Updates from July, 2024 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Kate 16:33 on 2024-07-10 Permalink | Reply  

    Part of the Decarie trench has been closed because of the rain and there are some reports that Jean‑Talon metro station has had water infiltration. Road photos from TVA.

    • Ian 17:12 on 2024-07-10 Permalink

      Yikes! Given how many time the Decarie has flooded over the years I’m amazed it’s never been figured out how to prevent it. I’m still relieved the rain has broken the heat, though.

    • H. John 18:16 on 2024-07-10 Permalink

      A large section of NDG and Westmount (between Sherbrooke and de Maisonneuve) had its power turned off, for close to two hours, according to Hydro Quebec for “Protection of public safety”, with CBC saying:

      “More than 9,000 Hydro-Québec customers in the Montreal and Montérégie regions were without power as of 4:30 p.m.
      A spokesperson for the public utility says it voluntarily interrupted service for those customers at the request of provincial security officials due to the heavy rain, stressing that the outages are not due to equipment failure.”


    • Ian 18:49 on 2024-07-10 Permalink

      OK, I like foresight…. but why, then? Were they worried about flooding somehow?

    • H. John 19:07 on 2024-07-10 Permalink

      @Ian Really not sure, but the outage map stretched out on either side of Decarie.

  • Kate 12:32 on 2024-07-10 Permalink | Reply  

    A man was shot in a Lasalle apartment early Wednesday, and died in hospital. It’s the city’s 18th homicide of the year.

    The Journal has some background on the victim on Thursday: in the 1990s, he killed a small child, and did time for it.

    • Kate 09:49 on 2024-07-10 Permalink | Reply  

      As presaged recently by this blog comment, a longstanding homeless camp near the CP tracks is to be evicted soon by CP authorities.

      • Kate 08:06 on 2024-07-10 Permalink | Reply  

        Although naloxone is freely available and the health ministry supports its use in cases of opoiod overdose, some boroughs are discouraging workers from carrying it, or at least are not training them in how to administer it – even those with first aid training.

        • Ian 08:33 on 2024-07-10 Permalink

          I wonder if it’s an insurance worry, as it’s dispensing medication.

        • Kate 08:41 on 2024-07-10 Permalink

          That crossed my mind too. So many of the choices made by authority can be explained if you take concerns about liability into account.

        • CE 09:08 on 2024-07-10 Permalink

          I did a first aid training a couple months ago and naloxone/narcan administration was part of the training. Even if you don’t carry it, any pharmacy will give it to you in case of an emergency (which is of no use to anyone if it’s after business hours).

        • jeather 09:14 on 2024-07-10 Permalink

          I thought we had a good samaritan act here — in fact I thought we had an affirmative duty to help, but weren’t liable unless we were intentionally causing harm/being reckless. I suppose that would make a worker with naloxone liable if they didn’t use it.

        • steph 09:32 on 2024-07-10 Permalink

          jeather is correct https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/opioids/about-good-samaritan-drug-overdose-act.html
          You don’t need to listen to your employer to be a good citizen.

        • Joey 10:13 on 2024-07-10 Permalink

          What a disgrace. @Ian if it were an insurance worry, other boroughs wouldn’t permit it. This just seems cruel.

        • jeather 10:16 on 2024-07-10 Permalink

          That’s a slightly different one, about not being arrested for having drugs, I was thinking about the more standard one, where you can’t get sued for breaking someone’s ribs while providing CPR, but also in Quebec if you know CPR, you’re required to help in an emergency that needs it.

        • Blork 11:13 on 2024-07-10 Permalink

          “if it were an insurance worry, other boroughs wouldn’t permit it.” I wouldn’t make that assumption. The insurance worry (if it is that) is likely an attempt to balance benefits and risks. One borough might tip the balance one way while another borough tips it the other way. Boroughs are governed by people, and different people interpret these risks differently.

        • Joey 13:02 on 2024-07-10 Permalink

          @Blork the notion of an “insurance worry” was just speculation, not rooted in the reporting, but I still don’t see how a lifeguard in the Plateau (trained in administering Naloxone) could be less of an insurance risk than a lifeguard in Rosemont with similar training. Moreover, I’m fairly certain anyone who has the proper training (which is minimal) can administer Naloxone, in part because the extraordinary benefits greatly outweigh the virtually non-existent risks (which are, chiefly, that the Nalxone may wear off quickly, that it might cause a cardia event and that it might cause withdrawal symptoms – each of these is dramatically better than dying of an overdose). Even further, it’s not as if the paramedics won’t eventually administer Naloxone; they most certainly will – unless the overdose victim has died because of a failure to act.

          Anyway, the city and the province are already pressuring the boroughs to change course. I suspect they will within hours…

          And, BTW, from Health Canada (https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/drug-products/prescription-drug-list/questions-answers-naloxone.html#). I can’t imagine that there would be an “insurance worry” here:

          4. Why did Health Canada change naloxone’s prescription status?
          With the dramatic increase in opioid use and opioid related deaths, in June 2015, the provinces and territories (P/Ts) requested that Health Canada make naloxone available without a prescription for use in emergency situations.

          In March 2016, Health Canada changed the prescription status to increase public access to naloxone. Instead of requiring a prescription for each individual in need of naloxone, pharmacies are now able to proactively give out naloxone to those who might experience or witness an opioid overdose. Additionally, switching naloxone to non-prescription enabled emergency responders to administer naloxone without having to wait for a prescription to be ordered for each individual in need.

