Since 2002, 154 members of the Canadian Forces have been killed serving in the Afghanistan mission.
Four Canadian civilians have also been killed, including one diplomat, one journalist and two aid workers.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Soon-to-launch US cable network OWN: Oprah Winfrey Network has unveiled three documentary acquisitions, including a film about a Canadian woman suffering from cystic fibrosis. : 65_RedRoses.
Soon-to-launch US cable network OWN: Oprah Winfrey Network has unveiled three documentary acquisitions, including a film about a Canadian woman suffering from cystic fibrosis.
65_RedRoses is one of three films picked up by the network for its forthcoming Documentary Film Club strand, which launches next spring. It tells the story of a 23-year-old woman with the genetic disease and awaiting a double lung transplant.
The doc is directed by Nimisha Mukerji and Philip Lyall, and produced by Force Four Entertainment in association with CBC Newsworld and Dualogue Productions.
Elsewhere, One Lucky Elephant follows a circus producer as he struggles to find a permanent home for an orphaned baby African elephant, while Most Valuable Players is a doc about the Freddy Awards, a live TV event honouring outstanding high school musical theatre in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
The former is directed by Lisa Leeman and exec produced by Sandbar Pictures, while the latter is a Canyonback Films production directed and produced by Matthew D Kallis.
"OWN seeks to entertain, inspire and inform," said Lisa Erspamer, OWN's chief creative officer. "What better way to further that mission than to provide a mainstream platform for emerging and established documentary filmmakers to present different stories that move the viewer, and then to encourage a dialogue and exchange of ideas?"
65_RedRoses is one of three films picked up by the network for its forthcoming Documentary Film Club strand, which launches next spring. It tells the story of a 23-year-old woman with the genetic disease and awaiting a double lung transplant.
The doc is directed by Nimisha Mukerji and Philip Lyall, and produced by Force Four Entertainment in association with CBC Newsworld and Dualogue Productions.
Elsewhere, One Lucky Elephant follows a circus producer as he struggles to find a permanent home for an orphaned baby African elephant, while Most Valuable Players is a doc about the Freddy Awards, a live TV event honouring outstanding high school musical theatre in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
The former is directed by Lisa Leeman and exec produced by Sandbar Pictures, while the latter is a Canyonback Films production directed and produced by Matthew D Kallis.
"OWN seeks to entertain, inspire and inform," said Lisa Erspamer, OWN's chief creative officer. "What better way to further that mission than to provide a mainstream platform for emerging and established documentary filmmakers to present different stories that move the viewer, and then to encourage a dialogue and exchange of ideas?"
Friday, December 24, 2010
The Supreme Court of Canada has paved the way for a class-action lawsuit over military veterans' pensions.
The Supreme Court has paved the way for a class-action lawsuit over military veterans' pensions.
Military mechanic Dennis Manuge of Musquodoboit, N.S., launched the lawsuit — representing about 6,500 injured veterans — and it was certified by the Federal Court.
But it was later rejected by the Federal Court of Appeal.
The Supreme Court has reinstated the original decision.
Manuge, a former corporal, was injured in 2002 at Canadian Forces Base Petawawa, northwest of Ottawa. He broke his back when he fell off a big vehicle he was repairing.
He had $10,000 of his disability pension clawed back by the federal government after he left the military.
An investigation by the military ombudsman found the clawback "profoundly unfair."
New Democrat MP Peter Stoffer said the case never should have wound its way all the way to the Supreme Court. He urged the government to sit down with the veterans and settle the matter.
"The choice is very clear," said Stoffer, his party's veterans affairs critic. "You can spend millions and millions of dollars fighting this in the courts, or you can spend those millions dealing with the disabled veterans in a fair and reasonable manner."
The Defence Department said it would take some time to analyze the decision.
"As such, it is premature to provide further comment at the moment," said spokeswoman Jennifer Eckersley.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/12/23/supreme-court-military-pension-class-action.html#ixzz190EIc400
Military mechanic Dennis Manuge of Musquodoboit, N.S., launched the lawsuit — representing about 6,500 injured veterans — and it was certified by the Federal Court.
But it was later rejected by the Federal Court of Appeal.
The Supreme Court has reinstated the original decision.
Manuge, a former corporal, was injured in 2002 at Canadian Forces Base Petawawa, northwest of Ottawa. He broke his back when he fell off a big vehicle he was repairing.
He had $10,000 of his disability pension clawed back by the federal government after he left the military.
An investigation by the military ombudsman found the clawback "profoundly unfair."
New Democrat MP Peter Stoffer said the case never should have wound its way all the way to the Supreme Court. He urged the government to sit down with the veterans and settle the matter.
