David Corbett posted:

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure how you could interpret the circumstances of the crime - abandoning a pair of almost-octogenarians in the woods, at least one of whom you have severely injured and is bleeding, after depriving them of all their resources, including their methods of communication, transportation, and shelter - as anything other than having a reasonably foreseeable outcome of death. If Vader *didn't* kill them in the commission of his crime, then surely he left them in a position where their deaths were inevitable; after all, it was evidently so isolated and desolate that to this day, six years later, their bodies still haven't been found.

A Typical Goon posted:

Yeah you pretty much just described manslaughter perfectly, good work

David Corbett posted:

Really? So if I, say, stole someone's boat and chucked them overboard in a situation where their survival was essentially impossible, e.g. by dumping them in the middle of the Atlantic, that wouldn't be murder?

the criminal code of Canada posted:

where a person, for an unlawful object, does anything that he knows or ought to know is likely to cause death, and thereby causes death to a human being, notwithstanding that he desires to effect his object without causing death or bodily harm to any human being.

David Corbett posted:

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure how you could interpret the circumstances of the crime - abandoning a pair of almost-octogenarians in the woods, at least one of whom you have severely injured and is bleeding, after depriving them of all their resources, including their methods of communication, transportation, and shelter - as anything other than having a reasonably foreseeable outcome of death. If Vader *didn't* kill them in the commission of his crime, then surely he left them in a position where their deaths were inevitable; after all, it was evidently so isolated and desolate that to this day, six years later, their bodies still haven't been found.

Lobok posted:

Circumstances aside, that law prof talks about how the judge's decision is based on, and explicitly cites, a section of the Criminal Code that is unconstitutional. He is quite flabbergasted that a judge could make that mistake.

Lobok posted:

But on appeal might only get manslaughter.

Read bottom-up:

Lobok posted:

Circumstances aside, that law prof talks about how the judge's decision is based on, and explicitly cites, a section of the Criminal Code that is unconstitutional. He is quite flabbergasted that a judge could make that mistake.

OSI bean dip posted:

This was before BMW offered a vegan leather option.

Blade_of_tyshalle posted:

Is there a site which explains how equalization payments work? I want something to shut down the people I know who think it's entirely designed to gently caress Alberta to the sole benefit of Quebec.

pp. 17-18 posted:

Some commentators have expressed concern about the cost of Equalization to
the non-recipient provinces. Ontario still makes the largest aggregate net
contribution but Alberta makes the largest per capita contribution. Some have
interpreted the numbers as implying that Albertans pay large portions of the
provincial expenditures in the recipient provinces. That is not the case. Figure 11,
below, shows the role of Equalization towards the financing of consolidated
provincial and local expenditures in the provinces in 2008-2009. Five provinces
received Equalization that year and the funding Equalization made to their per
capita expenditures is shown in the combined red and brown (top two) shaded
areas. The blue (bottom) portions show the funding in all provinces coming from
own-source revenues and other (non-Equalization) federal transfers.
Equalization represented between 7.5 (Quebec) and 19.2 (Prince Edward Island)
percent of expenditures. The brown (topmost) segment of the bars represents the
portion of expenditures financed by Alberta’s share of federal funding. The
Alberta share ranged between 1.1 percent in Quebec to 2.9 percent in Prince
Edward Island. Although, on a per capita basis, Albertans make significant
contributions to federal revenues, funds from Alberta do not account for large
shares of provincial level expenditures via Equalization.

pp. 68-69 posted:

It is unlikely that any version of scenario D would be appealing. To obtain a
better sense of why that is unlikely, consider the implications of implementing
that policy within Alberta. (If it were good for Canada it should be good in
Alberta.) That is, suppose that all provincial revenues generated within a
municipality had to be spent within that municipality. To illustrate, all provincial
revenues from within the City of Calgary would be spent within Calgary, all
those from within Wood Buffalo spent in Wood Buffalo, from Grimshaw within
Grimshaw, from the County of Wetaskiwin within the County of Wetaskiwin,
etc. One can readily imagine the huge disparities among localities in services
and/or tax rates. It would make a north-south road trip in Alberta along
Highway 2 an interesting venture.

