 6:31PM EDT
Last updated on Thursday, Jul. 15, 2010 7:05PM EDT
.In its application to operate the Sun TV News channel, Quebecor Inc. argued its all-news specialty station was poised to create “a completely new genre in Canada.” Now, it appears the federal broadcast regulator disagrees.
In a private letter sent to Quebecor on July 5, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission rejected Quebecor’s request for a rare must-carry license. It would have guaranteed distribution by all cable and satellite firms – and the subscriber fees that come along with that distribution.
The license Quebecor requested – known as a Category 1, soon to be Category A – is rarely granted, and in March of this year, the CRTC announced that it would not consider any new applications for those licenses before October, 2011.
Quebecor applied anyway, asking for special consideration. Its reasoning, according to the letter, was that Sun TV News would be “an Information & Analysis channel,” and therefore different than its all-news competitors.
The CRTC rebuffed that claim. In the letter, Peter Foster, the director general of television policy and applications, suggested that there was little to distinguish Sun TV from other all-news services, since “news and analysis are sub-categories of the information programming category … news would be broadcast throughout the day … [and] in promotional material, the proposed service is referred to as the Sun TV News Channel.”
Quebecor now has two options. It can apply for a standard Category 2 specialty service, which is relatively easy to obtain: it simply creates a digital specialty channel, and the onus is on the people running the channel to negotiate distribution with cable and satellite companies.
“Therefore, it would appear to be a relatively straightforward process for your proposal to be amended to be an application for a licence to operate a competitive news service, which could be considered without delay,” Mr. Foster wrote.
The other option is for Sun TV to remain an over-the-air broadcast station, and simply change its programming to the proposed all-news format. Distributors could choose to pick up that signal – the station has transmitters in London and Toronto – and potentially carry it across the country. However, it would not receive any of the fees given to specialty channels.
But Kory Teneycke, the head of the project, said Quebecor will not pursue the second option.
“We’re looking for a cable specialty license. That’s what our initial application is for, and that’s what we’re aiming for,” he said.
Quebecor will soon submit “an amended application,” Mr. Teneycke said. He would not comment on the details of that application, or whether the company would request a standard Category 2 license.
“We’re not particularly fazed by that letter. We’re focused on moving forward,” Mr. Teneycke said. “We’re confident that we’ll have a license in time for our projected launch, and one that will satisfy our needs on the business side.”
The channel is set to launch on Jan. 1, 2011
Thursday, July 15, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: R. v. Shea, 2010 SCC 26 Date: 20100715 Docket: 33466
Source: http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2010/2010scc26/2010scc26.html
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Citation: R. v. Shea, 2010 SCC 26
Date: 20100715
Docket: 33466
Between:
Her Majesty The Queen
Applicant
and
Thomas Robert Shea
Respondent
Coram: LeBel, Deschamps and Cromwell JJ.
Reasons for judgment (application for leave to appeal):
(paras. 1 to 13)
Cromwell J. (LeBel and Deschamps JJ. concurring)
Note: This document is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form in the Canada Supreme Court Reports.
______________________________
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
Cromwell J. —
[1] The applicant Crown applies for leave to appeal from an order of the Ontario Court of Appeal granting the respondent an extension of time to serve and file his notice of appeal. As a question about the Court's jurisdiction to grant leave was raised, this Court ordered an oral hearing. I would dismiss the application for leave to appeal as it raises no question of sufficient importance within the meaning of s. 40(1) of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26. Our review of the jurisprudence reveals that the courts of appeal recognize that there are narrow circumstances where a court can reconsider the decision of a judge sitting alone. We are not persuaded from the record that guidance is required on this question or that the circumstances of this case warrant granting the application.
[2] The respondent was convicted of historical sexual offences. He was sentenced to imprisonment for two years less one day. Some eight and one half years later, the respondent sought from a judge of the Court of Appeal sitting alone an extension of time to serve and file a notice of appeal against conviction. His motion was dismissed. Subsequently, a three‑judge panel of the Court of Appeal granted the motion in the interests of justice. The Crown seeks leave to appeal, challenging the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to overturn the decision rendered by one of its judges. The question is whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
[3] The relevant jurisdictional provision is s. 40(1) of the Supreme Court Act which currently reads as follows:
40. (1) Subject to subsection (3), an appeal lies to the Supreme Court from any final or other judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal or of the highest court of final resort in a province, or a judge thereof, in which judgment can be had in the particular case sought to be appealed to the Supreme Court, whether or not leave to appeal to the Supreme Court has been refused by any other court, where, with respect to the particular case sought to be appealed, the Supreme Court is of the opinion that any question involved therein is, by reason of its public importance or the importance of any issue of law or any issue of mixed law and fact involved in that question, one that ought to be decided by the Supreme Court or is, for any other reason, of such a nature or significance as to warrant decision by it, and leave to appeal from that judgment is accordingly granted by the Supreme Court.
Jurisdiction to grant leave under s. 40(1) extends to any final or other judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal or of the highest court of final resort in a province in which judgment can be had in the particular case. On it face, this language is broad enough to include the order which is the subject of this leave application, subject of course to the requirement that the question involved in the case be of sufficient importance. This conclusion is reinforced by the expansive definition of “judgment” in s. 2 of the Act. I note that while s. 40(3) of the Act, read in conjunction with ss. 691-693 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, excludes many criminal appeals from the ambit of s. 40(1), the present application is not so excluded.
[4] The main authority supporting the view that the Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this leave application is Hind v. The Queen, [1968] S.C.R. 234. In that case, a three-judge panel of this Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal from the refusal of a Court of Appeal to grant an extension of time to hear a sentence appeal. The Court relied on Goldhar v. The Queen, [1960] S.C.R. 60, Paul v. The Queen, [1960] S.C.R. 452, and R. v. J. Alepin Frères Ltée, [1965] S.C.R. 359. However, each of those cases has been overruled by subsequent decisions of the Court and, in my view, the time has come to say that Hind itself should no longer be followed.
[5] As noted in Hill v. The Queen, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 827, and subsequently in R. v. Gardiner, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 368, the changes made in 1949 to what is now s. 40 resulted in large part from the change in the role of this Court when appeals to the Privy Council were abolished. Not only was the wording of the provision changed, but the Court, in light of its role as the final court of appeal for Canada, took a broader approach to the interpretation of its appellate jurisdiction which was inconsistent with many earlier decisions, including the cases relied upon by the Court in Hind.
[6] Hill itself was a turning point. In that case, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to lengthen the Appellant’s sentence when there had been no cross-appeal by the Crown. As this was a sentencing issue, the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the appeal was squarely before the Court as were its earlier decisions which had taken a narrow view of its jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal from sentencing decisions. The Court in Hill specifically refused to follow Goldhar and held that s. 41(1) (now s. 40(1)) was to have a broad interpretation rather than the narrow interpretation previously attributed to it.
