The last council session has been held at city hall until it reopens in 2022 after extensive renovations and repairs.
Updates from April, 2019 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
-
Kate
-
Kate
The case of Bela Kosoian, who was arrested for not holding a metro handrail when ordered to do so by security, will be ruled on by the Supreme Court in a few months’ time. The incident happened almost ten years ago.
david100
Before the idea catches hold that this woman was fined for not holding a handrail on an escalator, which is a patently stupid thing to stop someone for, but exactly what is being reported, let me bang this off. I know that newspeople read this blog.
Here’s what you must to understand:
One, she was disorderly (whether drunk, drugs, or simply obstinate, we don’t have facts) and the cops just got wrote her up on whatever. Prosecutors dropped the charges, of course.
Two, she sued for false basis of arrest, with the procedural posture as follows.
Her lawsuit was dismissed right off. When a court case is dismissed, it dies as a matter of law – ie. it’s found that there’s no relief available to the plaintiff, as a matter of law, so the court tosses it. Short story is that our judicial system lets you sue people, but you must first convince a judge that you’ve actually got what’s called a cause of action. A cause of action is a claim that some party violated your legal rights, and you have to support it with some minimal level of proof that said violation took place, based on named elements. So, for instance, if you were assaulted, and you went civil to take money off the assailant, and they moved to dismiss the case, you’d show a police report, record of conviction, maybe if it hadn’t got that far you’d file an affidavit – all showing that they committed the offense as outlined by the law. Then you’d beat the motion to dismiss.
Anyway, this case was dismissed for failure to state a claim under which relief could be granted, and she’s been appealing and arguing specifically about the legal defense to her claim – what internationally is called qualified immunity for the public security services. In a nutshell, this is a legal doctrine that immunizes certain police actions from liability, assuming they followed the law, as it was understood and reasonably interpreted at the time.
Basically, this claim in the news is not something that went to jury, it’s all about the interpretation of law, that’s what they’re fighting about.
It’s on this basis that it found its way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Plaintiff is seeking to get a certain legal standard citizen/police interactions adopted, and Quebec is seeking another.
Obviously, behind the high-minded rhetoric, we can see the issue here pretty clearly. I’d personally love it and benefit a lot if Canada had a torts system that made it easy to take money off the government for borderline cases when the police make an example of a loudmouth “I know my rights” type, a foreigner, a drunk, a protester, etc. It’s payday central. At the same time, it’s not the sort of public policy that most Quebecois would love, given the cost of paying people out, and the fact that the harm is relatively minor, and the court costs relatively significant.
So, yeah, that’s a long way of saying this: maybe you think that cops should be hammered in the court, but maybe you also think that such a rule would cost us, not just in money but also in less effective law enforcement.
(And before the normal chorus chimes in to impute race into this, you have the Plaintiff Bela Kosoian, the Defendants Fabio Camacho and the City of Laval, and the Plaintiff’s attorney Aymar Missakila. You’re talking about a bunch of copper-tones here).
Kevin
I reviewed my notes from a decade ago and Kosoian was the first person in the history of the STM to be fined for not holding a handrail.
She was also fined for obstruction.
Both of those were dismissed in court — but that’s not why she’s at the Supreme Court. She’s there arguing cops were jerks.
ricardus
The officer had no right under the Code of Penal Procedure to order her to surrender name and address to serve her a ticket. The officer hence had no right to arrest her when she refused to surrender these things. The officer applied an offence that does not exist under any law. His arrest thus was not “authorised by law”.The officer hence committed assault as his act was not protected under s. 25 Criminal Code. The Court of Appeal ruled that sure Officer Camacho is a criminal, but under the civil regime he is not at fault because “ignorance of the law is no defence” does not apply in civil law, they ruled! They went so far as to imply that the arrest was illegal under criminal law but legal under civil law, claiming that CPP arrest powers were respected. When it does say however in s. 72 that one must have “probable cause” that an offence has been committed to serve a ticket, this does not permit that argument to work.
ricardus
The “obstruction” was the not giving name and address and “forcing” an arrest for an offence that does not exist.
s. 72 of the Code of Penal Procedure provides; “A peace officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed an offence may require the person to give him his name and address, if he does not know them, so that a statement of offence may be prepared.”
It is obvious that this offence must exist. That is the officer must have reasonable grounds to believe that the subject has committed a real offence. If they suspect that the person committed an offence that does not exist, then the officer may not demand this information.
s. 73:” A person may refuse to give his name and address or further information to confirm their accuracy so long as he is not informed of the offence alleged against him.”
And if that offence does not exist, then it is clear that the person may refuse to give name and address.
