Immigration and Refugee Board (Immigration Appeal Division) Deports Street Racer

Update:

Justice Ian Binnie of the Supreme Court, wrote the decision upon behalf of the majority (7-1) ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of Mr. Sukhvir Singh Khosa.  Mr. Khosa pleaded with the court to allow him to stay in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, after the Immigration and Refugee Board had earlier ordered that he be deported. The Supreme Court ruled that it would not interfere with the earlier decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board to deport Mr. Khosa.

Sequence of Events:

In Vancouver, British Columbia on November 2000, Irene Thorpe was out taking an evening walk.  Mr. Khosa who racing his Chevrolet Camaro at about 120 kilometres an hour in a 50 kilometre posted zone against his friend,Bahadur Singh Bhalr, lost control of his vehicle, which ended Ms. Thorpe’s life. Both men were charged with criminal negligence causing death

Almost two years later, on October 18, 2002 both men were found guilty of criminal negligence causing death. Bahadur Singh Bhalru was the Bhalru is the first person convicted in British Columbia of criminal negligence causing death whose vehicle didn’t hit the victim.

On Monday, February 3, 2003  British Columbia Supreme Court Judge Linda Loo sentenced both men to the following:

Bahadur Singh Bhalru, 23, and Sukhvir Singh Khosa, 20, were handed conditional sentences of two years, less a day – to be served at home, so they can continue to work and go to school. In addition to these conditional sentences, both men were placed on probation for three (3) years and their driver’s licences were revoked for five years.

Following the convictions, the Immigration Board ordered a valid removal order to return both Bhalru and Khosa to India.

Bahadur Singh Bhalru returned to India in 2005. Sukhir Singh Khose approached the Immigration Appeal Division requesting special relief on “humanitarian and compassionate grounds” from the removal order. The Immigration Appeal Division denied special relief on “humanitarian and compassionate grounds” from the removal order.

Bhalru appealed the Immigration Appeal Division’s decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board to the Federal Court of Appeal. A majority of the Federal Court of Appeal applied a “reasonableness” simpliciter standard and set aside the IAD (Immigration and Appeal Division) decision. In the end, the Federal Court of Appeal concluded that the majority of the IAD had acted unreasonably in denying relief.

At the Supreme Court Justice Binnie ruled, in part:
“In light of the deference properly owed to the IAD under s. 67(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) there was no proper basis for the Federal Court of Appeal to interfere with the Immigration and Appeal Division (IAD) decision to refuse special relief in this case. It cannot be said that this decision fell outside the range of reasonable outcomes.”

Today’s ruling of Canada’s Supreme Court against Mr. Khosa, overturns the Federal Court of Appeal decision, which now means that the original decision of the IAD will stand and that that decision, will now have to be implemented (deportation of Mr. Khosa) and carried out.

The Immigration Laws of Canada allows for a non-citizen to be deported for a criminal offence carrying a sentence up to 10 years. Criminal Negligence Causing Death carries a maximum sentence of life in prison (See PART VIII of the Criminal Code: Criminal Negligence – Causing death by criminal negligence – section 220 “Causing death by criminal negligence”: Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable: subsection (b)”….to imprisonment for life”).

It isn’t over yet, as there are still opportunities available to Mr. Khosa in the near future.

Street Racing is still an ongoing problem in Ontario, as well as within the Greater Toronto Area (the “GTA”).

Another death attributed to a street racer, who doesn’t want to drive anymore.

Update: November 39, 2009: Two teens charged with Street Racing

[sniplet rpostimage]

Should Paying $ 850.00 An Hour, to a Law Firm, Concern McGuinty?

Update:

It was recently revealed that the Ontario Government was involved in a nine (9) year civil suit, spending over 23.4 Million Dollars and winning 3.5 Million Dollars, plus interest and costs.

During this period the Ontario Government had retained a Bay Street Law Firm in Toronto to represent the Province, charging lawyer fees up to $ 850.00 an hour (about 100 times greater than the minimum wage in Ontario).

One can’t help wonder if the law firm wanted to take advantage of its client, known to have deep pockets and a fairly good credit rating.

Given the enormous bill confronting the Ontario Government, someone may ask why the Ontario Government didn’t approach this Bay Street Law Firm and ask them to lower their fees, upon receiving the final bill?

This same Bay Street Law Firm attempted to squeeze court costs of $ 30,975.00 dollars from another veteran litigator, who knew this firm was overcharging him and he said “no”. The matter went to the Superior Court of Ontario and the Judge hearing the matter, reduced the whopping fee of $ 30,975.00 to $ 7,500.00, a reduction of over $ 23,000.00.

