khris
Senior Member
I've sent messages previously to developers regarding things I've seen on construction sites, and they don't respond, so it's pointless.
khris
Senior Member
I'd be a witness in court if I had to. I don't just throw accusations around.
Northern Magus
Active Member
Actually I'd think a Court or any fact finding body would want better proof than this. If you should ever witness something like this in the future, get out your phone and shoot some video or just call the cops.
Unsubstantiated accusations -- whether they're in an email or posted on the internet -- are pretty easy to disregard.
Last edited:
Traynor
Senior Member
Obviously the members on here have not seen investigative journalism-type shows like 16:9 The Bigger Picture or CBC's Marketplace... Both of these shows have recently done hidden-camera exposés of construction sites in Canada focusing on Toronto for many of the items. These shows filmed many, MANY highrise construction workers walking off-site to their vehicles during lunch breaks and obviously smoking pot. Several of these workers were confronted when going back on site and they all tried to dodge the camera and reporter.
With marijuana being so prevalent, let's not kid ourselves and think this doesn't go on. If I were the courts I would be inclined to accept Kristopher's eyewitness testimony as it is not Hearsay. Furthermore his filming of said acts would not likely be admissible, only his testimony.
With marijuana being so prevalent, let's not kid ourselves and think this doesn't go on. If I were the courts I would be inclined to accept Kristopher's eyewitness testimony as it is not Hearsay. Furthermore his filming of said acts would not likely be admissible, only his testimony.
whatever
Senior Member
I'm entertained that no one's picked up on the fact that the videos were posted by BassDoctor420. Of course that doesn't mean he's lighting up at work, I just figured it would've come up by now.
Also strange that there's such fuss over things that aren't on camera when there's all sorts of comments to be made about what is being shown. Like the guy standing on the load at 1:14 of the first video, the guy with no lid at 0:26 of the second video, or the guy not tied off at 0:33 also in the second video.
Not saying I'm perfect or that I've never done any of the above, but when there's cameras about and things are getting posted to the internet the boys have to be a little more careful. The MOL would have a field day with those videos.
Also strange that there's such fuss over things that aren't on camera when there's all sorts of comments to be made about what is being shown. Like the guy standing on the load at 1:14 of the first video, the guy with no lid at 0:26 of the second video, or the guy not tied off at 0:33 also in the second video.
Not saying I'm perfect or that I've never done any of the above, but when there's cameras about and things are getting posted to the internet the boys have to be a little more careful. The MOL would have a field day with those videos.
Northern Magus
Active Member
Thanks Dad.
But:-
(a) you're not the Courts
(b) health and safety investigators would probably be very interested in it
(c) its admissibility in a Court or Tribunal would likely turn on a number of factors depending on the nature of the proceedings and what facts were put to proof
(d) in the defamation proceedings contemplated above, the burden of proof would be squarely on your friend: not just to prove that he saw certain workers where he did, not just to prove that they were smoking, not just to prove he thought it was or smelled to him like an illegal narcotic, but to prove to the civil standard that they really were in possession of this and doing this act.
Good luck to him, he'd be very robustly crossed on it. And if he lost, costs follow the event.
Traynor
Senior Member
Your point by point rebuttal of my post is very professional and a debating quality I respect...
... However your Douchebaggy, Smart Alec opening salutation designed to belittle me is childish and just wiped out any respect you may have gained.
Furthermore... regarding the courts...
...You are only correct if Kristopher were the one who was bringing the charges through a Civil complaint. However, it was presumed that his theoretical complaint would have been to the local constabulary, which would have launched its own investigation. Kristopher's firsthand eyewitness testimony would certainly be required during any trial and he would be considered one of the Crown's witnesses to the alleged crimes. Any video he may have filmed would stand scrutiny from the Defense and only through a judicial decision may or may not be entered as evidence.
The onus of proof would never rest on a witness's shoulders. They are there to offer testimony as experienced and the court will decide the veracity of their statement. The burden of proof is always on the Crown.
Last edited:
Northern Magus
Active Member
Your point by point rebuttal of my post is very professional and a debating quality I respect...
... However your Douchebaggy opening salutation designed to belittle me is childish and just wiped out any respect you may have gained.
Furthermore... regarding the courts.
