In our last post we asked, “Should We Ban Animal Retail in Pet Stores?” Following closely with Richmond, B.C.’s proposal for such a ban, Toronto councilor candidate proposes the same bylaw.

Out of Toronto’s 28 Toronto pet stores, only 11 sell cats and dogs. If this legislation passes under the current proposal, those pet stores, flea markets and retail shops would be banned from selling cats and dogs. They would have one year to sell their inventory.

Registered humane societies and rescue centres would be exempt from the ban and could charge an adoption fee to ensure people who want to enjoy the pleasures of canine and feline company can still do so.

Ward 20 council candidate Dean Mahler argues a city-wide ban would significantly reduce the startling numbers of unwanted pets, promote humane treatment and help create healthier and happier pets. From the Toronto Star:

“…more than 25,000 dogs and cats were euthanized by Toronto Animal Services between 2002 and 2007. That number alone says to me animals are just too easily picked up and dropped off and thought of as disposable,” Maher said. “Hopefully in the long run, (banning pet shop sales) will reduce unwanted animals.”

Maher also points out that a pet store is an unhealthy environment for pets and may result in dysfunctional behaviour in the future. The unwanted pet cycle is perpetuated when ill-equipped pet store retailers are unable to provide pet owners with proper advise. Owners then become dissatisfied with their purchase or unable to cope with breed specific behavior and health issues.

Backing his proposal is veterinarian, Dr. Kenneth Hill, who says companion animal sales are “fraught with profit-driven cruelty.” In his letter of support he writes that the ban would help reduce the number of puppy and kitten mills that often keep pet stores stocked. (source: Toronto Sun)

From the Toronto Star:

Maher expects his ban will be well-received by Torontonians and feels confident his proposal will be approved by committee to go before city council. He pledges to continue pursuing the issue even if he isn’t elected as city councilor in October.

Although TorontoDogBlog.com supports Maher’s plan, at least one Torontonian opposes the ban. Toronto pet store owner, Ian Butt, says the proposed bylaw punishes responsible retailers. He suggests stricter laws are the answer rather than a total ban.

What do you think about the debate? Could the government regulate pet sales, create a certification program and/or pass laws which prohibit purchasing companion animals raised in mills?

Within days of being in effect, Ontario’s new alcohol ban for drivers 21 and under has resulted in five suspended licenses and one application to the Supreme Court for an amendment based on age bias.

Drivers holding G1 or G2 permits in the graduated licencing system are already restricted to a zero-alcohol blood level restriction and as of August 1, 2010, Ontario requires all drivers under the age of 22 to adhere to this policy.

The province amended their youth driving legislation in response to a campaign led by Tim Mulcahy, who lost his 20-year-old son to a 2008 car crash caused by drinking and driving. (Source: TheStar.com)

Under this new law, even trace amounts of alcohol found in the blood will result in penalties including an immediate 24-hour licence suspension, an extended 30-day suspension and up to $500 in fines. A third violation could mean loss of driving privileges altogether.

While critics claim the law violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it is based on age, the Ministry of Transportation says the age restrictions are based on statistics. From CBC.ca:

“drivers between 19 and 21 are nearly 1½ times more likely to be involved in fatal drinking-and-driving accidents as any other age group. In the last decade, 235 drivers under 21 have been killed in alcohol-related collisions in the province.

“There’s been too much bloodshed, too many injuries, too much death,” [Sgt. Tim] Burrows [of Toronto Police] said. “Any amount of alcohol is too much when you’re driving a car.”

MADD Canada also claims drivers between 16 and 24 account for 33 per cent of deaths caused by drunk driving across the country. (Source: GlobalToronto.com)

Despite the statistical argument for the 21 and under alcohol ban, and although he disagrees with drinking and driving, Kevin Wiener, a 20-year-old business student, is contesting the new law. From MacLeans.ca:

“…people who are old enough to serve in the military, perform jury duty and elect governments are mature enough to decide if they want a drink with dinner.

“Statistics show that male drivers, for example, are more likely to get into certain kinds of accidents, but I think we can all agree that we would never see the government apply legislation selectively to one gender or race or national origin because of statistics,” he said.

“They seem to think it’s OK to do so for age. Maybe that’s because young people aren’t as likely to vote.”

The law needs to be changed to ban all inexperienced drivers from having any alcohol in their systems, but also to remove the alcohol ban on young drivers 21 and under, said Wiener.”

Mr. Wiener wants the Ontario government to follow Manitoba’s law which prohibits all first-time drivers from drinking for five years under their graduated licencing system.

If you are facing an alcohol related charge, do not hesitate to contact the professionals at Legal Action for a free assessment of your case.

Do you agree with Kevin Wiener or with the statistics?