Challenging your lawyers fees is outlined in a page in fightyourtickets.ca in a page titled “Challenging Your Lawyer’s Fees”. This page goes over each step of the process and informs you how to save money when you discover you are being overcharged. You have to wait for your lawyer’s final bill and at that point you have 30 days to challenge your lawyers fees at a Superior Court in Ontario, in front of an Assessment Officer or Master. More often then not, people who challenge these fees are rewarded with a reduction in the fees they will have to pay. In the example above, the senior litigator was able to shave off over $ 23,000.00 of the original invoice he was presented with. This happened in the Province of Ontario’s Superior Court.

fightyourtickets.ca hopes to help motorists fight their tickets, without the need for expensive lawyers or paralegals and to win, thus avoiding hefty increases in their auto insurance premiums.

In the economy facing all of us at the present, we have to learn to defend ourselves without the expensive assistance of expensive lawyers and expensive paralegals. Knowledge is power and if you follow the simple steps outlined in fightyourtickets, you will acquire as much knowledge and experience as you will require, to represent your own matter(s), with a successful outcome.

Toronto Ranked as 3rd Most Polite City

Update:

THE GREAT READER’S DIGEST GLOBAL COURTESY TEST

How Polite Are We?

We ranked the world. Out of 36 cities, Toronto placed third, Montreal 21st.

Inside the Toronto Tally

BY BONNIE MUNDAY

Toronto ranked third for courtesy out of 36 major cities around the world, with 70 percent of people tested taking a moment to do the courteous thing. Reader’s Digest had two reporters go to central residential neighbourhoods, downtown shopping areas and the financial district. They “tested” Bay Street bond traders, part-time cashiers, lawyers, students and artists. Here’s a snapshot of what they found:

Service With a Smile

Customer service is alive and well in Toronto: 16 out of 20 cashiers passed the courtesy test by saying a pronounced thank you when we made a small purchase. At a bulk food store on Danforth Avenue, Sean Thomson, a tall 30-year-old with shaved head and pierced ears, smiled and thanked our researcher twice before wishing her a nice day. He did the same for everyone else in line. Why? “It’s what my boss wants, and what my parents taught me. It’s about respect.” Jessica, 24, a cashier at a chocolate shop, echoed Sean. “You don’t just take the customer’s money and say, ‘See you later.’” She added, “The staff here, we talk about how we expect the same courtesy when we’re the customer, but we don’t always get it, and that’s disappointing.”

Jessica wouldn’t have been happy with the service at a women’s clothing store in the Eaton Centre mall downtown, where a fashionably dressed young woman with thick black eyeliner barely said a word to our researcher throughout the transaction. When asked about it afterwards, she said sheepishly, “We’re supposed to say, ‘Thank you for shopping here,’ but sometimes I forget.”

That was the exception, as we found that male and female cashiers in stores large and small were quite courteous, thank you very much. At a newsstand, our reporter bought a packet of gum and was thanked by Zeny Ruiz, 44. “I like to set an example for my staff,” she told us, “but it’s also the right thing to do.” In an electronics store on Queen Street West, Daniel Hines, in baseball cap and army pants, said, “I thank every customer, even the ones who tick me off. Ultimately, it makes your own day go a little smoother.”

Paper Chase

Would you take a minute to stop and help a stranger gather up some papers they’d dropped on the sidewalk or in a shopping centre? In Toronto, 11 out of 20 people we tested did.

That’s the lowest score of our three tests—and, interestingly, of the nine who “failed” the test, five were in their 60s and up. The oldest, Sergio Balmont, 79, told us after he and his wife walked past our female researcher, who was crouched down gathering papers, “I knew I should have helped, but I’m too old to bend down.” Most of the other elderly people who didn’t help told us politely that they didn’t want to get involved with someone else’s personal documents.

Of course, a couple of young people passed by without helping, too. “He looked like he had everything under control,” was the excuse of a shoe buyer from Montreal who saw our researcher picking up scattered papers from the wet sidewalk. But most did stop to assist—teens in particular. “Of course I helped,” said William Lee, 16. “I’d hope someone would do that for me.” Keilani Etzkorn and her friend Manuela, both high-school students, also stopped to help. Said Keilani: “It’s what my parents taught me to do.”

Door Stoppers

Our third test showed that three out of four Torontonians hold the door for a stranger—male or female—walking behind them. Most were pleased to stop and talk to us when we revealed we had set them up. “I do it all the time,” explained Meredith McLellan, 25, a fair-haired law student who held the door for our female reporter on her way out of the busy subway stop at Yonge and Eglinton. “I guess I was raised that way.”