[7] The Court in Hill also noted that Goldhar had been followed in Paul which was in turn relied upon in J. Alepin Frères and R. v. MacDonald, [1965] S.C.R. 831. In considering the proper interpretation of s. 41(1) in light of legislative changes, the Court held at p. 850:
... the literal construction [i.e. of the words “final or other judgment”] is preferable not only because in the absence of ambiguity the literal meaning should always be adhered to despite any inconsistencies short of absurdity, but also because any assumption that Parliament did not intend to depart from the previous state of the law is unjustified. Section 41 was enacted substantially in its present form at the time when appeals to the Privy Council were being abolished and this Court was being made truly supreme. The Privy Council had enjoyed unlimited jurisdiction by special leave and it is apparent that the new provision was intended to effect the change from a limited specific jurisdiction to a broad general jurisdiction. To hold that the inconsistencies resulting from this sweeping change indicate the intention of leaving some wide gaps open is, in my view, entirely unwarranted. On the contrary, the enactment of a provision that undoubtedly confers some jurisdiction in criminal matters beyond that existing under the Criminal Code, clearly indicates Parliament’s will to remedy the omission to extend the jurisdiction of this Court in criminal cases when the Privy Council’s jurisdiction in such cases was effectively abolished after the Statute of Westminster.
Thus, while it explicitly stated that fitness of sentence should never be considered by the Court, the earlier jurisprudence indicating that the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear appeals from sentencing decisions was no longer good law. That earlier jurisprudence included the three key decisions relied upon by the Court in Hind.
[8] In 1982, in Gardiner, this Court considered once again its jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal from sentencing decisions and affirmed the breadth of its authority to grant leave under what is now s. 40(1) of the Supreme Court Act. Dickson J. (as he then was) stated at pp. 397-98:
It is incorrect, however, in my opinion, to characterize our justifiable reluctance to consider questions of fitness of sentence as lack of jurisdiction. It is to compound the error to extend the argument of lack of jurisdiction to what are clearly important questions of law arising out of the sentencing process. The function of this Court is precisely that, to settle questions of law of national importance in the interests of promoting uniformity in the application of the law across the country, especially with respect to matters of federal competence. To decline jurisdiction is to renounce the paramount responsibility of an ultimate appellate court with national authority.
...
It is important to remember that between Goldhamer and Goldhar significant revisions to the Supreme Court Act had intervened in 1949. The Supreme Court had replaced the Privy Council as the ultimate appeal court for Canada.
With respect to Hill, the Court in Gardiner stated at pp. 402-4:
In Hill, all nine judges joined in support of the view that s. 41 [now s. 40] of the Supreme Court Act was intended to confer a broad general jurisdiction, beyond that existing under the Criminal Code. The Court rejected as “entirely unwarranted” the notion dominating the Goldhar line of cases that possible inconsistencies arising from a broad construction of s. 41 indicated Parliamentary intention to leave some wide gaps open.
...
... Hill gave the quietus to Goldhar and to the abnegation which underpinned that decision and those which followed in its wake. Hill mandated an expansive reading of s. 41(1), the better to enable this Court to discharge its role at the apex of the Canadian judicial system, as the court of last resort for all Canadians.
If policy considerations are to enter the picture, as they often do, there would appear to me to be every reason why this Court should remain available to adjudicate upon difficult and important questions of law in the sentencing process, in particular where there are, as here, conflicting opinions expressed in the provinces. Indeed we are asked, in effect, in this appeal to decide between two opinions of the Ontario Court of Appeal which are in direct conflict. I can see no advantage to litigants or to the orderly administration of justice in closing doors which do not have to be closed.
[9] A similar evolution may be observed with respect to the Court’s jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal when the highest appellate tribunal in the province has refused leave to appeal to it. The Court held in Ernewein v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 639, that it did not have jurisdiction in such cases. However, in 1986, the Court revisited this question and decided in favour of its jurisdiction. In MacDonald v. City of Montreal, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 460, the Court considered its jurisdiction to consider the appellate court’s refusal to grant leave to appeal and overturned Ernewein and expanded upon its reasoning in Hill, Gardiner and subsequent cases thereby indicating that “final or other judgment” provides jurisdiction to this Court to hear any issue it deems to be of sufficient importance as long as resort to s. 40 is not excluded by s. 40(3) of the Supreme Court Act. Wilson J. discussed the question in these terms in MacDonald v. City of Montreal, at pp. 508-9:
The proposition that under s. 41(1) the Court has jurisdiction to intervene even in the case of discretionary decisions of intermediate appellate courts is supported by other provisions of the Supreme Court Act. Section 44, for example, provides that the Court has no power to hear an appeal from a judgment or order made in the exercise of judicial discretion except where leave to appeal is granted by this Court pursuant to s. 41 of the Act. The section 44 restriction on the Court’s power would clearly apply to appeals arising under s. 38 of the Act, i.e., where a provincial court of appeal had granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. It would also apply to appeals arising under s. 39 of the Act, i.e., where the parties have agreed to appeal a judgment of a lower court directly to the Supreme Court of Canada instead of to the provincial Court of Appeal. Accordingly, in the less usual situations in which leave to appeal to this Court is not granted by a panel of this Court, the statutory jurisdiction excludes appeals from the exercise of judicial discretion. On the other hand, the explicit exception of s. 41 from the s. 44 restriction serves to indicate that where the route to this Court is the more usual one, i.e., where leave to appeal is granted by this Court itself, its jurisdiction is not restricted to non‑discretionary decisions. Rather, under s. 41 of the Act the Court’s jurisdiction is confined only by its own exercise of discretion in determining which decisions of an intermediate appellate court are of sufficient national importance to warrant a grant of leave.
It was stated in R. v. Gardiner, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 368, that while there are many instances in which this Court is justifiably reluctant to intervene in decisions of the courts below, it is incorrect to confuse this attitude of reluctance with lack of jurisdiction. Dickson J. (as he then was) came to his conclusion as to the broad ambit of the Court’s jurisdiction after a thorough survey of its history and a consequent appreciation of its expanded role and increased significance since the days when most appeals were as of right and the Supreme Court of Canada was itself an intermediate appellate court. Given this expansion, the broadly phrased statutory language in which the Court’s jurisdiction was framed, and the role of the Court as the ultimate appellate tribunal, he concluded that in the absence of any irrefutable indication to the contrary, the Court’s jurisdiction should not be restrictively construed. [Emphasis added.]
As explained later in Roberge v. Bolduc, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 374, at pp. 392-93:
Any doubt on the issue of jurisdiction is, in my view, resolved by MacDonald v. City of Montreal, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 460, where, as here, the Court of Appeal refused to grant leave to appeal. Although dissenting on the constitutional issue involved, Wilson J. spoke on the issue of jurisdiction at p. 508:
Under s. 41(1) of the Supreme Court Act [now s. 40(1)] this Court retains the discretionary power to interfere with any final or other judgment of the intermediate appellate courts which raises an issue of national importance. This discretion is itself broadly phrased so as to include any case with respect to which “... the Supreme Court is of the opinion that any question involved therein is, by reason of its public importance or the importance of any issue of law or any issue of mixed law and fact involved in such question, one that ought to be decided by the Supreme Court or is, for any other reason, of such a nature or significance as to warrant decision by it ... .” While a certain amount of deference to the undoubted competence of intermediate appellate courts to control their own leave granting process is called for, it is equally evident that this Court’s jurisdiction to exercise its own discretion in intervening in such decisions is not statutorily confined. [Emphasis added.]
[10] In 1995, the Court considered R. v. Hinse, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 597. In that case, the Court of Appeal set aside the appellant’s conviction but rather than ordering a new trial, it entered a stay of proceedings. Unhappy with the lack of finality and statement of innocence, the appellant wished to appeal the order of stay of proceedings to this Court. Initially, this Court refused leave to appeal but reconsidered its decision and in doing so, discussed the jurisdiction of the Court as found in s. 40(1). The Court noted the concern that an appellate court, in making an order pursuant to s. 686(8) of the Criminal Code, could overstep its own jurisdiction and make an order in direct contradiction of the underlying judgment. It expressed the need for a broad and liberal interpretation of s. 40(1), stating at paras. 34-35:
Given this troubling concern, I am inclined to adopt a more generous interpretation of s. 40(1) (and a correspondingly more narrow interpretation of s. 40(3)) which would facilitate this Court’s supervisory role in ensuring the underlying consistency of appellate court orders rendered under the procedural regime of the Criminal Code.
