thompo69

The passport office at 240 Sparks no longer exists. Processing through an MPs office is really designed for areas that don't have a Passport Office or Service Canada office, and won't get you your passport any faster. Given your departure date, the Service Canada office should be just fine, unless you need it early to get a visa.

Caution is fine. I'm just saying that this business model has been used for many years, and even before the Court of Appeal ruling, I am not aware of any bawdy house charges unless other factors were at play (ie. underage girls, etc.).

The Ontario Court of Appeal would disagree with you.

There is nothing in the bylaw requiring cameras.

It is not their choice if those choices are violating Human Rights legislation, as age discrimination does. Not entirely sure what opening hours have to do with anything being discussed in this thread. The rules you set for your shop are limited by the law, and the law says you can't discriminate based on age.

Yes, age is in the Charter, but the Charter is irrelevant as we are talking about private business, not government. The important document in this case is the Ontario Human Rights Code, which also prohibits discriminating on the basis of age.

Newsflash: discriminating against someone on the basis of age DOES break discrimination laws. The reason restaurants can ban kids is that the age discrimination provisions of the Human Rights Code only apply to those 18 or over (19 or over in relation to sale of alcohol). Clubs that refuse entry solely on the basis of age are clearly in violation of the Human Rights Code.

It can be a lengthy process. It can also happen in a matter of hours. It depends on the urgency of the issue, the determination of the government, and their balance of power. With Harper's majority in both chambers he would have no problem getting such legislation through in a few weeks. Having said that, if Justice Himmel's ruling is upheld by the Court of Appeal, I doubt we'll see any legislative response. They will appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, who will undoubtedly grant a further stay to the ruling while they consider it. I would be surprised if the government tried to do anything legislatively before that point.

Why don't we wait until the election results before worrying about the sky falling. Polls are all over the place, and seat projections are notoriously unreliable.

We won't know how much it will add until the fall. Yes, 2009-2010, the current, most recent accounting we have. The 2010-2011 numbers (the real ones, not the estimates), will not be available for some months. It was not my original question. But it is a fair one. That's my point. My reliance on the $55.6 billion number is not rhetoric, but reality. It is the only actual number we have. The numbers for 2010-11 are not "data" but estimates. Agreed, so please stop making them.

Yes, it is quite clear -- the accounting for the 2010-11 fiscal year is not complete. The most recent number we have is for the 2009-10 year, which showed a deficit of $55.6 billion.

No, that number is incomplete. The last full deficit accounting (ie. a full fiscal year) was $55.6 billion. The number you cite is a) an estimate, and b) only 11 of 12 months. The initial question is still valid. How do the Tories plan to go from $55.6 billion to nothing by 2014?

You mean the ones that won't actually do anything about crime?

6 years and eligible for "full" pension? False. Just plain false.

Fantastic song, but nothing Irish about it.

You've pretty much summed it up. I would only add that I think it's becoming pretty standard in Ontario to include provisions in the declaration of a new condo development prohibiting use of residential properties for business. But, that does nothing for older buildings that lack those provisions.

Sounds like you don't get out to many restaurants in the region.

That's only if they have a prescription/referral from their doctor, and no, they can't stack the family benefits (if your spouse doesn't use their $300, you still only have $300).

If the stay continues, it is exceedingly unlikely that parliament will pre-empt the judicial process.

What is interesting is that Binnie in fact agrees with the fundamental finding that seems to have everyone in a tizzy -- that the right to counsel does not mean the right to be accompanied by that counsel throughout a custodial interview. Where he differed was whether or not the facts in this particular case presented a situation where the accused should have again been allowed to consult his lawyer. The majority thought it didn't, Binne thought it did. I have not had a chance to peruse the other dissent.

As I pointed out above, there were in fact 3 related rulings on the right to counsel. Only one was 5-4, the other two were 6-3.

I am a little curious if anyone has actually read these rulings (there were in fact 3 related rulings released by the SCC yesterday) to see what they say. The media is notorious for oversimplifying and frankly misrepresenting legal issues.

All criminal law if federal, but the ruling applies only in Ontario.

The question of an indefinite stay is not up to the judge who made the original ruling, but to the Court of Appeal that it is being appealed to. Frankly, I would be shocked if the indefinite stay were not granted.

I'm not sure why you think the feds stepping in on this is posturing, who else should be commenting on this?