It was a common theme. Faisal Bhiwandiwala, a 30-year-old tech-support worker who held the door for our male researcher during a Wednesday morning rush hour, told us courtesy is an instinct. “I was brought up that way. It’s the normal thing to do.”

Fifty-year-old Eric McGarry said, “As a teacher, I think it’s important to show that you’re thinking of others and not just yourself.”

In the St. Lawrence Market, two 14-year-old ponytailed girls could have used that lesson, but when asked why they didn’t hold the door, they claimed not to have seen anyone coming behind them. Similarly, a 41-year-old operations manager listening to her iPod said, “Normally, I’d have held it open, but I’m in a hurry to get back from lunch and I had my headphones on.”

Some who helped did so for practical reasons. In the Bay Street financial district, Brian Galley, a crisply dressed 38-year-old portfolio manager, pointedly held the door for our male researcher. “I always do,” he told us afterwards. “These doors are heavy, and you don’t want to let them slam on people.”

Ramona Taharally, also 38, offered a simple explanation for her courteous act. “People do it for me,” she said, “so I’m going to pass it on.”

Doctor Sues City of Toronto Over $30 Parking Ticket and Broken Pay-and-Display Parking Machine

Update:

If a parking meter isn't working or broken, the motorist parking must find a meter that is working. If the motorist parks at a broken meter or cannot pay for a pay-and-display parking tag, they will receive a parking ticket. City of Toronto By-laws, requires that motorists locate a different pay-and-display parking tag machine or on the stree parking meter if the machine or meter is broken or malfunctioning.

see source

An Ontario Superior Court judge has given the green light to a Toronto radiologist to launch a class-action lawsuit against the city, saying it “knew or ought to have known” that some of its parking machines were malfunctioning in inclement weather.

Dr. Anna Marie Arenson, who works at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, says she made several “valiant” attempts during a blizzard last November to feed coins into two different parking machines on Bayview Ave., south of Eglinton Ave. E., before giving up.

“You couldn’t turn anything, you couldn’t put a card in,” she said. “It was pretty obvious that the meters weren’t working.”

Not only didn’t she get a receipt to display in her vehicle but her coins weren’t returned, according to her statement of claim filed in court earlier this year. When Arenson emerged from a restaurant a few hours later, she found a $30 parking tag stuck on her windshield.

“I really thought it was odd that they (parking enforcement officers) were going to be out but it was predictable … that there’d be a whole row of yellow tickets on cars along Bayview,” she said with a heavy sigh yesterday.

After conferring with her ex-husband, lawyer Ken Arenson, she decided to do something she’s never done before: file a lawsuit.

“It’s easy to just give up and pay … rather than if you’re upset enough to do something about it,” she said.

“They have to sell you a good that works, in other words, if you put your money in, then they’ve got to give you a parking (receipt) and if they can’t … they shouldn’t give you a fine.”

During a one-day hearing last week, lawyers for the city asked the court to dismiss the proposed class action and strike down Arenson’s statement of claim “for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action.”

In his ruling, Justice Paul Perell concluded that while he didn’t agree with “many of the submissions made by the city,” he was striking down Arenson’s statement of claim for different reasons.

However, Perell ruled he would allow the physician to deliver “a fresh statement of claim,” if certain changes were made.

That, says Ken Arenson, amounts to a “road map” for this case to proceed.

“The city tried to close us down and the judge rejected that,” he said. “He’s (the judge) saying you can cast this claim in a certain way. I’m not guaranteeing you that it’s going to win but you can go forward and make your claim, you can have your day in court.”

The original statement claimed a total of $26 million in damages, including special damages of $31.50 – for each parking ticket and transaction fee paid – to an estimated 112,500 people “assuming that the machines did freeze up once or twice per year from 1998 to 2008.” “We’re guessing how many people were affected,” based on the $80 million the city takes in from the pay and park machines, Ken Arenson said.

The city doesn’t deny that this is an endemic problem and has admitted it happens in other cities because of the design, he said.

The judge said only part of the monetary amount originally sought – maybe 10 per cent – should be claimed, said the lawyer.

But this was never about money, he said, adding a class action is the course to take in this case because an individual with a $30 ticket could never afford to challenge the city. “Really, it’s intolerable they think that they can get away with it.”

While the lawsuit is still at an early stage, the next step is to “recast” the claim and ensure it meets the criteria for a class-action lawsuit.

“So the city is going to have another kick at us,” he said. “But if we’re able to get by that then the city has to face the fact that we then will be able to take them to trial and if we’re successful we’ll get $3 times thousands of people … and maybe some other orders that they’ve got to fix the damn machines.”

The $3 represents the amount of money his ex-wife estimates she put in the machines last November.