For all the foregoing reasons, I am persuaded that an accused or the Crown ought to be permitted to independently seek leave to appeal the legality of an order rendered under s. 686(8) as a “final or other judgment ... of the highest court of final resort in a province” under this Court's general jurisdiction under s. 40(1) of the Supreme Court Act.
[11] I conclude my review of the cases with R. v. Mentuck, 2001 SCC 76, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 442. Although this case involved a publication ban, the Court made a general comment regarding its jurisdiction under s. 40(1) at para. 20:
The Supreme Court Act was passed to allow this Court to serve as a “general court of appeal for Canada”, and s. 40 must be read in light of the purpose of the Court’s enabling legislation. Unless the Court is specifically prohibited from entertaining appeals by s. 40(3) of the Act, it may grant leave to hear any appeal from the decision of any “court of final resort” in Canada. Parliament has seen fit to provide generally for rational routes of appeal in criminal cases. In these cases, we cannot take jurisdiction, nor would we wish to. But a purposive approach to s. 40 requires the Court to take jurisdiction where no other appellate court can do so, unless an explicit provision bars all appeals. Section 40(1) ensures that even though specific legislative provisions on jurisdiction are lacking, this Court may fill the void until Parliament devises a satisfactory solution. [Emphasis added.]
[12] I conclude that under s. 40(1) of the Act, the Court has jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal from an order “of the Federal Court of Appeal or of the highest court of final resort in a province, or a judge thereof, in which judgment can be had in the particular case” refusing or granting an extension of time to an appellant in an indictable appeal and that the order from which leave to appeal is sought is such an order. However, I would emphasize that the existence of this jurisdiction does not in any way alter the test applicable under s. 40(1), namely that the question “is, by reason of its public importance or the importance of any issue of law or any issue of mixed law and fact involved in that question, one that ought to be decided by the Supreme Court or is, for any other reasons, of such a nature or significance as to warrant decision by it”. It seems to me that only in very rare circumstances would a proposed appeal from an order granting an extension of time for appealing meet this test.
[13] While I would affirm the Court’s jurisdiction to grant leave, I would dismiss the application for leave to appeal without costs.
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Citation: R. v. Shea, 2010 SCC 26
Date: 20100715
Docket: 33466
Between:
Her Majesty The Queen
Applicant
and
Thomas Robert Shea
Respondent
Coram: LeBel, Deschamps and Cromwell JJ.
Reasons for judgment (application for leave to appeal):
(paras. 1 to 13)
Cromwell J. (LeBel and Deschamps JJ. concurring)
Note: This document is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form in the Canada Supreme Court Reports.
______________________________
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
Cromwell J. —
[1] The applicant Crown applies for leave to appeal from an order of the Ontario Court of Appeal granting the respondent an extension of time to serve and file his notice of appeal. As a question about the Court's jurisdiction to grant leave was raised, this Court ordered an oral hearing. I would dismiss the application for leave to appeal as it raises no question of sufficient importance within the meaning of s. 40(1) of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26. Our review of the jurisprudence reveals that the courts of appeal recognize that there are narrow circumstances where a court can reconsider the decision of a judge sitting alone. We are not persuaded from the record that guidance is required on this question or that the circumstances of this case warrant granting the application.
[2] The respondent was convicted of historical sexual offences. He was sentenced to imprisonment for two years less one day. Some eight and one half years later, the respondent sought from a judge of the Court of Appeal sitting alone an extension of time to serve and file a notice of appeal against conviction. His motion was dismissed. Subsequently, a three‑judge panel of the Court of Appeal granted the motion in the interests of justice. The Crown seeks leave to appeal, challenging the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to overturn the decision rendered by one of its judges. The question is whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
[3] The relevant jurisdictional provision is s. 40(1) of the Supreme Court Act which currently reads as follows:
40. (1) Subject to subsection (3), an appeal lies to the Supreme Court from any final or other judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal or of the highest court of final resort in a province, or a judge thereof, in which judgment can be had in the particular case sought to be appealed to the Supreme Court, whether or not leave to appeal to the Supreme Court has been refused by any other court, where, with respect to the particular case sought to be appealed, the Supreme Court is of the opinion that any question involved therein is, by reason of its public importance or the importance of any issue of law or any issue of mixed law and fact involved in that question, one that ought to be decided by the Supreme Court or is, for any other reason, of such a nature or significance as to warrant decision by it, and leave to appeal from that judgment is accordingly granted by the Supreme Court.
Jurisdiction to grant leave under s. 40(1) extends to any final or other judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal or of the highest court of final resort in a province in which judgment can be had in the particular case. On it face, this language is broad enough to include the order which is the subject of this leave application, subject of course to the requirement that the question involved in the case be of sufficient importance. This conclusion is reinforced by the expansive definition of “judgment” in s. 2 of the Act. I note that while s. 40(3) of the Act, read in conjunction with ss. 691-693 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, excludes many criminal appeals from the ambit of s. 40(1), the present application is not so excluded.
[4] The main authority supporting the view that the Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this leave application is Hind v. The Queen, [1968] S.C.R. 234. In that case, a three-judge panel of this Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal from the refusal of a Court of Appeal to grant an extension of time to hear a sentence appeal. The Court relied on Goldhar v. The Queen, [1960] S.C.R. 60, Paul v. The Queen, [1960] S.C.R. 452, and R. v. J. Alepin Frères Ltée, [1965] S.C.R. 359. However, each of those cases has been overruled by subsequent decisions of the Court and, in my view, the time has come to say that Hind itself should no longer be followed.
[5] As noted in Hill v. The Queen, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 827, and subsequently in R. v. Gardiner, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 368, the changes made in 1949 to what is now s. 40 resulted in large part from the change in the role of this Court when appeals to the Privy Council were abolished. Not only was the wording of the provision changed, but the Court, in light of its role as the final court of appeal for Canada, took a broader approach to the interpretation of its appellate jurisdiction which was inconsistent with many earlier decisions, including the cases relied upon by the Court in Hind.
[6] Hill itself was a turning point. In that case, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to lengthen the Appellant’s sentence when there had been no cross-appeal by the Crown. As this was a sentencing issue, the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the appeal was squarely before the Court as were its earlier decisions which had taken a narrow view of its jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal from sentencing decisions. The Court in Hill specifically refused to follow Goldhar and held that s. 41(1) (now s. 40(1)) was to have a broad interpretation rather than the narrow interpretation previously attributed to it.
[7] The Court in Hill also noted that Goldhar had been followed in Paul which was in turn relied upon in J. Alepin Frères and R. v. MacDonald, [1965] S.C.R. 831. In considering the proper interpretation of s. 41(1) in light of legislative changes, the Court held at p. 850:
... the literal construction [i.e. of the words “final or other judgment”] is preferable not only because in the absence of ambiguity the literal meaning should always be adhered to despite any inconsistencies short of absurdity, but also because any assumption that Parliament did not intend to depart from the previous state of the law is unjustified. Section 41 was enacted substantially in its present form at the time when appeals to the Privy Council were being abolished and this Court was being made truly supreme. The Privy Council had enjoyed unlimited jurisdiction by special leave and it is apparent that the new provision was intended to effect the change from a limited specific jurisdiction to a broad general jurisdiction. To hold that the inconsistencies resulting from this sweeping change indicate the intention of leaving some wide gaps open is, in my view, entirely unwarranted. On the contrary, the enactment of a provision that undoubtedly confers some jurisdiction in criminal matters beyond that existing under the Criminal Code, clearly indicates Parliament’s will to remedy the omission to extend the jurisdiction of this Court in criminal cases when the Privy Council’s jurisdiction in such cases was effectively abolished after the Statute of Westminster.
