StoneMtn

There are millions of Aussies who would agree with you.

1296 Queen West - midnight

This is an amazing reggae/rock band from Vancouver. (Featuring members of Themasses)

www.myspace.com/redeye29records

This venue is apparently in Kensington Market, and I believe the show starts at midnight.

This is an amazing reggae/rock band from Vancouver.

www.myspace.com/redeye29records

I just received this message from a member of a fantastic reggae-rock band from BC (and a good guy, too):

Just a heads up that my band, Redeye Empire, is playing two shows in Toronto next week as part of Canadian Music Week. I think both showcases start at midnight

Wednesday March 11th at 'The Supermarket' in Kensington Market

and

Friday March 13th at the Cadillac Lounge @ 1296 Queen Street West

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.

A notable victory this week may mark the turning point for Canada's 85 remaining southern resident killer whales.

Dear xxxxx,

A Cause for Hope

Last fall, Ecojustice Lawyers Lara Tessaro and Margot Venton launched a lawsuit on behalf on nine environmental organizations, challenging the Canadian government to protect BC's killer whale habitat.

We are pleased to let you know that this lawsuit forced the federal government to legally protect the critical habitat of this endangered species. This March 4th, 2009 will mark the first time a critical habitat Protection Order has ever been issued under the Species at Risk Act, and we congratulate our lawyers and clients on this precedent-setting victory.

More Good News

Just days prior to this encouraging announcement, we celebrated the arrival of two baby killer whales spotted off the coast of Vancouver Island. These additions join the J pod and L pod southern residents who, as you know, remain perilously close to extinction due to serious threats from declining salmon stocks, increased boat traffic and pollution.

"To recover, killer whales need more than the status quo from the federal government and so we’re thrilled our lawsuit forced it to issue this habitat protection Order,†said Ecojustice lawyer Lara Tessaro. “Now we’ll be pushing to ensure this Order leads to action.â€

Together we are making the case for killer whale habitat protection, giving this endangered species a fighting chance.

Yours truly,

Devon Page, Executive Director

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...

Giovanna and I got some travel shots last week, as we'll briefly be in a malaria zone next month - so got stuff like Hep C, yellow fever, meningitis (that was the injections, not the diseases we contracted) and the doctor gave us a book by Sanofi Pasteur called The Travel Booster - Your Guide to Healthy Travel.

Before reading it through (there are 60 plus pages), I looked at the table of contents first and the heading Intimate Encounters catches my eye - so teenage-boy-like, I figure I should read that section first.

Leaving aside the intro, the Intimate Encounters section starts with: "Recent studies suggest that 5% - 15% of Canadians have casual sex during short trips. This percentage is higher for overseas postings" - if this book is correct, certainly going to think twice about shaking the hand of any Canadian diplomat I might meet overseas.

The section went on to highlight a blindingly-obvious piece of advice:

"Try not to make decisions about sex when you're intoxicated".

I'm not making this up. And you'll notice it doesn't say don't - it just says try.

Man, I tell ya, I'm living in a different world now - I don't drink alcohol at all, so me I don't even get to the transitional decision phase.

Playing Monopoly or unscrambling a Rubric Cube while driving probably not good either. Reminds me of the case (actual one - not making this up either) of the Scot given a speeding ticket on the M74 between Edinburgh and Glasgow - he didn't notice the police car (with a calibrated speedometer, hence the ticket) driving parallel to him at high speed - because he was reading a book.

Other recommendations that now occur to me (or my colleagues Ed Pundyk and Miranda Scott):

· don't play Russian roulette when sleep-deprived

· driving your car at NASCAR, don't drive clockwise 'because it feels more logical that way'

· if at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is just not your thing

· don't drink downstream of the herd

· don't challenge a llama to a spitting match

· if you're traveling in a time machine, don't leave your arm hanging out the window, or it'll turn into a fossil.

And one final don't do: in the Court of Appeal, when arguing before a panel of three female judges, don't say "My Lords" - it's happened

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:

We have great news this week from Alberta's tar sands that I want to share with you.

Thanks to the efforts of an Alberta citizen and his Ecojustice lawyers, the oil company responsible for the deaths of hundreds of ducks in a huge tailings pond last spring might have to pay close to a million dollars in fines.

While the long-awaited charges are fantastic news, they come only after months of delay and the launch of our own lawsuit. In January our new Alberta lawyers Barry Robinson and Karin Buss launched a private prosecution of Syncrude Canada to ensure that the company would be held responsible after the ducks mistook its massive toxic tailings pond north of Fort McMurray for an actual lake.

Our lawsuit achieved its objective - lighting a fire under the federal and Alberta governments who less than one month later finally followed suit and formally charged Syncrude with fines that could total $800,000.

Evidently tarsands companies aren't above the law after all. Sometimes it just takes a serious nudge from a concerned citizen and some good lawyers.

Thank you for supporting our work and for helping us achieve our recent string of victories in the courts. Together we are making a difference.

Have an absolutely 'ducky' Valentines Day!

Truly,

Devon Page

PS. If you are looking for other ways to get news from Ecojustice, check out our new Ecojustice blog, send this to a friend or become a fan of Ecojustice on Facebook.

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.

I'm still confused. Of course it wouldn't be worth it for one person to sue' date=' that's why class action exists.

If the court decides that convenience charges are illegal to arbitrarily add on to a ticket and I can just sit here and do nothing and get back all the convenience charges I've paid to ticketbastard in the last two years, in what concievable way is that not worth it? [/quote']

Having not participated in Class Actions before, I would presume that "sit here and do nothing" will involve more in the long run. At the very least I would think they'd need to have a meeting with them wherein you provide back up for the tickets etc. you bought and swear some evidence etc. Maybe not.

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.