The arrest power is in s. 74: “A peace officer may arrest without a warrant a person informed of the offence alleged against him who, despite the peace officer’s demand, fails or refuses to give him his name and address ….” I have seen cases where judges hive this provision from the two others to claim that there is no need for probable cause! That of course makes CPP arrest powers more permissive than Criminal Code ones if this is so and makes a mockery of the scheme of the Act! At any rate, minimally when the police “inform” of the “offence”, it must be a real offence and not a fake one like in this Kosoian case.
In municipal court, the two tickets fell because 1) The first ticket discloses an offence that does not exist, and 2) An officer applying an offence that does not exist is not in execution of his duties.
This case has huge civil liberties ramifications. Laval and the STM are arguing that police should have the right to make up the law on site or at the police station and that this is presumed correct and all persons must act as if it is correct. It becomes an easy matter to force names and addresses from people to investigate them by claiming they are committing fictitious offences.
-
Kate
The CAQ is firm that there will be no exceptions for Montreal on Bill 21.
Jack
Who cares, no institution in Montreal will enforce this law. Their is actually no method of enforcement in the law itself. My only concern is the Municipal Unions ( Fire, Blue Collar, White Collar) because they dont live in Montreal and probably a majority of them voted CAQ. As a matter of fact the Minister of Immigration, Diversity and Inclusiveness ( Really) Simon Joliet-Barrette was a member of the white collar union at the city. He grew up in the tough streets of Mont St.Hilaire and attended the University of Sherbrooke.
Chris
Well, it is logical that Bill 21 should apply everywhere. The problem is that Bill 21 itself is stupid.
-
Kate
Inevitably, after the disaster in Paris, the question is asked whether our churches are safe from a similar fate. The answer is clearly no.
Tim S.
By their nature churches are vulnerable to fires. They’re largely made of wood (at least the roof and tower structures) and wide open. Medieval churches were constantly burning down because of lightning strikes and the odd dropped candle (also, invading armies). It seems as though we can do more to protect them these days, but they won’t last forever. That said, it’s still sad when it happens on our watch, so to speak.
Frankie
Some churches have switched to battery-operated lights to replace candles or just don’t have anything at all. Probably saves on insurance costs as well as reducing the likelihood of a hellish conflagration.
A
If it is similar to the way it seems to work in France, they probably don’t have insurance in the traditional sense. France itsself owns most of the religious buildings therefore they ‘self-insure’ the building (i.e. they cover the cost themselves and by they, i guess they mean the taxpayer/some rich people with offshore bank accounts)
-
Kate
TVA reports that an STM honcho says 70% of the metro system has reached end of life and the system is in a serious state of maintenance deficit, and it would cost $4 billion to restore. He also says passengers are not at risk.
Kevin
#Onestpasraciste
http://twitter.com/perreaux/status/1118198637752913920jeather
This isn’t really related except it is about the metro: I am in Lionel-Groulx a lot lately, which place sells the good Nanaimo squares you mentioned recently?
Kate
On the lower level there’s a spot on the platform where there are 2 businesses back to back. One is a dep called Tabatout. The other is a small place called Underground Café selling coffee, sandwiches and various snacks. The Nanaimos are $1.75.
-
Kate
The CAQ is proposing a “temporary” 90-cent surcharge on all taxi and Uber rides to help them reimburse taxi permit holders. I put that word in quotes, because which government has ever repealed a tax?
Ephraim
So an airport ride is now going to be $41.90? This is stupid. At least put it at $1. And how long do you think it will take Revenu Quebec to program this new tax collection system into their computers, never mind how much it will cost to program this nonsense into their systems. And the taxi bureau to actually print up new signs for every damn taxi. As for Uber… that’s their problem… but then again, they still haven’t told their drivers to get themselves a damn F plate so they can deduct expenses… instead of pay income tax on their gas, car expenses and depreciation.
Chris
Well somebody has to refund the old value of those medallions. I guess they figure better the users of taxis/uber than the general tax payer.
Ephraim
@Chris – That’s the problem with people who don’t think… this leave RQ and the Taxi Bureau with a bill as well. We can’t expect that RQ won’t pay it’s programmers. And how about the taxi meters, someone needs to reprogram them… etc.
Ian Rogers
Well there was a “temporary” tax on cigarettes for 30 or so years to help pay for the Olympic Stadium, wasn’t there?
Ephraim
75c per packet. Never removed.
Ian Rogers
Huh, for some reason I thought I read somewhere that it was. Well, there you go, then. Temporary taxes fan tutti. FWIW income tax was supposed to be a temporary measure to pay off WW1.
Tim F 08:32 on 2019-04-18 Permalink
Just wondering… How’s the fire extinguishing infrastructure in city hall? I bet a lot of renovators of historic buildings are thinking about that after Paris…
Kate 22:07 on 2019-04-22 Permalink
No idea. After all, our current city hall is a 1920s rebuild after a serious fire nearly destroyed the original building from the 1880s. I suspect everything in there needs a technical upgrade, including fire control stuff.