Thus, while it explicitly stated that fitness of sentence should never be considered by the Court, the earlier jurisprudence indicating that the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear appeals from sentencing decisions was no longer good law. That earlier jurisprudence included the three key decisions relied upon by the Court in Hind.
[8] In 1982, in Gardiner, this Court considered once again its jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal from sentencing decisions and affirmed the breadth of its authority to grant leave under what is now s. 40(1) of the Supreme Court Act. Dickson J. (as he then was) stated at pp. 397-98:
It is incorrect, however, in my opinion, to characterize our justifiable reluctance to consider questions of fitness of sentence as lack of jurisdiction. It is to compound the error to extend the argument of lack of jurisdiction to what are clearly important questions of law arising out of the sentencing process. The function of this Court is precisely that, to settle questions of law of national importance in the interests of promoting uniformity in the application of the law across the country, especially with respect to matters of federal competence. To decline jurisdiction is to renounce the paramount responsibility of an ultimate appellate court with national authority.
...
It is important to remember that between Goldhamer and Goldhar significant revisions to the Supreme Court Act had intervened in 1949. The Supreme Court had replaced the Privy Council as the ultimate appeal court for Canada.
With respect to Hill, the Court in Gardiner stated at pp. 402-4:
In Hill, all nine judges joined in support of the view that s. 41 [now s. 40] of the Supreme Court Act was intended to confer a broad general jurisdiction, beyond that existing under the Criminal Code. The Court rejected as “entirely unwarranted” the notion dominating the Goldhar line of cases that possible inconsistencies arising from a broad construction of s. 41 indicated Parliamentary intention to leave some wide gaps open.
...
... Hill gave the quietus to Goldhar and to the abnegation which underpinned that decision and those which followed in its wake. Hill mandated an expansive reading of s. 41(1), the better to enable this Court to discharge its role at the apex of the Canadian judicial system, as the court of last resort for all Canadians.
If policy considerations are to enter the picture, as they often do, there would appear to me to be every reason why this Court should remain available to adjudicate upon difficult and important questions of law in the sentencing process, in particular where there are, as here, conflicting opinions expressed in the provinces. Indeed we are asked, in effect, in this appeal to decide between two opinions of the Ontario Court of Appeal which are in direct conflict. I can see no advantage to litigants or to the orderly administration of justice in closing doors which do not have to be closed.
[9] A similar evolution may be observed with respect to the Court’s jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal when the highest appellate tribunal in the province has refused leave to appeal to it. The Court held in Ernewein v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 639, that it did not have jurisdiction in such cases. However, in 1986, the Court revisited this question and decided in favour of its jurisdiction. In MacDonald v. City of Montreal, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 460, the Court considered its jurisdiction to consider the appellate court’s refusal to grant leave to appeal and overturned Ernewein and expanded upon its reasoning in Hill, Gardiner and subsequent cases thereby indicating that “final or other judgment” provides jurisdiction to this Court to hear any issue it deems to be of sufficient importance as long as resort to s. 40 is not excluded by s. 40(3) of the Supreme Court Act. Wilson J. discussed the question in these terms in MacDonald v. City of Montreal, at pp. 508-9:
The proposition that under s. 41(1) the Court has jurisdiction to intervene even in the case of discretionary decisions of intermediate appellate courts is supported by other provisions of the Supreme Court Act. Section 44, for example, provides that the Court has no power to hear an appeal from a judgment or order made in the exercise of judicial discretion except where leave to appeal is granted by this Court pursuant to s. 41 of the Act. The section 44 restriction on the Court’s power would clearly apply to appeals arising under s. 38 of the Act, i.e., where a provincial court of appeal had granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. It would also apply to appeals arising under s. 39 of the Act, i.e., where the parties have agreed to appeal a judgment of a lower court directly to the Supreme Court of Canada instead of to the provincial Court of Appeal. Accordingly, in the less usual situations in which leave to appeal to this Court is not granted by a panel of this Court, the statutory jurisdiction excludes appeals from the exercise of judicial discretion. On the other hand, the explicit exception of s. 41 from the s. 44 restriction serves to indicate that where the route to this Court is the more usual one, i.e., where leave to appeal is granted by this Court itself, its jurisdiction is not restricted to non‑discretionary decisions. Rather, under s. 41 of the Act the Court’s jurisdiction is confined only by its own exercise of discretion in determining which decisions of an intermediate appellate court are of sufficient national importance to warrant a grant of leave.
It was stated in R. v. Gardiner, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 368, that while there are many instances in which this Court is justifiably reluctant to intervene in decisions of the courts below, it is incorrect to confuse this attitude of reluctance with lack of jurisdiction. Dickson J. (as he then was) came to his conclusion as to the broad ambit of the Court’s jurisdiction after a thorough survey of its history and a consequent appreciation of its expanded role and increased significance since the days when most appeals were as of right and the Supreme Court of Canada was itself an intermediate appellate court. Given this expansion, the broadly phrased statutory language in which the Court’s jurisdiction was framed, and the role of the Court as the ultimate appellate tribunal, he concluded that in the absence of any irrefutable indication to the contrary, the Court’s jurisdiction should not be restrictively construed. [Emphasis added.]
As explained later in Roberge v. Bolduc, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 374, at pp. 392-93:
Any doubt on the issue of jurisdiction is, in my view, resolved by MacDonald v. City of Montreal, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 460, where, as here, the Court of Appeal refused to grant leave to appeal. Although dissenting on the constitutional issue involved, Wilson J. spoke on the issue of jurisdiction at p. 508:
Under s. 41(1) of the Supreme Court Act [now s. 40(1)] this Court retains the discretionary power to interfere with any final or other judgment of the intermediate appellate courts which raises an issue of national importance. This discretion is itself broadly phrased so as to include any case with respect to which “... the Supreme Court is of the opinion that any question involved therein is, by reason of its public importance or the importance of any issue of law or any issue of mixed law and fact involved in such question, one that ought to be decided by the Supreme Court or is, for any other reason, of such a nature or significance as to warrant decision by it ... .” While a certain amount of deference to the undoubted competence of intermediate appellate courts to control their own leave granting process is called for, it is equally evident that this Court’s jurisdiction to exercise its own discretion in intervening in such decisions is not statutorily confined. [Emphasis added.]
[10] In 1995, the Court considered R. v. Hinse, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 597. In that case, the Court of Appeal set aside the appellant’s conviction but rather than ordering a new trial, it entered a stay of proceedings. Unhappy with the lack of finality and statement of innocence, the appellant wished to appeal the order of stay of proceedings to this Court. Initially, this Court refused leave to appeal but reconsidered its decision and in doing so, discussed the jurisdiction of the Court as found in s. 40(1). The Court noted the concern that an appellate court, in making an order pursuant to s. 686(8) of the Criminal Code, could overstep its own jurisdiction and make an order in direct contradiction of the underlying judgment. It expressed the need for a broad and liberal interpretation of s. 40(1), stating at paras. 34-35:
Given this troubling concern, I am inclined to adopt a more generous interpretation of s. 40(1) (and a correspondingly more narrow interpretation of s. 40(3)) which would facilitate this Court’s supervisory role in ensuring the underlying consistency of appellate court orders rendered under the procedural regime of the Criminal Code.
