StoneMtn

There are millions of Aussies who would agree with you.

I just received this message from a member of a fantastic reggae-rock band from BC (and a good guy, too): www.myspace.com/redeye29records You should be at this show.

Most sit-down restaurants do take-out, and I sometimes go to one and grab lunch, which I bring back to my office. Of course, the same person who hands you the take-out would otherwise be your server if you sat down. I was once told, in no uncertain terms, by a waitress-friend that "you do not tip for take-out" when she saw me do so. Since then, I've wondered if this is really the rule. On one hand these people are taking a couple minutes to hand the food to you, but on the other hand they are not pouring water for you or running back and forth to the kitchen (etc.), so I just don't know. What are your thoughts? Do people here tip a server who hands you take-out?

I also suspect that the actors who play the band-members could earn a pretty decent dollar doing something else that night. They aren't exactly lightweights in the entertainment industry, desperate for work.

If I can hear the music, it's real to me.

What a disgusting human being.

You don't have to ask me twice! I've been kicking myself ever since I missed their one-day-cross-Canada tour years ago. I am sooo there.

Ever heard of this guy? He seems really cool. He's from Toronto and his record company is in Ottawa. Check out some songs, especially "Canadian Dreams" here.

This event actually has a Jambands.ca connection, too. Dr.EvilMouse once performed for the crowd at this race, as a duo playing guitar and singing with a conga player. (That gig is available to the Doctor this year, too, by the way; but we wouldn't want to bug him to come all the way to Toronto again. Of course, if he volunteered, we wouldn't say no....) Details and Registration Here

Depends who your physio is.

Well, in actual fact, those guys do love to gig. They do the reunion shows to relive their glory days. If you felt like trying to motivate them to travel east, which is not out of the realm of possibility, Derek ("Deke") at Upstream Entertainment would be the best contact to reach them.

Aren't they broken up, apart from the occasional reunion show in BC, not even every year?

I receive updates regarding events at the Supreme Court of Canada, from an extremely good lawyer, with a good sense of humour. He often includes other sections with his newsletter, about things that interest him or that have been on his mind. He gives some advice about things not to do, which made me laugh...

I think I'd like to hear the cop's version... "So, I'd been on Obama-duty since 7:30 am, when this really weird guy who was late for work came up and wouldn't leave me alone. He kept making penis-jokes..."

Do you think I am suggesting that the entire Act would be struck down? That isn't what would be at issue. It is only this one application/interpretation of the Act that would be at issue, meaning the prohibition against putting a sticker on a Loonie, and is what would have to meet the Oakes Test and Constitutional muster, including protecting something within society of such great importance that it justifies infringing a Charter right (which is where your analysis of the intent of the legislation would likely really come in anyway) and that it does so within the "de minimis range". This is a particularly sensitive Charter right, too, because it is not only freedom of expression, but with the purpose of protest for the benefit of society as a whole. The act of expression does not even permanently destroy the Loonie, which is likely the point of the legislation (again dovetailing with your argument anyway, by the way, so I'm not sure we even disagree about why the defence would win) so anyone appealing to Oakes would really have an uphill battle. From my reading of the cases that follow Oakes - not a chance, and really your point about legislative intent would be wrapped up into the reasoning why. Now, the other side to that is that the Mint would claim they are merely engaging in an "administrative act" in applying the legislation this way. I think that's where the triable issue would lie, and would be up to a court, but I already said how I think it would come out.

Here's another fun-fact about the Alberta Tar Sands operation: I believe that one of the really neat things about this oil-pillaging in our country is that a by-product of it is that the world's largest reservoir of water (I believe it's the largest) has now been created as a result. Why? Because every second that they are converting the tar-sands to useable oil they are also creating vast amounts of contaminated water - so contaminated that no one knows how to clean it or what to do with it. So, they just keep it all penned up. This means they are essentially destroying useable water, which is now effectively no longer part of the ecosystem, at a point in history when a huge percentage of the world's population has no water to drink. Funny thing about water ... it stays in reservoirs until the reservoir has a leak or a full-flood. Then the fun starts...

Yes. They were the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, but they found the name was not clear enough to people, thus they're now EcoJustice.

Look at the great news I just received from a group I've been speaking with called EcoJustice:

Well, I don't mean to be stuffy. Let me translate... Dude, that's so not on. It's all about the Oakes Test - not happening. You could totally fight about why they made that law but going the Charter way would be sick. Better?

I totally disagree. They'd need to meet the Oakes Test to have this application of the Act saved under Section 1. No chance. Of course, though, the intent in enacting the legislation would also be an alternative, and pleaded, defence, but the Charter defence would just be easy.

Although it can vary, as everything in law can, it is generally only the representative plaintiff who is subject to examination for discovery or even cost consequences. (There is actually also a fund set up to help with those costs, but it is very cumbersome to access and as a result very underused.) Everyone else gets more or less a free-ride, although they will likely need to speak to counsel a bit, especially if they are creating various sub-classes into which they have to be divided. They could have some other small involvement over time, but not much apart from giving some proof that they fall into a class or sub-class. That said, never be a representative plaintiff. At least one American judge has made pretty funny comments about anyone who would subject him/herself to that.

No legislation, or application thereof, can contravene the Charter. Simple enough.

Gee, I've only considered this for about 10 seconds, but the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically the section re freedom of expression comes to mind. Ridiculous. I would enjoy defending such a lawsuit.

Good stuff, moe.ron. Nice to see that the tar-sands in Alberta are now causing environmental destruction all around our country, rather than just in Alberta. Geez. I signed on.