[Videodrome]

I wasn't sure which thread this should go in, but I happened to be watching CHCH and the big story was Burlington mayor Rick Goldring trying to annex Waterdown from Hamilton. Apparently he went to the PC government without asking Hamilton first.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

The location is interesting: at the far south end of the Kipling dead-end S of Woodbridge. Pretty transit-inaccessible. Pretty Vaughan-McMansion-class-amenable...

It's by far the most "elite" (harrumph harrumph) location ever for a Ford Fest.

And also the hangout of a lot of Italian developer money.

 

[King of Kensington]

The NDP are no longer a party that has the interest of the working class. Both my parents were factory workers. i remember going to NDP events as a kid, the entire factory would show up to support the local candidate. I bet you now a days, most working class folks, in those industries like construction, manufacturing.etc... are now Conservative Doug Ford supporters. As Trump said in a campaign speech. "I love the poorly educated," Yeah they're easier to dupe.

Meanwhile, St. Paul's went NDP and the Conservatives came in third there.

 

[adma]

Ha... Doug loves the "little guy" when it comes to having them vote for him, not so much when it comes to them coming for their free wiener and burger.

Though Mom's backyard, Thomson Park, Centennial Park and the Sears lands (and, for that matter, the Toronto Congress Centre) are all more "accessible" to the "little guy" than this joint. I mean, unless they were bussed in, fat chance for the brown people of Scarberia or Rexdale/Thistletown who once might have been the proletarian life at such events...

 

[adma]

One thing I find about a lot of leftish knocks on Ford is the amorphous notion of his favouring his "developer buddies"--well, duh, it isn't like the Liberals or whomever didn't have or bend to their own "developer buddies", it's just that they did a better job of framing it in high-minded terms of starchitecture and enlightened planning principles and what have you. Whereas with Ford, one can readily assume them to be big-box and casino hucksters--the Hotel X is more their cup of tea than, say, Sidewalk Labs.

What we should *really* watch out for is the resucitation of issues that ought to have been dead and buried 30 or 40 or more years ago: urban expressways, getting rid of streetcars, kicking the Toronto Island residents out of their homes, etc. (Though these days, China'd be the likelier benchmark than the USA for the ability to "do stuff" regardless of what the activists might say.)

 

[BurlOak]

The Stay is granted.

The full decision is here:

http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2018/2018ONCA0761.pdf

The gist is that the judges felt the appeal had strong merit and the lower court erred.

It appears ancillary orders will follow (likely changing nomination periods)

Up until now, we have had vexatious lawsuits and activist judges.

Now we have Vexatious Judgments - where judges make the wrong decision just to harm their political opponents.

The language of the 3 judge panel was very harsh.

 

[animatronic]

Up until now, we have had vexatious lawsuits and activist judges.

Now we have Vexatious Judgments - where judges make the wrong decision just to harm their political opponents.

The language of the 3 judge panel was very harsh.

You should read it again. All four judges agreed that Ford's move was unfair to voters, alarming and inappropriate. The appeal ones just didn't think it was unconstitutionally-bad.

 

[Jasmine18]

You should read it again. All four judges agreed that Ford's move was unfair to voters, alarming and inappropriate. The appeal ones just didn't think it was unconstitutionally-bad.

That is an actual legal decision made by the judges yesterday.

It is rather clear the judge from last week was more about making public policy from the bench and overreached.

I dont agree with Fords plan but I think the judge from last week overstepped his authority.

 

[sixrings]

That is an actual legal decision made by the judges yesterday.

It is rather clear the judge from last week was more about making public policy from the bench and overreached.

I dont agree with Fords plan but I think the judge from last week overstepped his authority.

I am assuming you're basing that on your own personal and vast legal experience and expertise? Otherwise you could say you disagree with the judge based on other judges and lawyers opinions but surely you must admit that anyone without formal training would have a hard time interpreting what was legally right. If it was so easy we would all be judges.

 

[steveintoronto]

Now we have Vexatious Judgments - where judges make the wrong decision just to harm their political opponents.

The language of the 3 judge panel was very harsh.

lol...I suspect the irony has escaped you. Btw: It's far from finished.

The appeal ones just didn't think it was unconstitutionally-bad.

And I see fault with at least one aspect of their decision. The PEI case cited has to be revisited for reasons I won't go into here, but it bears on a lot more than just this instance. It's questionable if in fact it is a bona-fide precedent.

