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.

The bawdy house ruling is to be struck down in 12 months from March 2012, we are still within that time period.

 

Basically I'm advocating caution.

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.).

Not picking on you here, this is perhaps the 3rd such post in the last few months. Sharing a location with another SP would fall under the 'brothel' clause from the Canadian Criminal Code especially if with another FS SP.

 

With erotic massage you might get away with it legally, IANAL. The question is do you want to be the legal test case.

 

Bottom line, these request are illegal and should not be discuss publically on any forum.

The Ontario Court of Appeal would disagree with you.

There is nothing in the bylaw requiring cameras.

It's a club/pub owners choice as to what they want their place of business to be viewed as.

It is not their choice if those choices are violating Human Rights legislation, as age discrimination does.

On an end note, just to comparison; if I still had my sex shop and a pardon came in and asked me to change my hours because it's "inconvenient" for them, I would just give a list of other places that suits his/her needs. My shop my rules, I'll be nice and tell u where else you can go and have ur fun. And if my place is a total hot spot and making mad money .... Why would I change it?

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.

As long as you don't discriminate on religion, race, or sexuality...then the business can run it however they like.

 

It's like restaurants that ban children...if you target market is a certain group, you can target it as long as it doesn't break any discrimination laws.

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.

A new federal law would take more than weeks to pass. Its a lengthy process.

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.

Too close for comfort....

 

CON - 152

NDP - 93

LIB - 49

BQ - 14

 

Cons need only 3 more seats to form a majority based on latest Nanos seat projections which also puts them at 37% nationally. Scary!!!. It is ridiculous that a party forms a majority with only 37% of the popular votes. Canadian electrol system need changing lol. In no language a majority is only 37%.

 

http://cdnelectionwatch.blogspot.com/2011/05/nanos-tories-by-64.html?showComment=1304257228747#c8275810300148789034

 

Nanos will release another poll at 9pm tonight containing data from today.

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.

Yeah that last month will surely add 15 billion (rolls eyes)

We won't know how much it will add until the fall.

Your're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. As you yourself point out the 55.6 is from 2009-2010.....you know the past.....

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.

Your original question was how can they go from 55.6 to 0?

It was not my original question. But it is a fair one.

Perhaps the final figure for 2010-2011 will be higher than 28 or maybe it will be less, it is however the most current data, your reliance on the 55.6 is nothing but rhetoric, one can only assume your original question was not a serious 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.

I'm not even a supporter of the Harper government but lazy arguments based on a logical fallacy serve no purpose.

Agreed, so please stop making them.

Read the article, its very clear, if you're going to quote the 55.6 number you might as well quote the deficit from 1987, or 1995, or the current deficit in the US or the speed of light etc.

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.

The budget deficit is actually 28 billion.

 

http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCATRE73K4NT20110421

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?

Very interesting topic, but here is my 2 cents. Because of who I work for, I shall be voting Conservative. I just hope they follow through with the proposed tougher laws on crime.

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

Another thing, MP's (talking about your run of the mill MP's here) may make less than a comparable job in the private sector...but alot of these MP's aren't qualified, nor could hold a comparable job in the private sector.

They raise their hands when the party puppet masters tell them too, and reap the rewards of party loyalty

They serve 6 years and are entitled to a full pension...on the other hand, to get a full pension, I need to work 35 years...and thats in one of the front line public safety fields, dealing with the dregs of society

RG

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

Barretts Privateers - Stan Rogers

Fantastic song, but nothing Irish about it.

The tenancy laws in Ontario lean heavily in the tenants favour, although not as badly as they were a few years ago.

If a landlord is dealing with a tenant that knows their way around the system, the tenant can delay evictions for some time. Proving noise complaints can sometimes require tape recording and sound level meters.

Most businesses in Canada, and specifically Ontario, do not require any form of license, said another way, only businesses that are mandated to be licensed require a licence. A massage parlor is such a business, a call centre, consulting firm, etc. do not.

There was even a by-law passed in the city of Toronto permitting home offices in residential dwelling units, as long as the person conducting business resides there.

The condominium corporations, in Ontario at least, have a tougher nut to crack. There is noting in the Condominium Act restricting someone from running a home business. There could be something in the condominium corporation?s declaration, bylaws or rules restricting use, but those have fewer teeth than the Act, and are an expensive pain to enforce. The Act also has few enforcement remedies available to the Corporation to deal with troublesome unit owners or their tenants. It could be months or years for some rule violations to go though mandatory mediation and then the court system.

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.

Omg. Good restaurant and Ottawa are like oxymoron.

 

Got use to life in a small town when I first moved to Ottawa and can't think of a more affordable place to live.

 

But honestly, I'll never get use to the crappy restaurants here. Even the gem in the rough I've been to are "not horrible" at best, a 3 stat star anywhere else, but 5star apparently in Ottawa.

 

The only place I've come to tolerate in the Ottawa area is chez fatima's in hull.

 

Just remember to brush ur teeth before visiting a sp just out of respect that she may not want ur aftermath

Posted via Mobile Device

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

Federal Government employees, and there are LOTS in Ottawa, get $300 towards massage therapy, and their spouses get another $300 (that's $600 if your spouse can't be bothered) and all you have to do is submit your receipts. At $55 a pop (Kelly on Kent) that's almost one a month!

 

So tell me again why Feds (people working for the Federal Government) shouldn't consider if their massage therapist can provide a receipt?

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).

I was thinking in terms of legislation... will parliament concoct a law which effectively makes all forms of prostitution illegal, as in the States?

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

From Justice Binnie's dissenting opinion (my bold):　

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.

The ruling was done in Ontario. I'm not sure were these laws federal laws or Ontario laws? If they were merely Ontario laws, do they apply in the rest of the country, other than merely on academic similarities?

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

But if she doesn't, the Gov't will presumably appeal that too, no?

 

I hate to be pessimistic, but I really can't believe anything will change in practice until this has gone through the entire appeals process. And even then, as someone else noted, this ruling is based on the fact that prostitution is itself legal... which could be changed.

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 what kind of posturing is in motion with the Feds stepping in on this. But hopefully, it will pan out to be just a way of entering to defining the terms for the trade.

 

A new set of regulation will be crafted. Best to become involved in defining that regulation early on.

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