"The choice is very clear," said Stoffer, his party's veterans affairs critic. "You can spend millions and millions of dollars fighting this in the courts, or you can spend those millions dealing with the disabled veterans in a fair and reasonable manner."
The Defence Department said it would take some time to analyze the decision.
"As such, it is premature to provide further comment at the moment," said spokeswoman Jennifer Eckersley.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/12/23/supreme-court-military-pension-class-action.html#ixzz190EIc400
Thursday, December 23, 2010
It's official, 65_RedRoses will be airing in the US on the Oprah Winfrey Network in 2011!!! This version of the film has been re-edited to include reference to the last two years of Eva's life,
Before Eva died, her friend Nimisha Mukerji vowed to do all she could to promote CF awareness and organ donation awareness by finding an American network to show the film 65_RedRoses. It was Eva's dream to see this happen as she knew the impact a viewing of this film in the U.S. could have on raising awareness for the 2 causes about which she was passionate. Nimisha has worked tirelessly to promote the film locally, nationally and now, yes ... internationally.
It's official, 65_RedRoses will be airing in the US on the Oprah Winfrey Network in 2011!!! This version of the film has been re-edited to include reference to the last two years of Eva's life, a very difficult task for Justin (editor) and Nimisha (director). Nimisha and her co-director Phil Lyall thank the many American supporters who have helped bring Eva's story to the US. This is amazing! Here is a link to the official announcement.
http://www.c21media.net//news/detail.asp?area=1&article=58349
It's official, 65_RedRoses will be airing in the US on the Oprah Winfrey Network in 2011!!! This version of the film has been re-edited to include reference to the last two years of Eva's life, a very difficult task for Justin (editor) and Nimisha (director). Nimisha and her co-director Phil Lyall thank the many American supporters who have helped bring Eva's story to the US. This is amazing! Here is a link to the official announcement.
http://www.c21media.net//news/detail.asp?area=1&article=58349
G20 officer charge came from public
officer who is alleged to have assaulted a demonstrator during the G20 Summit in downtown Toronto came as a result of the public standing up for itself, one civil liberties expert said.
Graeme Norton, of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said it is unlikely anything would have come from the incident if other demonstrators had not been there to video tape the arrest of Adam Nobody on June 26.
"From what we have seen it doesn't seem that it would have (led to charges)," Norton told CTV Canada AM on Wednesday.
On Tuesday, Ontario's Special Investigations Unit announced that a Toronto police office had been charged with assault with a weapon, following the review of video tape of Nobody's arrest made available on YouTube.
The arms-length agency had originally ruled that while Nobody appeared to have been roughed up, it was impossible to identify the perpetrator. The charge came after more evidence was presented to the SIU.
"It was only after the public came forward with additional information in the form of video tape and photographic evidence that we have now seen charges being laid," Norton said.
The arrest came after an extended investigation that had originally been closed without any charges being laid.
In the YouTube video shot of the incident, Nobody is seen being swarmed and at least one officer can be seen making a punching motion. Nobody had to be treated for a fracture below his right eye.
Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair asserted in a Nov. 29 interview that the video had been significantly tampered with.
"He said that the police were arresting a violent armed offender and that a segment depicting the use of a weapon had been removed from the tape," the SIU said.
John Bridge, who shot the video, said there was a gap because he turned his camera off for a few seconds, and then turned it back on when he saw Nobody being arrested.
He supplied the SIU with his original video, which was of higher quality than the YouTube version.
Blair issued a statement on Dec. 3 that said he had no evidence of any attempt to mislead with the original video -- and no evidence Nobody was armed.
On Dec. 9, the SIU received new video from the Toronto Star. A member of the public also provided a third video, and the Toronto Police Service gave the SIU a list of 15 officers who may have been in the area where Nobody was taken down.
The SIU designated 12 of the 15 officers as witnesses and three as subject officers, meaning they were under investigation.
"The twelve officers who were interviewed were shown the Bridge video of the incident and stills taken from other videos," police said.
"None of the twelve witness officers who were said to be in the vicinity of and/or involved in the arrest of Mr. Nobody were able to positively identify themselves as being depicted in the videos, nor could they identify the other involved officers."
The subject officers declined to give statements, which the SIU noted is their right.
Toronto Police Service also gave the SIU the name of another witness officer. He identified one of the subject officers.
Const. Babak Andalib-Goortani has been charged with assault with a weapon. He is scheduled to appear in court on Jan. 24.
Nobody made a second complaint about being taken away and beaten by two plainclothes officers after his initial arrest. The SIU said it has further investigated that allegation and hasn't found enough corroborative evidence to warrant the laying of a charge.
