News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.7K     0 
Northern Light said:
I think what the rest of us are saying, some of whom are lawyers is that we don't see any precedent for the action. We're saying that if you want to suggest that the plaintiffs may have an actionable claim, you need to show why.
Click to expand...
I understand you don't see any precedent, but it's also unusual for a group of that many businesses to get together and sue these parties. The claims speak for themselves and whether they have any merit will be determined by a judge. You seem to claim it as a fact that they do not. I am not so sure.

Northern Light said:
You seem to feel that a judge is entitled to be arbitrary and whimsical here.
Click to expand...
Not true.

Northern Light said:
You need to show legal cause, and "I don't like the outcome of lawful public policy" is not such a cause.
Click to expand...
Your interpretation of the claim does not define the claim. No where is the plaintiff saying "I don't like the outcome of lawful public policy".

Northern Light said:
The City did not physically injure anyone's property, they did not poison any business owner, employee or their customer, they did not alter the right of that business to exist or be open, alter how its run, or take any other action outside of the scope of doing what they are legally allowed to do which is alter their property, the roadway, which they did.
Click to expand...
Sure, and the plaintiffs felt aggrieved, got together, hired a litigation attorney, sought advice and counsel as to their rights and this is the result. The plaintiff's attorney clearly has a different opinion than you. What I am suggesting is the court may also have a different opinion from you.


Northern Light said:
There is no legal obligation to maintain a certain speed of traffic on the road, if there was the City would be sued into oblivion since most roads, altered or otherwise run slower than they did 10 or 20 yeas ago.
Click to expand...
Interesting take, but not sure how that is relevant here.

Anyway, I don't see much point in continuing a back & forth. You believe it is a slam dunk with absolutely zero merit. My experience with litigation tells me I am not so sure.

I stand by my previous post where I see the potential risk that if this case goes forward it could potentially cause harm to the city beyond this case.
 
Midtown Hank said:
I understand you don't see any precedent, but it's also unusual for a group of that many businesses to get together and sue these parties. The claims speak for themselves and whether they have any merit will be determined by a judge. You seem to claim it as a fact that they do not. I am not so sure.
Click to expand...

People file completely frivolous lawsuits all the time, for many reasons.

The claim would speak for itself. I don't think anybody here has seen it. I would love to see what law they are pointing to in order to substantiate their claims, because from all I know, installing these bike lanes was completely within the city's lawful powers (which is why the province needed new legislation to stop them from doing it and reverse their action). They clearly sent the Claim to various media outlets as part of their publicity play (one of the most common reasons to file a completely frivolous lawsuit, especially against the government) but for some reason nobody has published it publicly.
 
You have to create an account. It just has the lawyer's name, Matthew Smith. There are a few Matthew Smiths practicing law in Toronto, but I'm guessing it's this guy, probably working pro bono.

www.millerthomson.com

Matthew G. Smith | Miller Thomson

Matthew engages in a broad and energetic commercial litigation practice, representing a diverse clientele across various industries, before all levels of court in Ontario. Matthew handles cases involving shareholder oppression, breach of contract, fraud, debt-recovery, receiverships...
www.millerthomson.com www.millerthomson.com

For lawsuit searches:

My Ontario Account

www.justiceservices.jus.gov.on.ca www.justiceservices.jus.gov.on.ca
 
The pre-spring Cycling package got a minor, non-issue tweak at I&E:

1740680485876.png
 
7 point gap. JEEEZ. wonder if this pumps the brakes on them moving forward with the law
 
I see little chance of Hogarth's loss putting the brakes on anything. Ontario is a sea of blue, once again. With no real change in the Tory majority. They will continue to rule unchecked by our increasingly poor semblance of a democratic system, and Ford will continue to target Toronto as a site of special attention and scorn, to the delight of his primarily suburban and rural supporters.
 
UntitledCyclist said:
I see little chance of Hogarth's loss putting the brakes on anything. Ontario is a sea of blue, once again. With no real change in the Tory majority. They will continue to rule unchecked by our increasingly poor semblance of a democratic system, and Ford will continue to target Toronto as a site of special attention and scorn, to the delight of his primarily suburban and rural supporters.
Click to expand...

I think that's true, but I definitely find it satisfying that Etobicoke sent this message, whether or not Ford is listening.
 
It is one less person yelling in his ear about it though, and I Feel she was a loud voice.

We will see, I still expect those Etobicoke ones to go. But with the Tariffs and real economic tensions and pressures about to hit this pronvince spending any money ripping out existing infrastructure seems even more nonsensical.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top