For all the foregoing reasons, I am persuaded that an accused or the Crown ought to be permitted to independently seek leave to appeal the legality of an order rendered under s. 686(8) as a “final or other judgment ... of the highest court of final resort in a province” under this Court's general jurisdiction under s. 40(1) of the Supreme Court Act.
[11] I conclude my review of the cases with R. v. Mentuck, 2001 SCC 76, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 442. Although this case involved a publication ban, the Court made a general comment regarding its jurisdiction under s. 40(1) at para. 20:
The Supreme Court Act was passed to allow this Court to serve as a “general court of appeal for Canada”, and s. 40 must be read in light of the purpose of the Court’s enabling legislation. Unless the Court is specifically prohibited from entertaining appeals by s. 40(3) of the Act, it may grant leave to hear any appeal from the decision of any “court of final resort” in Canada. Parliament has seen fit to provide generally for rational routes of appeal in criminal cases. In these cases, we cannot take jurisdiction, nor would we wish to. But a purposive approach to s. 40 requires the Court to take jurisdiction where no other appellate court can do so, unless an explicit provision bars all appeals. Section 40(1) ensures that even though specific legislative provisions on jurisdiction are lacking, this Court may fill the void until Parliament devises a satisfactory solution. [Emphasis added.]
[12] I conclude that under s. 40(1) of the Act, the Court has jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal from an order “of the Federal Court of Appeal or of the highest court of final resort in a province, or a judge thereof, in which judgment can be had in the particular case” refusing or granting an extension of time to an appellant in an indictable appeal and that the order from which leave to appeal is sought is such an order. However, I would emphasize that the existence of this jurisdiction does not in any way alter the test applicable under s. 40(1), namely that the question “is, by reason of its public importance or the importance of any issue of law or any issue of mixed law and fact involved in that question, one that ought to be decided by the Supreme Court or is, for any other reasons, of such a nature or significance as to warrant decision by it”. It seems to me that only in very rare circumstances would a proposed appeal from an order granting an extension of time for appealing meet this test.
[13] While I would affirm the Court’s jurisdiction to grant leave, I would dismiss the application for leave to appeal without costs.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Harper Not Most Popular Politician
Harper Not Most Popular Politician, But Canadians Want Him as PM Published on Jul 12 - 2010
Ignatieff remains highly unpopular. Layton is praised, but not chosen by many to face tough challenges.Prime Minister Stephen Harper is not the most popular leader but people want him on the job when Canada faces serious challenges, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found.
In the online survey of a representative national sample of 2,031 Canadian adults, 36 per cent of respondents (+1 since late May) would support the governing Conservative Party in the next federal election.
The Liberal Party is second with 27 per cent (=), followed by the New Democratic Party (NDP) with 20 per cent (+1), the Bloc Québécois with 10 per cent (+1), and the Green Party with seven per cent (-1).
Regional Breakdowns
Albertans (62%) and respondents in Manitoba and Saskatchewan (55%) continue to express a preference for the Tories.
The federal Liberals register their highest level of support in Atlantic Canada (50%)—and their lowest in British Columbia (16%) and Alberta (15%).
The NDP is more popular in BC (33%) than anywhere else. In Quebec, the Bloc leads with 39 per cent, followed by the Liberals at 24 per cent.
Approval and Momentum
Harper’s approval rating stands at 31 per cent, tied with NDP leader Jack Layton. However, almost half of Canadians (48%) disapprove of the way Harper is doing his job, while only one-in-three (32%) feel the same way about Layton.
Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff remains highly unpopular. Just 14 per cent of respondents approve of the way he is handling his duties, while a majority (53%) voice disapproval.
Ignatieff continues to post the worst momentum score, this time of -24, meaning that while five per cent of respondents now have a better opinion of him, 29 per cent of Canadians now have a worse impression. Harper’s momentum is -21, while Layton fares much better than his two rivals at -3.
Attributes
Canadians were asked to select up to six words or expressions from a list to describe the four party leaders sitting in the House of Commons. The top results for each one of the leaders are:
• Stephen Harper – Secretive (45%), arrogant (43%), out of touch (34%), intelligent (34%), uncaring (32%) and boring (30%).
• Michael Ignatieff – Out of touch (39%), arrogant (37%), boring (36%), intelligent (33%), inefficient (31%) and weak (26%).
• Jack Layton – Intelligent (36%), down to earth (31%), compassionate (31%), honest (28%), open (26%) and out of touch (22%).
• Gilles Duceppe – Arrogant (34%), out of touch (32%), intelligent (23%), inefficient (19%), boring (19%) and dishonest (17%).
In a separate question, which aims to review how Canadians relate to the four leaders on a personal level, Layton emerges as an affable choice. Canadians pick the NDP leader over the other three contenders as the best man to have a beer with at a bar (34%), best to babysit their kids (30%), and best to play with in a sports team (27%).
Ignatieff is seen as the brainier of all, with Canadians picking him over the others to play in their trivia quiz team (26%), and as the best person to recommend a book to read (22%).
Harper has the edge on most policy matters, with at least three-in-ten respondents seeing the current prime minister as the best person to lead Canada in the event of a terrorist attack (37%), to negotiate with United States President Barack Obama on trade and security issues (36%), to deal with Russia on matters of Arctic sovereignty (35%) and to be in charge if there is another sovereignty referendum in Quebec (31%).
When it comes to who would be best at representing the country at the next round of climate change talks, Harper (27%) and Layton (26%) are virtually tied.
Analysis
Throughout the year, the Conservatives have maintained their standing in the mid-30s, still away from majority territory. The G8/G20 summits did not provide a bounce for the governing party, and Stephen Harper’s actions are rated disparagingly by almost half of Canadians. Despite the fact that two-in-five respondents regard him as secretive and arrogant, the incumbent prime minister is the first option for Canadians on most major policy issues.
The Liberals are slightly ahead of their 2008 election total, with the support of about one-in-four decided voters. Michael Ignatieff continues to struggle on approval and momentum, and while he shares some of the negative words that are used to describe Harper (such as arrogant and boring), he is also perceived as inefficient and weak.
The NDP’s Jack Layton, like his two main rivals, is seen as an intelligent politician, but is clearly regarded as friendly, with people using words such as down to earth, compassionate and honest to describe him. It is important to note that the good showing for the NDP in British Columbia—where Layton took part in a campaign against the unpopular harmonized sales tax (HST) last month—could become a problem for the Conservatives in the next federal election. The NDP finished in second place in 11 of the 22 federal ridings that the Tories currently hold in BC.
This year’s editions of the Canadian Political Pulse can be accessed here:
January 2010 / February 2010 / March 2010 / April 2010 / May 2010
Full Report, Detailed Tables and Methodology (PDF)
CONTACT:Jodi Shanoff, Senior Vice President, Public Affairs
+416 712 5498
jodi.shanoff@angus-reid.com
Methodology: From July 6 to July 8 2010, Angus Reid Public Opinion conducted an online survey among 2,031 randomly selected Canadian adults who are Angus Reid Forum panelists. The margin of error—which measures sampling variability—is +/- 2.2%, 19 times out of 20. The results have been statistically weighted according to the most current education, age, gender and region Census data to ensure a sample representative of the entire adult population of Canada. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding.