It is difficult to see the elimination of the interprovincial shuffling of funds
via the federal government’s policies as being an acceptable policy. Pursuit of
such objectives would seriously undermine the efficiency of public spending,
create variations in services and taxes that would be questioned on equity
grounds and also that would seriously distort resource allocation and disrupt the
Canadian economic union. Indeed, one would be left to ask, ‘What is Canada?’

[...]

Eliminating interprovincial flows of federal funds would require very
large differences in federal tax rates among the provinces. Such
differences are likely to be unacceptable on equity grounds and would
certainly introduce economic distortions and inefficiencies.

pp. 70-71 posted:

Interprovincial migration is significant in Canada. Alberta has been a
particular beneficiary of net interprovincial migration.38 Migrants bring with
them human capital. The education that they obtained elsewhere is the most
obvious form of human capital. In the case of interprovincial migration, that
education was provided at a cost to the exporting provinces and imported
without cost to the recipient provinces. Thus, interprovincial migration
represents a form of interprovincial transfers.
The net flow varies widely but it is not unusual for Alberta to experience a
net annual inflow of 20,000 people from other provinces.39 Given the attention
here to human capital, the focus is on the net in-migration of those of working
age. We consider those in the 18 to 44 age group and the years 1999 to 2008, a
period for which education costs are available. During that decade, the net
inflow of that age group into Alberta averaged 17,169 persons. Those migrants
come with good educations. Using Alberta school expenditure data, the cost of
providing those people with a high school education is estimated to be about
$1.4 billion. In addition, about 45 percent have post-secondary education. That is
likely to add $210 million to their education costs. Thus, the costs to the net
exporting provinces of this net in-migration to Alberta of this group (or the
savings to Alberta) are estimated to be in the order of $1.6 billion annually. In
addition, one might consider the public healthcare expenditures on this group
that was made by the exporting provinces. A reasonable estimate of that is $430
million.
In aggregate, net interprovincial migration has probably been providing
Alberta with about $2.0 billion annually of human capital financed by other
provinces. The net in-migrants come with an endowment of (notably) education
provided at no cost to Alberta to work in the province and contribute to the
Alberta economy and to the Alberta treasury. This annual inflow of human
capital represents a considerable net benefit for Albertans, over $600 per capita.
Interprovincial migration is a great asset to the country but the implicit
interprovincial transfers are sometimes overlooked. They should not be
neglected.
To summarize,
 Alberta has experienced substantial net in-migration – for example, an
annual average of 17,169 persons 18 to 44 years of age from 1999 to 2008.
 In-migrants bring with them human capital (notably education) provided
at the cost of the exporting provinces.
 The value of that imported human capital to Alberta is estimated to be in
the order of $2.0 billion (or over $600 per Albertan) annually. This is a
transfer to Alberta from other provinces.

pp. 75-76 posted:

The activities of the federal government result in some geographic
reshuffling of funds across the country. The federal government imposes a
nationally uniform system of taxes and undertakes a wide range of expenditure
programs intended to improve equity, deliver public services efficiently, provide
insurance, and, undoubtedly in some cases, to enhance political prospects. The
outflow from and inflows to any geographic area are unlikely to match.
Measurement of the outflows and inflows by province has garnered attention
and, in some instances, dissatisfaction. Just looking at the net contributions by
province (or other jurisdiction) is inadequate for assessing the merits of the
federal programs nationally and, very likely, with respect to any particular
province. Certainly, at least some benefits (and even some costs) extend beyond
the boundaries of the province in which funds are spent (or raised) and it is easy
to overlook past and possible future net benefits. At a minimum, a more
thorough examination would involve the assessment of the benefits and costs of
each undertaking (and, of course, any proposals should be exposed to the same
scrutiny). However, working with the data before us, looking closely at and
understanding the sources of those flows allow a better appreciation of the
causes, the underlying rationale, the reasons for the results and the scope for
change. Albertans, especially with the benefits of the latest energy boom, have
made large net contributions to the federal treasury and Alberta’s case affords a
good illustration. Almost two-thirds of the net contribution arises from the
higher incomes of Albertans and, when looking at the 35 percent attributable to
expenditure differences, the opportunities for reducing their impact appear
modest. Eliminating Equalization, a program that gets considerable attention,
would reduce Albertans’ total contribution to the federal coffers about 5.4
percent and their net contribution about 14 percent. Even eliminating all federal
transfers to the provinces (of which Equalization is one-quarter) and making all
other federal outlays equal per capita, would only manage to reduce the net
contribution of Albertans by one-third. The cost of such a policy is very high to
those in the poorest and smallest provinces while having only marginal effects
on those in the large and rich provinces. Only rather draconian measures,
measures that would effectively disassemble Canada, would have eliminated net
contributions from Alberta over the last decade.