        • Kate 13:31 on 2024-07-10 Permalink

          Joey, is there perhaps a legal distinction between a layperson administering naloxone on their own account, versus having it given by someone working for public services, possibly with official first aid training?

        • Blork 13:39 on 2024-07-10 Permalink

          Joey, the only thing I’m disputing is the notion that because one borough deems something an insurance risk, then ALL boroughs will necessarily arrive at the same conclusion. Different boroughs. Different decision makers.

        • Joey 14:14 on 2024-07-10 Permalink

          @Kate I don’t think so: https://www.quebec.ca/en/health/advice-and-prevention/alcohol-drugs-gambling/rescuing-a-person-from-a-possible-opioid-overdose

          The whole point of the provincial Naloxone campaign is that people who are at high risk of overdose or who are at high risk of witnessing an overdose should have Naloxone on them to intervene and save a life. You or I could be easily trained (follow that link, the steps are very easy) to administer it, there is literally zero reason why, say, a lifeguard shouldn’t be expected to carry it in their first aid kid and administer as needed. The alternative, and this is not an understatement, in many cases is certain death.

        • jeather 14:18 on 2024-07-10 Permalink

          It isn’t clear to me — are the employees not allowed to get naloxone as any citizen would and keep it with them while working, or is it just that the borough doesn’t supply it and doesn’t train?

        • Kate 16:35 on 2024-07-10 Permalink

          The lede on the La Presse piece says “Plusieurs arrondissements de Montréal découragent leurs employés, même ceux formés en secourisme, d’administrer de la naloxone” which is pretty clear.

        • jeather 16:41 on 2024-07-10 Permalink

          And the first paragraph says: À l’arrondissement de Rosemont–La Petite-Patrie, les employés – autant les cols bleus que les cols blancs – ne peuvent pas administrer de la naloxone s’ils suspectent une surdose d’opioïdes.

          Which suggests something really different, which is why I asked.

        • Kate 19:07 on 2024-07-10 Permalink

          If I see anything that clarifies this point I will post it.

          …CTV says specifically that “several boroughs have banned their employees from administering the lifesaving opioid antidote naloxone.”

        • jeather 11:47 on 2024-07-11 Permalink

          Thanks Kate. Not providing it is a choice, but banning anyone from carrying it is a bigger choice. (And might be illegal, based on that good samaritan law, where you have to intercede if you can?)

      • Kate 07:32 on 2024-07-10 Permalink | Reply  

        McGill has closed its campus and is moving private security in to dismantle its pro‑Palestinian encampment on Wednesday morning. CBC radio says Sherbrooke Street is blocked off where it passes the campus.

        • Ian 08:14 on 2024-07-10 Permalink

          Any word on which private security agency? It’s not mentioned in any of the articles or evident from the supporting photos.

        • Kate 08:26 on 2024-07-10 Permalink

          Not that I’ve seen yet.

        • Ian 08:36 on 2024-07-10 Permalink

          I mostly ask becasue they used to use Securitas, who were responsible for some of the more egregious abuses of power during the student strikes of 2012.

        • su 09:22 on 2024-07-10 Permalink

          Looks like Montreal police were also engaged .

        • Ian 09:28 on 2024-07-10 Permalink

          According to the articles the SIS (Section du support et interventions spécialisées) were staying off-campus, eg, “A spokesperson for the Montreal police said officers are only at the scene for support purposes.”

        • su 09:29 on 2024-07-10 Permalink

          Is the Montreal police SIS squad a new entity? I don’t recall ever seeing those uniforms before.

        • CE 09:35 on 2024-07-10 Permalink

          SPHR McGill is saying the security company is Sirco.

        • Ian 09:41 on 2024-07-10 Permalink

          Sort of – Intervention officers (GI, Riot police) are now called SIS.

        • Joey 10:16 on 2024-07-10 Permalink

          They used Sirco. As a lay person, it seems to me that McGill is violating the outcome of the two injunction requests to shut the encampment down, though I am sure they have some legal justification (La Presse refers to legitimate safety risks – overdoses and drug sales this weekend, fire risks from propane tanks, rat infestation – that of course haven’t been verified).

          From the activists’ side, at this point there’s probably more to be gained from being kicked out by McGill’s private security firm than there is from hanging out indefinitely on lower campus.

        • Ian 10:25 on 2024-07-10 Permalink

          That’s a very good point. It also crossed my mind that McGill did an outcomes exercise and figured the likelihood of getting sued was less of a concern than having the encampment stay in place. Whatever harm or benefit has been done to their reputation throughout the encampment won’t be significantly changed by hiring private security to dismantle it.

        • H. John 11:43 on 2024-07-10 Permalink


          There has only been one injunction request by McGill (or even involving McGill) and that case is still before the courts.

          The other court decisions, the case brought by two students from McGill or the case involving UQAM, were both preliminary or interim injunction requests (one rejected, one granted in part).

          The recent decision in the University of Toronto case gives a clear and thorough explanation of the law. I expect the ongoing McGill case will arrive at exactly the same finding (unless the judge decides that since the camp is gone the case is moot and dismisses it).

          University of Toronto (Governing Council) v. Doe et al., 2024 ONSC 3755 (CanLII)


          It’s estimated that the U of T case cost that University well over $2 million in legal fees.

          The link above connects to the case but also the other cases considered by the judge, and an article reviewing the case:

          Trespass, Campus Encampments, and the Charter


        • Joey 13:03 on 2024-07-10 Permalink

          Thanks, H. John.

      Compose new post
      Next post/Next comment
      Previous post/Previous comment
      Show/Hide comments
      Go to top
      Go to login
      Show/Hide help
      shift + esc