Post Details- E-Mail - Print
Download PDF Version
Post Date: July 12, 2010 @ 3:00am
Categories: Canada
Tags: Canada, Federal Politics, Jack Layton, Michael Ignatieff, Stephen Harper
« Next EntryPrev Entry »
Click here to cancel reply.
Name (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
ARPO InformationCANADA
Jodi Shanoff – Senior Vice President, Canada Public Affairs
+ 1 416 712 5498
jodi.shanoff@angus-reid.com
UNITED KINGDOM
Andy Morris – Research Director, London
+ 44 207 065 7272
andy.morris@angus-reid.com
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Mario Canseco – Vice President, Public Affairs
+1 877 730 3570
mario.canseco@angus-reid.com
Visit Opinion Publique Angus Reid (Quebec, Canada)
Subscribe to Angus Reid Public Opinion Polls (RSS Feed)
PollsGlobal Opinions & Trends See All Viewing: Latest Latest
United States
Canada
United Kingdom
Global
Jul 12, 2010
Americans, Britons and Canadians Tuned Out During G8/G20 Summits
Less than one-in-four respondents in the three countries say they followed the final summit statements "very closely" or "moderately closely."
read more
Jul 12, 2010
Harper Not Most Popular Politician, But Canadians Want Him as PM
Ignatieff remains highly unpopular. Layton is praised, but not chosen by many to face tough challenges.
read more
Jul 09, 2010
NFL Fans in U.S. Overwhelmingly Support Having an 18-Game Season
Half of middle aged respondents welcome the idea as well.
read more
Jul 09, 2010
Canadians Willing to Host Soccer World Cup at Earliest Opportunity
A third of people across the country have been following the current tournament in South Africa.
read more
Angus Reid Global Monitor Angus Reid Global - Twitter See All Relevant Blog
Canadians Fairly Optimistic About Prospects for National Economy
By Angus Reid Public Opinion on 06 / 02 / 10
Read More
Canadians Foresee Olympic Benefits, British Columbians Still Skeptical
By Angus Reid Public Opinion on 01 / 21 / 10
Read More
Connect With UsRSS LinkedIn Twitter Flickr YouTube Contact Us
Ignatieff remains highly unpopular. Layton is praised, but not chosen by many to face tough challenges.Prime Minister Stephen Harper is not the most popular leader but people want him on the job when Canada faces serious challenges, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found.
In the online survey of a representative national sample of 2,031 Canadian adults, 36 per cent of respondents (+1 since late May) would support the governing Conservative Party in the next federal election.
The Liberal Party is second with 27 per cent (=), followed by the New Democratic Party (NDP) with 20 per cent (+1), the Bloc Québécois with 10 per cent (+1), and the Green Party with seven per cent (-1).
Regional Breakdowns
Albertans (62%) and respondents in Manitoba and Saskatchewan (55%) continue to express a preference for the Tories.
The federal Liberals register their highest level of support in Atlantic Canada (50%)—and their lowest in British Columbia (16%) and Alberta (15%).
The NDP is more popular in BC (33%) than anywhere else. In Quebec, the Bloc leads with 39 per cent, followed by the Liberals at 24 per cent.
Approval and Momentum
Harper’s approval rating stands at 31 per cent, tied with NDP leader Jack Layton. However, almost half of Canadians (48%) disapprove of the way Harper is doing his job, while only one-in-three (32%) feel the same way about Layton.
Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff remains highly unpopular. Just 14 per cent of respondents approve of the way he is handling his duties, while a majority (53%) voice disapproval.
Ignatieff continues to post the worst momentum score, this time of -24, meaning that while five per cent of respondents now have a better opinion of him, 29 per cent of Canadians now have a worse impression. Harper’s momentum is -21, while Layton fares much better than his two rivals at -3.
Attributes
Canadians were asked to select up to six words or expressions from a list to describe the four party leaders sitting in the House of Commons. The top results for each one of the leaders are:
• Stephen Harper – Secretive (45%), arrogant (43%), out of touch (34%), intelligent (34%), uncaring (32%) and boring (30%).
• Michael Ignatieff – Out of touch (39%), arrogant (37%), boring (36%), intelligent (33%), inefficient (31%) and weak (26%).
• Jack Layton – Intelligent (36%), down to earth (31%), compassionate (31%), honest (28%), open (26%) and out of touch (22%).
• Gilles Duceppe – Arrogant (34%), out of touch (32%), intelligent (23%), inefficient (19%), boring (19%) and dishonest (17%).
In a separate question, which aims to review how Canadians relate to the four leaders on a personal level, Layton emerges as an affable choice. Canadians pick the NDP leader over the other three contenders as the best man to have a beer with at a bar (34%), best to babysit their kids (30%), and best to play with in a sports team (27%).
Ignatieff is seen as the brainier of all, with Canadians picking him over the others to play in their trivia quiz team (26%), and as the best person to recommend a book to read (22%).
Harper has the edge on most policy matters, with at least three-in-ten respondents seeing the current prime minister as the best person to lead Canada in the event of a terrorist attack (37%), to negotiate with United States President Barack Obama on trade and security issues (36%), to deal with Russia on matters of Arctic sovereignty (35%) and to be in charge if there is another sovereignty referendum in Quebec (31%).
When it comes to who would be best at representing the country at the next round of climate change talks, Harper (27%) and Layton (26%) are virtually tied.
Analysis
Throughout the year, the Conservatives have maintained their standing in the mid-30s, still away from majority territory. The G8/G20 summits did not provide a bounce for the governing party, and Stephen Harper’s actions are rated disparagingly by almost half of Canadians. Despite the fact that two-in-five respondents regard him as secretive and arrogant, the incumbent prime minister is the first option for Canadians on most major policy issues.
The Liberals are slightly ahead of their 2008 election total, with the support of about one-in-four decided voters. Michael Ignatieff continues to struggle on approval and momentum, and while he shares some of the negative words that are used to describe Harper (such as arrogant and boring), he is also perceived as inefficient and weak.
The NDP’s Jack Layton, like his two main rivals, is seen as an intelligent politician, but is clearly regarded as friendly, with people using words such as down to earth, compassionate and honest to describe him. It is important to note that the good showing for the NDP in British Columbia—where Layton took part in a campaign against the unpopular harmonized sales tax (HST) last month—could become a problem for the Conservatives in the next federal election. The NDP finished in second place in 11 of the 22 federal ridings that the Tories currently hold in BC.
This year’s editions of the Canadian Political Pulse can be accessed here:
January 2010 / February 2010 / March 2010 / April 2010 / May 2010
Full Report, Detailed Tables and Methodology (PDF)
CONTACT:Jodi Shanoff, Senior Vice President, Public Affairs
+416 712 5498
jodi.shanoff@angus-reid.com
Methodology: From July 6 to July 8 2010, Angus Reid Public Opinion conducted an online survey among 2,031 randomly selected Canadian adults who are Angus Reid Forum panelists. The margin of error—which measures sampling variability—is +/- 2.2%, 19 times out of 20. The results have been statistically weighted according to the most current education, age, gender and region Census data to ensure a sample representative of the entire adult population of Canada. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding.
Post Details- E-Mail - Print
Download PDF Version
Post Date: July 12, 2010 @ 3:00am
Categories: Canada
Tags: Canada, Federal Politics, Jack Layton, Michael Ignatieff, Stephen Harper
« Next EntryPrev Entry »
Click here to cancel reply.