In November, the SIU closed five other investigations stemming from the summit without laying charges. In four of the cases, the SIU said there was no evidence the protesters suffered injuries at the hands of police. In the fifth case, the complainant could not identify his attacker because his eyes were closed.
During the summit, Police arrested more than 1,000 people. About 300 were actually charged with criminal offences, but a large proportion of those have been stayed.
Protesters gathered in Toronto in the days before the two-day summit of leaders from the world's 20 largest economies.
The biggest protest took place on June 26, a Saturday. A small group broke from a peaceful main crowd. Using so-called Black Bloc tactics, they went on a 90-minute vandalism rampage. Business storefronts were shattered and police cruisers burned.
In response, police carried out a widespread crackdown to restore order. The area around Queen's Park was to be a designated protest zone, but the Nobody incident occurred there.
On Wednesday, Norton said the Canadian Civil Liberties Association is requesting a public inquiry be held into policing at the G20.
"There is certainly no question that it is a difficult task to police an event of this nature. That said, in our view some of the arrests, if not many of the arrests, were unwarranted and unnecessary," Norton said.
"In our view this is the reason that there should be a full-blown public inquiry into the actions and events of the G20. We want to see the issues probed further. We want to see an examination of how policing action was carried out. And we'd like to see recommendations and changes made to how these events are policed in the future."
Steven Skurka, CTV's legal analyst, said there has already been a report from Ontario's ombudsman and there are two more reports pending from two senior judges.
"At the end of the day if there is still and unsettling feeling that we don't have proper accountability, there may be a need for a public inquiry," Skurka told CTV's Canada AM.
"I still think people believe in their police force, but I think they take a more skeptical eye about it."
Graeme Norton, of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said it is unlikely anything would have come from the incident if other demonstrators had not been there to video tape the arrest of Adam Nobody on June 26.
"From what we have seen it doesn't seem that it would have (led to charges)," Norton told CTV Canada AM on Wednesday.
On Tuesday, Ontario's Special Investigations Unit announced that a Toronto police office had been charged with assault with a weapon, following the review of video tape of Nobody's arrest made available on YouTube.
The arms-length agency had originally ruled that while Nobody appeared to have been roughed up, it was impossible to identify the perpetrator. The charge came after more evidence was presented to the SIU.
"It was only after the public came forward with additional information in the form of video tape and photographic evidence that we have now seen charges being laid," Norton said.
The arrest came after an extended investigation that had originally been closed without any charges being laid.
In the YouTube video shot of the incident, Nobody is seen being swarmed and at least one officer can be seen making a punching motion. Nobody had to be treated for a fracture below his right eye.
Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair asserted in a Nov. 29 interview that the video had been significantly tampered with.
"He said that the police were arresting a violent armed offender and that a segment depicting the use of a weapon had been removed from the tape," the SIU said.
John Bridge, who shot the video, said there was a gap because he turned his camera off for a few seconds, and then turned it back on when he saw Nobody being arrested.
He supplied the SIU with his original video, which was of higher quality than the YouTube version.
Blair issued a statement on Dec. 3 that said he had no evidence of any attempt to mislead with the original video -- and no evidence Nobody was armed.
On Dec. 9, the SIU received new video from the Toronto Star. A member of the public also provided a third video, and the Toronto Police Service gave the SIU a list of 15 officers who may have been in the area where Nobody was taken down.
The SIU designated 12 of the 15 officers as witnesses and three as subject officers, meaning they were under investigation.
"The twelve officers who were interviewed were shown the Bridge video of the incident and stills taken from other videos," police said.
"None of the twelve witness officers who were said to be in the vicinity of and/or involved in the arrest of Mr. Nobody were able to positively identify themselves as being depicted in the videos, nor could they identify the other involved officers."
The subject officers declined to give statements, which the SIU noted is their right.
Toronto Police Service also gave the SIU the name of another witness officer. He identified one of the subject officers.
Const. Babak Andalib-Goortani has been charged with assault with a weapon. He is scheduled to appear in court on Jan. 24.
Nobody made a second complaint about being taken away and beaten by two plainclothes officers after his initial arrest. The SIU said it has further investigated that allegation and hasn't found enough corroborative evidence to warrant the laying of a charge.
In November, the SIU closed five other investigations stemming from the summit without laying charges. In four of the cases, the SIU said there was no evidence the protesters suffered injuries at the hands of police. In the fifth case, the complainant could not identify his attacker because his eyes were closed.
During the summit, Police arrested more than 1,000 people. About 300 were actually charged with criminal offences, but a large proportion of those have been stayed.