You are only correct if Kristopher were the one who was bringing the charges through a Civil complaint. However, it was presumed that his theoretical complaint would have been to the local constabulary, which would have launched its own investigation. Kristopher's firsthand eyewitness testimony would certainly be required during any trial and he would be considered one of the Crown's witnesses to the alleged crimes. Any video he may have filmed would stand scrutiny from the Defense and only through a judicial decision may or may not be entered as evidence.
The onus of proof would never rest on a witness's shoulders. They are there to offer testimony as experienced and the court will decide the veracity of their statement. The burden of proof is always on the Crown.
Oh dear, more puffery to deflate? You might want want to take off those sunglasses.
If I may say so, the presumptuous paternalism inherent in your original post merited the rejoinder. Clearly you felt that you know best, but obviously that view is poorly founded. And if you felt that a gentle jab deserved a loss of respect, I would politely draw your attention to your use of an overt epithet in your response.
Moreover, you have misstated the law and provided a view on both civil and criminal procedure that is largely trite and discursive, premised at the end upon a novel legal principal you term "onus of proof", and which ultimately wrongly conflates civil actions with criminal charges. The basis of your assumption was clearly predicated upon your own misunderstanding of a defamation action and perhaps how such civil proceedings could be brought against your friend.
Then of course there's the small matter of your referring to "the local constabulary" like a Victorian paterfamilias.....
Traynor
Senior Member
Ending your statement with ellipses leaves all of us waiting on tenterhooks for more buffoonery.
I am not the one who merged the two branches of litigation. On the contrary I clarified the disparate nature of Civil and Crown complainants. Your overuse of your thesaurus has only been employed to obfuscate the fact that you are out of your depth and spewing gibberish. I would be happy to dissect your statements phrase by phrase to demonstrate the foolishness of each point.
I laughed when I got to the defamation part.... We were not talking about a slander suit...
I am still laughing.
I am not the one who merged the two branches of litigation. On the contrary I clarified the disparate nature of Civil and Crown complainants. Your overuse of your thesaurus has only been employed to obfuscate the fact that you are out of your depth and spewing gibberish. I would be happy to dissect your statements phrase by phrase to demonstrate the foolishness of each point.
I laughed when I got to the defamation part.... We were not talking about a slander suit...
I am still laughing.
Nads Gone Bads
Banned
Being high is the not the same thing as being drunk. You can still be very productive while high. In fact, some people work better when they're high. You become even more aware of your surroundings.
Northern Magus
Active Member
Too funny, from the guy who actually referred to "the constabulary". And while I don't use thesauri, I'd be happy to explain any words you didn't understand.
Moreover, I'd politely refer your remark about "spewing gibberish" to your formulation of the phrase "bringing charges through a Civil complaint".
That's funny.
By all means please do. In fact, I'd think you were hilariously out of your depth if you didn't.
You sure did, especially when you suggested that "charges" could be brought by a "Civil complaint". That one sure had me laughing.
Well I hate to be a spoilsport, but I certainly was talking about libel at point (d). But I guess you missed it, huh?
Glad to hear it. But not as much as I am, Dad.
Last edited:
steveve
Senior Member
Anyway... yesterday, i was out in the west end, and was walking by the water and saw a sick view of the skyline... I didn't have my camera on me, but my uncle did,
Trump, Shangri-la, Aura, ICE, and a million other projects will certainly make their mark on the skyline from here
shots by steveve's uncle:
Trump, Shangri-la, Aura, ICE, and a million other projects will certainly make their mark on the skyline from here
shots by steveve's uncle:
Northern Magus
Active Member
I've gotta say: great shots, great vantage point.
Peepers
Banned
This sounds like a very likely scenario to me. I would imagine it is much easier (and safer) to fully assemble the spire inside the top 5 floors and then jack the completed spire into place in the same way that the tower crane is jacked into place. I can't imagine all that steel occupying the northwest corner of the most expensive units in the building.
Big Daddy
Senior Member
Anyway... yesterday, i was out in the west end, and was walking by the water and saw a sick view of the skyline... I didn't have my camera on me, but my uncle did,
Trump, Shangri-la, Aura, ICE, and a million other projects will certainly make their mark on the skyline from here
shots by steveve's uncle:
Great shots, steveve's uncle!