Name (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
ARPO InformationCANADA
Jodi Shanoff – Senior Vice President, Canada Public Affairs
+ 1 416 712 5498
jodi.shanoff@angus-reid.com
UNITED KINGDOM
Andy Morris – Research Director, London
+ 44 207 065 7272
andy.morris@angus-reid.com
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Mario Canseco – Vice President, Public Affairs
+1 877 730 3570
mario.canseco@angus-reid.com
Visit Opinion Publique Angus Reid (Quebec, Canada)
Subscribe to Angus Reid Public Opinion Polls (RSS Feed)
PollsGlobal Opinions & Trends See All Viewing: Latest Latest
United States
Canada
United Kingdom
Global
Jul 12, 2010
Americans, Britons and Canadians Tuned Out During G8/G20 Summits
Less than one-in-four respondents in the three countries say they followed the final summit statements "very closely" or "moderately closely."
read more
Jul 12, 2010
Harper Not Most Popular Politician, But Canadians Want Him as PM
Ignatieff remains highly unpopular. Layton is praised, but not chosen by many to face tough challenges.
read more
Jul 09, 2010
NFL Fans in U.S. Overwhelmingly Support Having an 18-Game Season
Half of middle aged respondents welcome the idea as well.
read more
Jul 09, 2010
Canadians Willing to Host Soccer World Cup at Earliest Opportunity
A third of people across the country have been following the current tournament in South Africa.
read more
Angus Reid Global Monitor Angus Reid Global - Twitter See All Relevant Blog
Canadians Fairly Optimistic About Prospects for National Economy
By Angus Reid Public Opinion on 06 / 02 / 10
Read More
Canadians Foresee Olympic Benefits, British Columbians Still Skeptical
By Angus Reid Public Opinion on 01 / 21 / 10
Read More
Connect With UsRSS LinkedIn Twitter Flickr YouTube Contact Us
Monday, July 12, 2010
Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2 updates to stop this week! get win 7 ASAP
Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2 updates to stop this week
By Byron Acohido, USA TODAY
SEATTLE — Microsoft this week will stop issuing security fixes for computers running the Windows XP operating system updated with Service Pack 2.
The switch-off will result in hundreds of millions of PCs worldwide, including tens of millions in the U.S., instantly becoming riper targets for hackers.
So-called XP SP2 desktops and laptops are still widely used in corporate networks. A service pack is a collection of feature upgrades and security fixes delivered in a single download.
Microsoft released SP2 in August 2004 mainly to beef up security. Then in April 2008, the company released SP3 with less fanfare, recommending that all XP computers be updated with the latest service pack. Yet more than two years later, thousands of companies worldwide have not done so.
Tech services firm Softchoice recently surveyed 117 financial, health care, manufacturing and educational organizations in the U.S. and Canada. It found eight of 10 organizations continue to use XP SP2 computers widely.
Now security experts worry that companies won't pay much attention to Microsoft dropping all tech support for SP2. "It's a virtual guarantee laggards will miss this deadline," says Dean Williams, services development manager at Softchoice. XP SP2 computers will "become fair game," he says. "There will just simply be more ways to hack in."
Companies can continue to get security updates for XP computers through April 2014 by upgrading to SP3. It's free. Testing and deployment is not trivial but can be automated, noted research firm Gartner. Or they can replace old XP units with new Windows 7 PCs, which Microsoft fully supports.
Microsoft typically issues security fixes, called patches, for freshly discovered flaws on the second Tuesday of the month.
Hackers continually flush out fresh Windows security holes, particularly in the Internet Explorer Web browser. And they are adept at taking control of Windows PCs with unpatched security holes.
Cybercriminals typically activate a malicious program inside the Web browser. They harvest the PC owner's sensitive data, then use the compromised PC to spread spam, sell worthless anti-virus protection, hijack online banking accounts and probe deeper into corporate networks.
Cyberattacks have escalated in recent years.
"As soon as the next suitable vulnerability appears, I am expecting that attackers will seize the opportunity created by the large pool of unpatched SP2 machines," says Wolfgang Kandek, chief technical officer at tech security management firm Qualys.
Microsoft remains optimistic that "as customers understand the value of staying on a supported version of Windows, they will upgrade their PC to the version that's right for them," spokesman Frank Fellows says.
By Byron Acohido, USA TODAY
SEATTLE — Microsoft this week will stop issuing security fixes for computers running the Windows XP operating system updated with Service Pack 2.
The switch-off will result in hundreds of millions of PCs worldwide, including tens of millions in the U.S., instantly becoming riper targets for hackers.
So-called XP SP2 desktops and laptops are still widely used in corporate networks. A service pack is a collection of feature upgrades and security fixes delivered in a single download.
Microsoft released SP2 in August 2004 mainly to beef up security. Then in April 2008, the company released SP3 with less fanfare, recommending that all XP computers be updated with the latest service pack. Yet more than two years later, thousands of companies worldwide have not done so.
Tech services firm Softchoice recently surveyed 117 financial, health care, manufacturing and educational organizations in the U.S. and Canada. It found eight of 10 organizations continue to use XP SP2 computers widely.
Now security experts worry that companies won't pay much attention to Microsoft dropping all tech support for SP2. "It's a virtual guarantee laggards will miss this deadline," says Dean Williams, services development manager at Softchoice. XP SP2 computers will "become fair game," he says. "There will just simply be more ways to hack in."
Companies can continue to get security updates for XP computers through April 2014 by upgrading to SP3. It's free. Testing and deployment is not trivial but can be automated, noted research firm Gartner. Or they can replace old XP units with new Windows 7 PCs, which Microsoft fully supports.
Microsoft typically issues security fixes, called patches, for freshly discovered flaws on the second Tuesday of the month.
Hackers continually flush out fresh Windows security holes, particularly in the Internet Explorer Web browser. And they are adept at taking control of Windows PCs with unpatched security holes.
Cybercriminals typically activate a malicious program inside the Web browser. They harvest the PC owner's sensitive data, then use the compromised PC to spread spam, sell worthless anti-virus protection, hijack online banking accounts and probe deeper into corporate networks.
Cyberattacks have escalated in recent years.
"As soon as the next suitable vulnerability appears, I am expecting that attackers will seize the opportunity created by the large pool of unpatched SP2 machines," says Wolfgang Kandek, chief technical officer at tech security management firm Qualys.
Microsoft remains optimistic that "as customers understand the value of staying on a supported version of Windows, they will upgrade their PC to the version that's right for them," spokesman Frank Fellows says.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Why dye your hair?
65 Red Roses
North
America are invited to dye their hair bright red and participate in the C.F. walks being held across Canada. If your community does not have a Great Strides Walk for C.F., why not start one?
Why dye your hair?
• It is an attention getter
• It gets people talking about Cystic Fibrosis
• Eva loved her red hair!
Toronto Reddy for a Cure
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Reddy-For-a-Cure-Toronto/121173801226556?ref=ts
Vancouver Reddy for a Cure
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Reddy-For-a-Cure/108071815888330
PAINTING 65REDROSES
A collaborative work of art involving 65 renowned Canadian artists. The completed piece will be unveiled on May 15 and donated to the Vancouver C.F. chapter. Maynard's auction house will market the work of art and auction it off on June 16. All proceeds will go directly to support C.F. research. For more information about this project go to http://web.me.com/angela.au.hemphill/Painting_65_Red_Roses/Welcome.html
North
America are invited to dye their hair bright red and participate in the C.F. walks being held across Canada. If your community does not have a Great Strides Walk for C.F., why not start one?