Protesters gathered in Toronto in the days before the two-day summit of leaders from the world's 20 largest economies.
The biggest protest took place on June 26, a Saturday. A small group broke from a peaceful main crowd. Using so-called Black Bloc tactics, they went on a 90-minute vandalism rampage. Business storefronts were shattered and police cruisers burned.
In response, police carried out a widespread crackdown to restore order. The area around Queen's Park was to be a designated protest zone, but the Nobody incident occurred there.
On Wednesday, Norton said the Canadian Civil Liberties Association is requesting a public inquiry be held into policing at the G20.
"There is certainly no question that it is a difficult task to police an event of this nature. That said, in our view some of the arrests, if not many of the arrests, were unwarranted and unnecessary," Norton said.
"In our view this is the reason that there should be a full-blown public inquiry into the actions and events of the G20. We want to see the issues probed further. We want to see an examination of how policing action was carried out. And we'd like to see recommendations and changes made to how these events are policed in the future."
Steven Skurka, CTV's legal analyst, said there has already been a report from Ontario's ombudsman and there are two more reports pending from two senior judges.
"At the end of the day if there is still and unsettling feeling that we don't have proper accountability, there may be a need for a public inquiry," Skurka told CTV's Canada AM.
"I still think people believe in their police force, but I think they take a more skeptical eye about it."
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Conservative Party of Canada vow to fight Elections Canada Court ruling with appeal to The Supreme Court of Canada.
OTTAWA — The Ontario Court of Appeal has overturned a lower court ruling that gave the federal Conservatives a victory in a dispute with Elections Canada over campaign financing.
The party immediately vowed to appeal the unanimous ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The dispute revolves around the Conservative party's handling of GST rebates from the Canada Revenue Agency on supplies and services it purchased during the 2004 and 2006 elections.
The party, which qualifies for GST rebates because it is a non-profit entity, sought to change its spending reports for those two elections. It wanted Elections Canada to take the almost $600,000 in rebates and reduce its expenses by that amount.
When Elections Canada rejected the idea, the Tories took the agency to court.
The lower court ruled last January in favour of the party — even though it agreed the effect would be to raise the party's election-spending limits.
The three-member Ontario Court of Appeal ruled the lower court's ruling ran contrary to the intent of the Canada Elections Act to provide a "level playing field" to all political parties wanting to have their messages heard.
Elections Canada had argued that adopting the Conservative accounting method would have the effect of unevenly raising limits on parties' campaign spending.
The agency said the appeal court's ruling "confirms" its interpretation of the federal elections law.
"The decision preserves the integrity of the political-financing regime, which ensures fairness in the electoral system by establishing a level playing field among electoral competitors," Elections Canada spokeswoman Diane Benson said in a statement.
A Conservative party spokesman, however, denounced the ruling as "an outrage to Canadian taxpayers."
The latest legal ruling effectively authorizes the practice of political parties "double-dipping" at the expense of Canadian taxpayers, said Fred DeLorey.
"The entire rebate that the Conservative party has received is being held in trust, so we don't have the use of it and we look forward to returning this money to the taxpayers once our further appeal is determined," he said in an email.
The Conservative party and Elections Canada are also embroiled in two other ongoing court actions.
The Tories filed a dispute last week in Quebec Superior Court that challenges the agency's position that the party did not properly report campaign expenses in 2006 for offices in Montreal and Quebec.
The two groups also are engaged in an court battle over Election Canada's contention that the Conservative party improperly reported national advertising expenses for the 2006 campaign. The agency refused to recognize advertising expenses claimed by 67 Conservative candidates on the grounds they were actually incurred by the party, meaning they should've been filed under its national campaign expense report.
Elections Canada alleges the Conservatives engaged in a so-called "in-and-out" scheme, directing money to local candidates who then transferred the funds back to the party to be spent on more national advertising.
Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/Tories+fight+court+ruling+election+financing/4010800/story.html#ixzz18ogRfz9f
The party immediately vowed to appeal the unanimous ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The dispute revolves around the Conservative party's handling of GST rebates from the Canada Revenue Agency on supplies and services it purchased during the 2004 and 2006 elections.
The party, which qualifies for GST rebates because it is a non-profit entity, sought to change its spending reports for those two elections. It wanted Elections Canada to take the almost $600,000 in rebates and reduce its expenses by that amount.
When Elections Canada rejected the idea, the Tories took the agency to court.
The lower court ruled last January in favour of the party — even though it agreed the effect would be to raise the party's election-spending limits.