To put this into simpler terms: If civic elections and municipal affairs are the sole creatures of the Province, then the Charter *does* apply to not just provincial elections, but any elections that are the sole creations of the province. And in Ont's case, the Muni Election Act (and others) must comply with Constitutional requirements.

The PEI case must be revisited, and the precedent status annulled. This will be for the SCC to do.

 

[zang]

That is an actual legal decision made by the judges yesterday.

It is rather clear the judge from last week was more about making public policy from the bench and overreached.

Yeah, it was just to create policy, and not deliberate thought and judgement. That’s why it took a week to get it.

This idea of activist judges is bullshit. Our system is set up so that not one body has exclusive right to make law. Denying the judicial part of it is denying individual rights to recompense, and saying the collective decision once every four years is the only one that matters. Both systems work in tandem to make society better and livable. Trying to delegitimize one side is effectively trying to rewrite the system on which our country is built, to make it easier for one branch to get its way.

 

[PinkLucy]

But it’s all good now that some (apparently non-activist or something) judges made a ruling they liked. As @steveintoronto notes, the irony (and hypocrisy) is thick.

 

[steveintoronto]

Yeah, it was just to create policy, and not deliberate thought and judgement. That’s why it took a week to get it.

This idea of activist judges is bullshit. Our system is set up so that not one body has exclusive right to make law. Denying the judicial part of it is denying individual rights to recompense, and saying the collective decision once every four years is the only one that matters. Both systems work in tandem to make society better and livable. Trying to delegitimize one side is effectively trying to rewrite the system on which our country is built, to make it easier for one branch to get its way.

And what so many of these 'elections dictate what we can and can't do' posters completely overlook is that the *Crown* is the ultimate authority in Canada. Like it or not (and I'm a republican) the Queen is head of state, and thus head of the courts, and legislative assemblies.

What's Dougie gonna do? Downsize the Queen? Speaking of Queen Sized...

Addendum: What is perhaps indicated is the need for an upper chamber to Queen's Park. That's right, *more* reps rather than less. There's good reason for an upper chamber, as attested by Parliament, and in many nations.

How that upper chamber is compromised and appointed/elected is a whole other matter, but it offers long-term stability in cases exactly like this one.

Historically, several provinces had bicameral legislatures, but they all eventually dissolved their upper house or merged it with their lower house.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_assemblies_of_Canadian_provinces_and_territories

 

[Northern Light]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_assemblies_of_Canadian_provinces_and_territories[/URL]

I'm a fan of unicameral legislatures.

I think they improve accountability.

In the US the existence of active senates federally and at state level has the effect of frustrating what people want rather than supporting it. Because the two houses may be controlled by different parties it completely mucks up whose responsible for what failure.

I appreciate the idea of a check and balance against Dougie, but I don't want that desire to create a situation that frustrates democracy for generations.

Constitutionally, there are matters to address such as nixing the NWC and/or curtailing it, and addressing sub-provincial democratic rights.

Neither of those are likely to get addressed in the next few years, but I hope are worthy of future consideration.

Likewise, I favour a few other changes, including electoral reform, such that we don't produce large false majorities (for any party).

I've also long favoured a couple of changes in rules about how legislation passes.

1) No bill should pass without the assent of 50% plus one of MP/MPPs, rather than merely a majority of those who show up.

2)Any bill that seeks to criminalize something and attach a minimum prison term or a one longer than six months ought to be held to a higher standard than a razor thin majority.
We could debate a reasonable number, but I think a 2/3 majority is not unduly demanding.

 

[steveintoronto]

I'm a fan of unicameral legislatures.

I think they improve accountability.

I am too. Denmark is an example of a national one that appears very effective. But the Danes are also vastly more progressive and pro-active than Cdns on many issues, while ironically being conservative socially. Of course, their parliamentary tradition predates the Westminster one by centuries. But Denmark's monarchy plays the role of the Upper Chamber...a whole discussion in itself...note: Ontario's L-G!

Constitutionally, there are matters to address such as nixing the NWC and/or curtailing it, and addressing sub-provincial democratic rights.

I think this might be closer than some think. The SCC is going to have to address this, and the Cons are going to go ballistic over it. It will be next to impossible to address this through the 'Amending Formula'.

Again, this is a discussion in itself, and frankly, it's unavoidable. Some grown-ups might have gotten through to Dougie...it remains to be seen.