Why dye your hair?
• It is an attention getter
• It gets people talking about Cystic Fibrosis
• Eva loved her red hair!
Toronto Reddy for a Cure
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Reddy-For-a-Cure-Toronto/121173801226556?ref=ts
Vancouver Reddy for a Cure
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Reddy-For-a-Cure/108071815888330
PAINTING 65REDROSES
A collaborative work of art involving 65 renowned Canadian artists. The completed piece will be unveiled on May 15 and donated to the Vancouver C.F. chapter. Maynard's auction house will market the work of art and auction it off on June 16. All proceeds will go directly to support C.F. research. For more information about this project go to http://web.me.com/angela.au.hemphill/Painting_65_Red_Roses/Welcome.html
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Stephen Harper look at this!
Home › Industry Insights › Public Opinion › Canada › Canadians Open to Alternative Penalties for Non-Violent Offences
Canadians Open to Alternative Penalties for Non-Violent Offences Published on Jun 28 - 2010
More than half of respondents believe their justice system does not treat every person fairly.People in Canada have little confidence in their province’s criminal courts and are inclined towards allowing the use of alternative penalties for personal marijuana use, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found.
The online survey of a representative national sample of 1,004 Canadian adults also finds that the provincial police forces in Ontario and Quebec garner a high level of confidence from respondents in the two provinces.
Community Problems and Crime
One third of respondents (34%) say that health care is the most important problem or concern in their community today, followed by the economy (26%), unemployment (15%), crime, violence and gangs (12%), and education and schools (7%).
In Manitoba and Saskatchewan, more than half of respondents (54%) select crime, violence and gangs as the most important problem or concern, while a majority of Quebecers (56%) pick health care.
Two-in-five Canadians (39%) believe there has been an increase in the amount of crime in their community over the past five years, while a similar proportion of respondents (41%) report no change, and 10 per cent say the crime rate has decreased.
Atlantic Canadians (51%), British Columbians (45%) and Albertans (43%) are more likely to believe that criminal activity has intensified in their community.
One-in-four Canadians (27%) say they fear being a victim of crime in their community “to a great extent” or “only fair amount”. Less than one-in-five respondents (14%) report that they have actually been victims of crimes which involved the police in the past two years.
Elements of the Justice System
This question seeks to gauge the level of confidence in the internal operations and leadership of five different elements of the Canadian justice system. Overall, the provincial police forces are rated highly by 38 per cent of respondents in Quebec and Ontario. Across the country, 35 per cent of Canadians express confidence in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), followed by the municipal police forces with 33 per cent, and the Supreme Court of Canada with 33 per cent.
Less than one-in-five respondents express “complete confidence” or “a lot of confidence” in the criminal courts in their province (18%). In fact, on this element, the proportion of negative responses (“Not much confidence” or “No confidence at all”) outnumbered the percentage of positive responses by a 2-to-1 margin.
Alternative Penalties
Seven-in-ten Canadians (70%) support the concept of using alternative penalties—such as fines, probation or community service—rather than prison for non-violent offenders, while one-in-four (25%) disagree with this idea. Four-in-five respondents (80%) would endorse alternative penalties for people who commit offences related to personal marijuana use. However, support is much lower for enacting a similar guideline for other crimes, such as credit card fraud (33%), drunk driving (25%), and arson (15%).
Final Assessment
Overall, a majority of respondents (60%) believe that the criminal courts in Canada do a good job in determining whether or not an accused person is guilty. However, only one third of respondents (34%) readily admit that the justice system in Canada treats every person fairly. In addition, two-thirds of Canadians (66%) disagree with the notion that the prison system in the UK does a good job in helping prisoners become law-abiding.
Full Report, Detailed Tables and Methodology (PDF)
CONTACT:Mario Canseco, Vice President, Public Affairs
+877 730 3570
mario.canseco@angus-reid.com
From June 16 to June 17, 2010, Angus Reid Public Opinion conducted an online survey among 1,004 randomly selected Canadian adults who are Angus Reid Forum panelists. The margin of error—which measures sampling variability—is +/-3.1%. The results have been statistically weighted according to the most current education, age, gender and region data to ensure samples representative of the entire adult population of Canada. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding.
Canadians Open to Alternative Penalties for Non-Violent Offences Published on Jun 28 - 2010
More than half of respondents believe their justice system does not treat every person fairly.People in Canada have little confidence in their province’s criminal courts and are inclined towards allowing the use of alternative penalties for personal marijuana use, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found.
The online survey of a representative national sample of 1,004 Canadian adults also finds that the provincial police forces in Ontario and Quebec garner a high level of confidence from respondents in the two provinces.
Community Problems and Crime
One third of respondents (34%) say that health care is the most important problem or concern in their community today, followed by the economy (26%), unemployment (15%), crime, violence and gangs (12%), and education and schools (7%).
In Manitoba and Saskatchewan, more than half of respondents (54%) select crime, violence and gangs as the most important problem or concern, while a majority of Quebecers (56%) pick health care.
Two-in-five Canadians (39%) believe there has been an increase in the amount of crime in their community over the past five years, while a similar proportion of respondents (41%) report no change, and 10 per cent say the crime rate has decreased.
Atlantic Canadians (51%), British Columbians (45%) and Albertans (43%) are more likely to believe that criminal activity has intensified in their community.
One-in-four Canadians (27%) say they fear being a victim of crime in their community “to a great extent” or “only fair amount”. Less than one-in-five respondents (14%) report that they have actually been victims of crimes which involved the police in the past two years.
Elements of the Justice System
This question seeks to gauge the level of confidence in the internal operations and leadership of five different elements of the Canadian justice system. Overall, the provincial police forces are rated highly by 38 per cent of respondents in Quebec and Ontario. Across the country, 35 per cent of Canadians express confidence in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), followed by the municipal police forces with 33 per cent, and the Supreme Court of Canada with 33 per cent.
Less than one-in-five respondents express “complete confidence” or “a lot of confidence” in the criminal courts in their province (18%). In fact, on this element, the proportion of negative responses (“Not much confidence” or “No confidence at all”) outnumbered the percentage of positive responses by a 2-to-1 margin.
Alternative Penalties
Seven-in-ten Canadians (70%) support the concept of using alternative penalties—such as fines, probation or community service—rather than prison for non-violent offenders, while one-in-four (25%) disagree with this idea. Four-in-five respondents (80%) would endorse alternative penalties for people who commit offences related to personal marijuana use. However, support is much lower for enacting a similar guideline for other crimes, such as credit card fraud (33%), drunk driving (25%), and arson (15%).
Final Assessment
Overall, a majority of respondents (60%) believe that the criminal courts in Canada do a good job in determining whether or not an accused person is guilty. However, only one third of respondents (34%) readily admit that the justice system in Canada treats every person fairly. In addition, two-thirds of Canadians (66%) disagree with the notion that the prison system in the UK does a good job in helping prisoners become law-abiding.
Full Report, Detailed Tables and Methodology (PDF)
CONTACT:Mario Canseco, Vice President, Public Affairs
+877 730 3570
mario.canseco@angus-reid.com
From June 16 to June 17, 2010, Angus Reid Public Opinion conducted an online survey among 1,004 randomly selected Canadian adults who are Angus Reid Forum panelists. The margin of error—which measures sampling variability—is +/-3.1%. The results have been statistically weighted according to the most current education, age, gender and region data to ensure samples representative of the entire adult population of Canada. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)