The three-member Ontario Court of Appeal ruled the lower court's ruling ran contrary to the intent of the Canada Elections Act to provide a "level playing field" to all political parties wanting to have their messages heard.
Elections Canada had argued that adopting the Conservative accounting method would have the effect of unevenly raising limits on parties' campaign spending.
The agency said the appeal court's ruling "confirms" its interpretation of the federal elections law.
"The decision preserves the integrity of the political-financing regime, which ensures fairness in the electoral system by establishing a level playing field among electoral competitors," Elections Canada spokeswoman Diane Benson said in a statement.
A Conservative party spokesman, however, denounced the ruling as "an outrage to Canadian taxpayers."
The latest legal ruling effectively authorizes the practice of political parties "double-dipping" at the expense of Canadian taxpayers, said Fred DeLorey.
"The entire rebate that the Conservative party has received is being held in trust, so we don't have the use of it and we look forward to returning this money to the taxpayers once our further appeal is determined," he said in an email.
The Conservative party and Elections Canada are also embroiled in two other ongoing court actions.
The Tories filed a dispute last week in Quebec Superior Court that challenges the agency's position that the party did not properly report campaign expenses in 2006 for offices in Montreal and Quebec.
The two groups also are engaged in an court battle over Election Canada's contention that the Conservative party improperly reported national advertising expenses for the 2006 campaign. The agency refused to recognize advertising expenses claimed by 67 Conservative candidates on the grounds they were actually incurred by the party, meaning they should've been filed under its national campaign expense report.
Elections Canada alleges the Conservatives engaged in a so-called "in-and-out" scheme, directing money to local candidates who then transferred the funds back to the party to be spent on more national advertising.
Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/Tories+fight+court+ruling+election+financing/4010800/story.html#ixzz18ogRfz9f
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Personal emails stored on workplace computers are not covered by access to information laws, an Ontario judge has ruled.
Personal emails stored on workplace computers are not covered by access to information laws, an Ontario judge has ruled.
In overturning a decision of the province’s Information and Privacy Commissioner, which granted an Ottawa resident access to the personal emails of a city solicitor, Madame Justice Anne Molloy said the purpose of Ontario’s access to information laws is not to provide unfettered access to any document within a government office, but rather “to enhance democratic values by providing its citizens with access to government information.”
“It can be confidently predicted that any government employee who works in an office setting will have stored, somewhere in that office, documents that have nothing whatsoever to do with his or her job, but which are purely personal in nature,” the judge wrote.
The case arose from a 2007 request by John Dunn to the City of Ottawa for all emails sent by the executive director of the Children’s Aid Society to various CAS personnel, including Rick O’Connor, since February of that year.
Mr. O’Connor, the judgment says, volunteers as a board member with CAS, and his position there is entirely unrelated to his job as city solicitor. He kept correspondence relating to the CAS in a separate folder on the city’s email server.
Ontario law states that residents may access records “under the control” of public institutions, with certain exceptions. Judge Molloy decided the City of Ottawa did not have “control” of the files.
“The Children’s Aid Society is not an agency subject to freedom of information legislation,” she wrote. “Mr. O’Connor, in his personal capacity, is also not subject to having his personal documents seized and passed over to any member of the public who requests them.”
Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Judge+rules+personal+emails+work+computers+made+public/4005861/story.html#ixzz18ikdwtVt
In overturning a decision of the province’s Information and Privacy Commissioner, which granted an Ottawa resident access to the personal emails of a city solicitor, Madame Justice Anne Molloy said the purpose of Ontario’s access to information laws is not to provide unfettered access to any document within a government office, but rather “to enhance democratic values by providing its citizens with access to government information.”
“It can be confidently predicted that any government employee who works in an office setting will have stored, somewhere in that office, documents that have nothing whatsoever to do with his or her job, but which are purely personal in nature,” the judge wrote.
The case arose from a 2007 request by John Dunn to the City of Ottawa for all emails sent by the executive director of the Children’s Aid Society to various CAS personnel, including Rick O’Connor, since February of that year.
Mr. O’Connor, the judgment says, volunteers as a board member with CAS, and his position there is entirely unrelated to his job as city solicitor. He kept correspondence relating to the CAS in a separate folder on the city’s email server.
Ontario law states that residents may access records “under the control” of public institutions, with certain exceptions. Judge Molloy decided the City of Ottawa did not have “control” of the files.
“The Children’s Aid Society is not an agency subject to freedom of information legislation,” she wrote. “Mr. O’Connor, in his personal capacity, is also not subject to having his personal documents seized and passed over to any member of the public who requests them.”
Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Judge+rules+personal+emails+work+computers+made+public/4005861/story.html#ixzz18ikdwtVt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)