UPDATE: It is illegal for any paralegal to represent anyone for impaired driving, DUI or similar charge without being under the direction of a lawyer. Legal Action will be happy to refer you to trusted lawyers that have met the needs of many of our clients in the past and will help you find the lawyer you need to alleviate the anxiety and pressure associated with drinking and driving offences.

Were the Toronto police granted extra powers for the G20 Summit, or weren’t they? Conflicting evidence from politicians and citizens caught in the crossfire cause confusion and debate.

Photo Courtesy of Emmanuel Lopez

The G20 Summit in Toronto took place June 26-27, 2010. One day before the event began, the Toronto Star announced there had been an arrest made under a new regulation the province secretly passed on June 2, 2010, providing police the power to arrest anyone within 5 metres of the G20 security zone who refused to identify themselves or agree to a police search.

This amendment to the Ontario’s Public Works Protection Act was not debated in the Legislature and kicked into effect on Monday, June 21, four days prior to the summit. While the new regulation appeared without notice the week before on the province’s e-Laws online database, official public notification in The Ontario Gazette wasn’t scheduled until July 3 — one week after the regulation expired.

From the TorontoStar.com:

“It reminds me a little bit of the War Measures Act,” said lawyer Nathalie Des Rosiers of the new regulation. Des Rosiers is a lawyer with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which has been working to monitor arrests during the summit. “This is highly unusual to have this declaration done by order-in-council without many people knowing about it.”

The amendment empowered “guards” appointed under the act the ability to demand identification and search anyone coming within five metres of the security fence perimeter. Those who refused to comply to police requests faced arrest and, if convicted under the regulation, up to two months in jail or a $500 maximum fine.

Read the rest of this entry »

Saturday, May 1, 2010, marked the initial stage for implementing Ontario’s controversial 13% harmonized sales tax. Critics maintain it’s a tax grab which will greatly affect the average family’s buying power. Proponents believe it’s an economic catalyst which will boost Canada clear from the recession.

In December 2009, Ontario passed the Liberal-proposed HST legislation to increase the cost of 17% of all goods and services previously exempt from the provincial sales tax.

As of July 1, 2010, consumers purchasing items and services, such as vitamins, gas, haircuts and Christmas trees, will be paying a combined provincial sales tax (8%) and federal sales tax (5%).

Softening the blow to taxpayers, the government cut personal taxes this year as of January 1, 2010, and promises a “transition” cheque of up to $1,000 for some families starting in June.

Premier Dalton McGuinty maintains this is a business-friendly decision which consumers will notice in a bigger job market.

From TheStar.com:

“We’ve indicated that one of the most important reasons why we’re going ahead with our package of tax reforms is to create 600,000 more jobs,” the premier said, citing a study showing the HST will “produce $47 billion more by way of investment in new business” in the coming years.

Last week, some companies and Revenue Minister John Wilkinson advised consumers to make certain purchases before Saturday, May 1, 2010, to avoid paying both taxes. (Source: cbc.ca) As per this initial transition stage, items which will be used after the law is in full-effect in July, such as theatre packages, airplane tickets and gym memberships, are now subject to the HST.

Liberal opposition members, like NDP Leader Andrea Horwath, has said the revenue minister’s consumer advice to “beat the tax” is an admission that the HST is going to cost families more than they can afford.

What do you think of Ontario’s new HST? Will the pain of higher costs at the cash register be the means for the greater good of the province?

Back in October of 2008, the Ontario government was mulling over a cell ban legislation to reduce distractions while driving. Within one year, this `distracted driving’ law is now in full effect. With the 3 month `probationary period’ ending next week, are Ontario drivers ready to give up their electronic devices?

It is now illegal to use a hand-held mobile phone, iPhone, Blackberry, portable DVD player or video game, and global positioning system (GPS) while driving in Ontario. The only exemption for the typical motorist is a 911 call.

Those caught driving with an electronic device in their hand will be fined up to $500. No demerit points are associated with this charge.

Why pass a law which some critics suggest is borderline unconstitutional? From CBC.ca:

“The Ministry of Transport said the ban is needed because driver distraction is a factor in 20 per cent of all road accidents. Bradley [Transportation Minister] said one U.S. study found texting boosted the risk of a collision 23 times.”

The government allows for a small window of time for Ontario residents to comply with a new law. Although the cell phone ban came into effect in October of 2009, most drivers caught chatting, emailing or texting up until now have only received a warning. (Unless officers used their discretion and charge offenders with more serious offences, such as careless or dangerous driving.)

According to the legislation boundaries, you may still use a hands-free device, such as Bluetooth technology, to talk while you’re on the road, and a GPS device if it is fixed to your dashboard.

Interestingly, some companies are requesting exemption from this legislation. According to The Toronto Star:

“While some cab companies, courier and trucking firms want exemptions from the law as regulations are being written, Bradley said they won’t be granted easily. “We would be extremely reluctant as a government to grant any exemptions unless a very compelling case could be made. Safety for the driving public … will be paramount.”

