[pud99]

This is a pretty good summary, IMO, including of the often-ignored difference between an adverse witness and a hostile witness.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Evidence/Credibility/Adverse_and_Hostile_Witnesses

 

[pud99]

Possible, but unlikely. That can generally only be done if he's given prior statements that are helpful to the prosecution, which we know he hasn't.

Actually, that is more accurately a description of someone who might be declared an adverse witness under s. 9 of the Canada Evidence Act; the common law test for someone to be declared a hostile witness is different. An adverse witness can be cross-examined on statements that appear to be contrary to what he or she was called to prove (these are the statements on which a finding of adversity would be based); a judge can allow a hostile witness to be cross-examined generally (e.g., on his or her credibility in general).

 

[ROFOMOFO]

Great new twitter parody account.

https://twitter.com/DecoLibels

 

[PinkLucy]

Didn't he tell us just yesterday that the Integrity Commissioner works for him?

Oh, and today his campaign account tweeted something like "I have invested $1.2bn in infrastructure..."

I'm not convinced that these are the words of a person displaying perfect mental health.

To be fair, I doubt Robbie knows what is tweeted on his behalf, being such a proud non-computer user and all.

 

[stoobiedood]

It's fairly clear there was a leak in the police, and Doug could say that the chief "allowed it to happen", which is arguably fair comment. He called Blair the most biased/political chief ever (or whatever) some time ago without attracting legal trouble.

Not clear at all. The press reported that a meeting had been arranged for Thursday, meaning that RoFo et al. were aware at some point before that. The meeting was called off when the media started asking questions about it. Gee, how convenient for RoFo that he didn't get subpoenaed after all. I wouldn't put it past RoDoFo to have done the leaking themselves, to (a) postpone the service, and (b) give themselves a way to spin it as "political."

 

[kevinsp8]

Didn't he tell us just yesterday that the Integrity Commissioner works for him?

Oh, and today his campaign account tweeted something like "I have invested $1.2bn in infrastructure..."

I'm not convinced that these are the words of a person displaying perfect mental health.

L'etat, c'est moi.

 

[whatthe]

Actually, that is more accurately a description of someone who might be declared an adverse witness under s. 9 of the Canada Evidence Act; the common law test for someone to be declared a hostile witness is different. An adverse witness can be cross-examined on statements that appear to be contrary to what he or she was called to prove (these are the statements on which a finding of adversity would be based); a judge can allow a hostile witness to be cross-examined generally (e.g., on his or her credibility in general).

Not really. As a criminal lawyer I can tell you I have seen that once in 10 years. The only way it could conceivably happen is if he got in the box and all but refused to answer questions. Which is not going to happen. If the Crown calls him and he's never given a statement to the police, he'll have almost free reign to explain things however he chooses. The summary you posted is correct - the common law principle of "hostile witnesses" has in large part been overtaken by the CEA.

 

[JWBF]

Didn't he tell us just yesterday that the Integrity Commissioner works for him?

Oh, and today his campaign account tweeted something like "I have invested $1.2bn in infrastructure..."

I'm not convinced that these are the words of a person displaying perfect mental health.

The word "mental" can be used to describe Robbie.

What is not news is Sugar beach, Cllrs. running their office properly, Dougie raving wildly about payback or promising legal action when the bros. are outted for corruption, and most importantly, wasting tax payers money on personal expenses.

Rob Ford has done more for elevators than anyone in the world. He has tons of experience with elevators that don't go to the top floor.

Ohhh... Nice!

 

[StatGeek]

Dayammmmm! Green eggs and haayaaam!


"Doug Ford is lying and I am prepared to take legal action," says Chief Blair

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...chief-hits-back-at-doug-ford/article19888701/

Is this the first time somebody went as far to say the Ford's are lying. Everyone seems to p$ssyfoot around the term by saying things like "He's mistaken" or trying to smart in saying "He's allergic to the truth". To come right out and say THE FORD'S ARE LYING, when you know they are it's refreshing.

Is there a time-limit on when you can sue for libel. I am hearing a possible lawsuit against for AFTER he loses the election.

I actually don't think Ford will lie under oath. I think that he thinks that he's so untouchable with his supporters that he can admit (only under oath) all the shady things he's done and he will still be relevant for the 25%. He must really be thinking "My gosh these rubes stand by me no matter what"

 

[whatthe]

Is this the first time somebody went as far to say the Ford's are lying. Everyone seems to p$ssyfoot around the term by saying things like "He's mistaken" or trying to smart in saying "He's allergic to the truth". To come right out and say THE FORD'S ARE LYING, when you know they are it's refreshing.