El Scotch posted:

I went and looked at the article(s) and I fear they're right that the judge made a boo-boo.

David Corbett posted:

I rewatched the judgement and, yeah... if s. 230 is indeed unusable, this seems like a total disaster. His arguments clearly run along the lines of s. 230 argument.

I put forth an alternative scenario that could describe a second degree murder, at least based on my reading of the code, but apparently the judge didn't consider that - or, more likely, considered a s. 230 finding much simpler to conclude.

flakeloaf posted:

Don't Askov motions usually happen BEFORE the trial? I mean, they were holding this guy what, six years or something?

quote:

The Canadian government is on track to spend a record amount on security to protect Justin Trudeau and members of his family this year.

According to records obtained byLa Presse, it has cost $17 million for the squad of RCMP officers to guard Trudeau from when he was elected prime minister last November to this June. That works out to an average of more than $2 million a month, and is on pace to reach around $25 million in one year.

The most expensive month so far was March, which cost the government $5 million that included more than $1 million in overtime payments. That month saw a particularly hectic itinerary for Trudeau, who was travelling to meet with US President Barack Obama in Washington, and attend meetings at the United Nations.

Trudeau has faced criticism for his packed travel schedule, prompting the government to clarify the rules around how his trips abroad are financed. During the first six months of his terms, Trudeau spent 30 days outside of Canada, while former Conservative leader Stephen Harper was gone for 16 days, The Toronto Starreported in April. Trudeau has defended his frequent trips as an important part of boosting Canada's reputation on the world stage.

Stephen Harper, who claimed his government was fiscally responsible, was slammed for blowing through his security budget, overspending by more than $23 million over the course eight years, iPolitics reported in 2014. The annual budget for Harper's security eventually rose to nearly $20 million a year, more than double that of his predecessor.

At the time, former Liberal deputy leader Ralph Goodale, who now serves as Trudeau's public safety minister, said he was concerned about Harper's cost overruns.

"It just seems like a pretty clear case of petty bad management," Goodale told iPolitics. "It seems to be that the numbers need to be reconciled and there needs to be an explanation for why there is this constant and very substantial overrun year after year after year."

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/canada-has-spent-more-than-17-million-to-protect-justin-trudeau-vgtrn

El Scotch posted:

Reading the news today it does seem that there's a very real prospect that the charge could ultimately be stayed for delay.

David Corbett posted:

That would be a catastrophe. Letting a convicted killer - and I don't think there's any question that his actions led, directly or indirectly, to the deaths of the McCanns - walk because of a judicial error in evaluating whether the facts of the case called for a verdict of murder or manslaughter?

It would be an incredibly black day in the history of our justice system if that happened. I hope better legal minds than I are working their damnedest to recover from this fiasco. Short of convicting an innocent man, this is surely a worst-case scenario.

namaste faggots posted:

https://twitter.com/stephenfgordon/status/776831565133410304?s=09

Way to go pm selfie

Brandon Proust posted:

Brandon Proust posted:

LT56 posted:

Unfortunately globally the internet arrived and cingulated some minds. This effectively renders a lot of Canadia's Punitive Justice System moot with a capital M as other countries gentrify quicker and pick up the newest trends that have socially spread at a geometrically increasing rate.

Furnaceface posted:

Harper sure did a good job at hand picking all these judges and supreme court justices.

THC posted:

Stephen Harper set out to sabotage and undermine the public's faith in our institutions, including our independent judiciary, and he has been very successful.

flakeloaf posted:

Serious question, is this a markov bot?

The Butcher posted:

Instead, we could combine the three roles into a single job worked by way less people. You could even give the dudes doing it a cool new name, like "Street Judges".

flakeloaf posted:

Not sure why we're hanging this on Trudeau. He didn't come up with the idea to homogenize all government IT services without first checking to make sure that it would make sense to try doing that.