The government is looking at exemptions for communications devices for dispatching, tracking and monitoring commercial drivers.

Emergency services vehicles are also exempt from the prohibition on talking, texting and emailing using hand-held devices.”

What do you think about Ontario’s cell ban while driving?  Will you be complying?  What do you think about the possible exemptions? Please feel free to speak your voice in the comments below.

If you have been caught and charged with using an electronic device while driving, contact one of our licensed paralegals today to receive a FREE consultation regarding your Ontario traffic ticket.

We, like most drivers, have been following the talk about banning cell phones while driving. That’s why we were amused and intrigued to see an article in The Metro outlining how much cell phone bans might be a slippery slope.

Writer Alan Cross argues that we shouldn’t just be worried about cell phones. The very changing nature of technology in our cars places more distractions in our vehicles than ever before. Cross notes that Chrysler and Audi already have Wi-Fi technology in their newest vehicles, allowing drivers to potentially check email or surf the Internet while changing lanes. RDS readouts and changing CDs also distract drivers from the road. Special iPod-friendly systems allow drivers to check their iPod play lists and choose music from menus while on the road, Cross points out, and some new audio systems in today’s cars are like huge iPods, complete with distracting screens and play lists to choose from.

Cross’s article raises an interesting point – while we may all agree that the person who causes a crash because he or she is talking on a cell phone instead of looking at the road is liable, we all do have distractions in the car. Reading Cross’s article, we can’t help but wonder at all the distractions that he does not list in his article. What about the tired mom driving with a Barbie DVD blaring from the backseat DVD player? What about the dad driving with screaming kids in the car? What about the distractions on the road, caused by other drivers’ weird fashion sense or odd air guitar licks?

While we may like to think that our cars are little bubbles, they tend to be little bubbles that have a lot of stuff in them – and that’s before we even get to thinking about non-tangible distractions, such as a driver’s worry about this month’s bills. The problem is that these little bubbles travel at a 100 km/h or better, so little can distractions add up to a lot of smashed metal and many injuries.

It may be popular and simple to ban all mobile devices and in-car devices that may distract a driver (although surely car manufacturers would balk at the notion that their high-tech audio systems might be banned). It’s not that simple, is it? Life is distracting and at some point we need to decide which unnecessary distractions cause more accidents. Do cell phones cause more accidents than iPods in the car? Have manufacturers tested the safety of Wi-Fi in vehicles? Obviously, more research needs to be done.

The whole issue raises a question about liability and personal responsibility, too. Do we need to be told when something is distracting to the point of peril? Obviously, so many  drivers were talking on cell phones while driving that mandatory banning seemed necessary. But who legislates for common sense? Do we need to outline exactly which distractions are ok and which ones are “too dangerous”? And who gets to decide which distractions fall into what category?

As legislation struggles to keep up with technology, it’s food for thought.

In August, we reported the whiff of legislation in the air, specifically, the banning of cellphones while driving. This past Tuesday, The Metro reported Ontario was introducing legislation that day to reduce distracted drivers. It’s now only a matter of time before it’s illegal to use hand-held electronic devices while driving.

If this law is passed, any driver caught emailing, texting, surfing the web or chatting on cellphones, BlackBerrys and Global Positioning Systems (GPSs) will face penalties. The ban specifically covers the use of these portable electronic devices and the repercussions include fines and demerit points.

So should you throw away your new GPS? No. The bill developed by Transportation Minister, Jim Bradley, deems Bluetooth technology safe to use while driving, as well as dashboard mounted GPS devices. These exemptions, however, call into question the reasoning behind such as ban as the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) believes they are “just as distracting to drivers because they reduce response times by impairing cognitive function and visual concentration.”

The OMA has been pushing a cellphone ban for three years now. Based on one of their studies, talking on a phone while driving is comparably hazardous (on a relative risk basis) to driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit. From the Metro:

“The evidence is clear that driving while using a mobile phone is dangerous to the driver, their passengers and others on or near the roadway,” said OMA president Dr. Ken Arnold.”

The cellphone exemptions to this ban provide both a case for and against this legislation. Additional fuel for the debate is Premier Dalton McGuity’s previous opposition, which he reneged later, to such a ban as he stated that it’s difficult to know where to draw the line between other distractions.

A very good point, despite the vehicular deaths attributed to cellphone use – the reason behind Premier McGuinty’s change of mind. These other distractions include activities such as eating, drinking (non-alcoholic beverages) and smoking cigarettes, all of which entail the use of one’s hands.

So readers, how does the law justify the banning of hand-held electronic devices but not these other distractions?