Is there a time-limit on when you can sue for libel. I am hearing a possible lawsuit against for AFTER he loses the election.

I actually don't think Ford will lie under oath. I think that he thinks that he's so untouchable with his supporters that he can admit (only under oath) all the shady things he's done and he will still be relevant for the 25%. He must really be thinking "My gosh these rubes stand by me no matter what"

Although what has been pointed out earlier is true - while they can't use his testimony against him, they can most certainly use it to give them further leads...

 

[PinkLucy]

I actually don't think Ford will lie under oath. I think that he thinks that he's so untouchable with his supporters that he can admit (only under oath) all the shady things he's done and he will still be relevant for the 25%. He must really be thinking "My gosh these rubes stand by me no matter what"

I think he would lie under oath, because I don't think he knows what the truth is. He'll bluster and try to avoid answering the questions, and maybe if they ask him the right questions, he'll provide some factual answers, but he'll do his damndest to avoid that.

 

[TinyTiny]

I actually don't think Ford will lie under oath. I think that he thinks that he's so untouchable with his supporters that he can admit (only under oath) all the shady things he's done and he will still be relevant for the 25%. He must really be thinking "My gosh these rubes stand by me no matter what"

I disagree. I fully expect him to lie under oath. It's what he does. He lies. It's the default setting in the hollowed-out walnut that resides in his skull. Furthermore, I don't think he really has the mental capacity to understand consequence. His entire approach towards governance is so remorseless and shameless, to the point that I don't think he believes he can be held accountable to anything or anyone.

 

[aghost]

A part of me expects him to devolve into a raving lunatic while on the stand.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Is this the first time somebody went as far to say the Ford's are lying. Everyone seems to p$ssyfoot around the term by saying things like "He's mistaken" or trying to smart in saying "He's allergic to the truth". To come right out and say THE FORD'S ARE LYING, when you know they are it's refreshing.

Is there a time-limit on when you can sue for libel. I am hearing a possible lawsuit against for AFTER he loses the election.\

I actually don't think Ford will lie under oath. I think that he thinks that he's so untouchable with his supporters that he can admit (only under oath) all the shady things he's done and he will still be relevant for the 25%. He must really be thinking "My gosh these rubes stand by me no matter what"

I forget what the time limit is but I expect Blair will at least serve a notice of libel against Doug soon. As we saw with Daniel Dale, this is very easy to do which is partly why it makes it so funny that for all their bluster (up to and including this week) the Fords have never actually even taken that minimal step. (I believe they did serve libel notice way back when about the Star's football story but never proceeded to actually suing.) It's amusing to note Doug never even did this when the Globe ran its story about him being a dealer, Doug arguing their pockets were just too deep for the Fords to fight with them. BUT then this week he said he would sue them (I guess someone's financial situation has changed?) but he still hasn't filed a notice. What a bunch of tools, really.

As for Rob on the stand....he won't lie because he's too dumb. I expect that, just as in the conflict of interest trial, he will sit on the stand and try to explain away things that make complete sense to him but are incomprehensible, wrong and obviously illegal to everyone else. Let's not forget - he totally and absolutely blew it on the stand there and only got off because the judge found the penalty couldn't have been imposed in the first place, though Ford obviously could not have known that when he voted, or when he was on the stand incriminating himself further.

I suppose there's the off-chance Morris will keep him on a short leash and we'll get a lot of "I don't recall," but if the previous pattern holds he'll just talk about what a stand up guy Sandro is etc. up to and including the point of perjury.

 

[pud99]

Not really. As a criminal lawyer I can tell you I have seen that once in 10 years. The only way it could conceivably happen is if he got in the box and all but refused to answer questions. Which is not going to happen. If the Crown calls him and he's never given a statement to the police, he'll have almost free reign to explain things however he chooses. The summary you posted is correct - the common law principle of "hostile witnesses" has in large part been overtaken by the CEA.

I agree that as a practical matter one rarely would have a need to go so far as to get a witness declared hostile. Normally the issue to be dealt with is one or more adverse statements, plus if the witness is 'merely' adverse you do not have to disavow other, non-adverse testimony he or she might have given. But, to go back to my main statement - what is the "not really" here? You seem to be suggesting that an adverse witness is "not really" different. But the common law test for who is a hostile witness and the common law result of such a finding really are different and more radical (the common law test requires elements of belilgerence, truculence, etc. and, on the other hand, does not necessarily require showing that any prior inconsistent statements were made.) Resort to the common law has been overtaken by s. 9 in the sense that resort to s. 9 is a lesser thing that suffices in most case; it has not been overtaken in the sense that s. 9 subsumes or repalces the common law test - it doesn't.