Advanced, cutting-edge multiple camera technology is taking the loophole out of a single camera system, reports The Calgary Sun. The result: drivers who drive even 10 – 20 km/h over the limit are guaranteed to get speeding tickets.

This photo radar technology is being tested in Britain and tracks the motorist from the minute the car enters a particular section of the road until the moment it leaves.

The system uses digital licence-plate recognition software to track the car and source the name and address of the (un)lucky motorist.

Ontario drivers don’t have to sweat just yet, though. It’s the province of Albert that’s attempting to pass legislation that will allow these cameras on the roads. In fact, they’ve already changed the law. They’re just waiting for the legislation to pass and expect the first fines to be issued in 2009.

Additionally, proponents of the system claim that its calculations actually err on the side of the motorist. The computerized cameras will be placed intermittently along a major road and calculate the average speed over a number of kilometers. The Calgary Sun illustrates how this works:

“A driver recorded at five points on the Deerfoot, doing 100, 105, 95, 100, and 115 km/h, would average out at 103 km/h — not fast enough to warrant a ticket.”

So what do you think, Readers? If Ontario implements this multiple camera system, will it slow you down?

The Ontario government has recently passed a long awaited ban on smoking while driving with children under 16, following widely publicized discussions regarding the risk second hand smoke presents to children in enclosed areas. While the law is reasonable, slapping fines of about $250 per offense, there is still the question of how it will be enforced. From the Canadian Press:

The province will launch a campaign to better educate the public about the dangers of smoking in vehicles with children, but hasn’t yet determined how much it will spend, Best said.

“We expect the budget will not be a big budget because we expect that there’s going to be a very high percentage of compliance with this piece of legislation,” she said.

But police will be expected to enforce the law once it takes effect, which will only make their jobs more onerous, said Opposition Leader Bob Runciman.

“There will probably be very little enforcement of this, in terms of checking cars and that sort of thing,” he said. “So I think education would be a critical part of this. It has to be.”

Ontario Provincial Police have said the ban won’t be difficult to enforce, as it already inspects for seatbelts and child car seats.

The Health Ministry’s website has more information on the new measures:

• Under the proposed law, any person – driver or passenger – in the motor vehicle, who is smoking while someone else under the age of 16 is present, would be committing an offence.
• The proposed law would apply to both moving and stationary vehicles, and would apply to motor vehicles, regardless of whether any window, sunroof, rooftop, door, or other feature of the vehicle is open.
• If the Smoke-Free Ontario Amendment Act, 2008 is passed, every person who fails to comply with the proposed prohibition would be guilty of an offence and subject to a set fine of $250.
• Nova Scotia, Yukon, Arkansas, California, Maine, Louisiana, Puerto Rico, South Australia and Tasmania have already banned smoking in motor vehicles with kids.

What are your thoughts on the smoking ban? Is the age of 16 too low of a benchmark or too high? As a taxpayer, what resources would you approve of that would help police enforce this law?

One of the most controversial bills being considered by our federal Tories is C-61, which is being put forward as an attempt to revamp outdated legislation from 1997, an era not completely familiar with the dubious ‘grey markets’ of the Internet.

Consumer groups across the net have been signing petitions addressed to bill advocates, including The Honourable Jim Prentice, (P.C., Q.C., M.P. Minister of Industry) and The Honourable Josée Verner, (P.C., M.P. Minister of Canadian Heritage), urging them to amend certain portions of their proposal. Here is their response, as it has appeared in signers’ inboxes, which describes the new bill and addresses some of the public’s concern:

The Government of Canada has introduced Bill C-61, An Act to Amend the Copyright Act. The proposed legislation is a made-in-Canada approach that balances the needs of Canadian consumers and copyright owners, promoting culture, innovation and competition in the digital age.

What does Bill C-61 mean to Canadians?

Specifically, it includes measures that would:

* expressly allow you to record TV shows for later viewing; copy legally purchased music onto other devices, such as MP3 players or cell phones; make back-up copies of legally purchased books, newspapers, videocassettes and photographs onto devices you own; and limit the “statutory damages” a court could award for all private use copyright infringements;

* implement new rights and protections for copyright holders, tailored to the Internet, to encourage participation in the online economy, as well as stronger legal remedies to address Internet piracy;

* clarify the roles and responsibilities of Internet Service Providers related to the copyright content flowing over their network facilities; and

* provide photographers with the same rights as other creators.

What Bill C-61 does not do:

* it would not empower border agents to seize your iPod or laptop at border crossings, contrary to recent public speculation

What this Bill is not:

* it is not a mirror image of U.S. copyright laws. Our Bill is made-in-Canada with different exceptions for educators, consumers and others and brings us into line with more than 60 countries including Japan, France, Germany and Australia

Bill C-61 was introduced in the Commons on June 12, 2008 by Industry Minister Jim Prentice and Heritage Minister Josée Verner.

Read the rest of this entry »