[jxmith_]

If the injunction goes through but they demolish it anyhow, are we just talking fines? AKA meaningless extraneous fees that rich people and corporations pay so they can do what they want and continue to operate above the law?

Because long term thinking is that if we eventually lobby for protections, that we should be mindful of setting proper deterrents.

 

[lomeri]

If the injunction goes through but they demolish it anyhow, are we just talking fines? AKA meaningless extraneous fees that rich people and corporations pay so they can do what they want and continue to operate above the law?

Because long term thinking is that if we eventually lobby for protections, that we should be mindful of setting proper deterrents.

my understanding is that if they have been found to have breached the law they may be ordered to rebuild/repair the structures.

 

[SOS_Urbanist]

my understanding is that if they have been found to have breached the law they may be ordered to rebuild/repair the structures.

Source? Is there a link to watch the proceedings?

 

[isaidso]

my understanding is that if they have been found to have breached the law they may be ordered to rebuild/repair the structures.

Repercussions need to be harsh enough to deter crooked people from attempting it in the first place. What you described above should be only the initial penalty. There should be a fine, license to build suspended, and upper management barred from working in this industry for the next 10 years. You take their names down and attach massive penalties to companies, organizations, etc. that attempt to hire them. You make it a legal requirement that they prove to the government for the next 10 year where every penny of income is coming from. You know they'll try to get around it (cheat) and try to work as a consultant.

These people don't seem to respect rules so maybe they'll understand an employment ban.

 

[DSC]

Source? Is there a link to watch the proceedings?

This is an INTERIM injunction hearing so IF they are told to STOP that will be it. Any POSSIBLE rebuilding would occur only after a final injunction was obtained and doubtless Ford and his cronies would just change the law!

 

[Tuscani01]

Interim injunction failed - Demo allowed to proceed

Province pauses foundry demolition as ‘good faith measure’

Ontario Superior Court judge declines to grant interim injunction to stop the teardown of the more than century-old buildings on Eastern Avenue.

www.thestar.com

Full arguments to be heard next Wednesday, but wouldn't be surprised if they just speed up the pace of demo at this point.

 

[A Torontonian Now]

Interim injunction failed - Demo allowed to proceed

Province pauses foundry demolition as ‘good faith measure’

Ontario Superior Court judge declines to grant interim injunction to stop the teardown of the more than century-old buildings on Eastern Avenue.

www.thestar.com

Full arguments to be heard next Wednesday, but wouldn't be surprised if they just speed up the pace of demo at this point.

I would love to see the Judge's endorsement. (For non-lawyers, an endorsement is a brief handwritten set of reasons given by judges at motions like this one).

 

[3Dementia]

Hopefully plans for the careful interior demolition of a portion of this historic building's offices will proceed on schedule.

Apparently the contaminants that require cleaning are much more challenging than those identified on the Foundry site.

Link

Start with this guy's office.

Link

 

[concrete_and_light]

The judge is a Harper government appointee FWIW.

Not to say necessarily that the judge is biased, he may not even be a conservative at all and they may have a solid legal argument for why the injunction is not warranted, but I'd love to see the specifics of their legal argument. And I don't understand why a temporary injunction wouldn't be appropriate here at least until full arguments can be heard. Given that the provincial government will surely just try to literally bulldoze ahead in the meanwhile.

Given that context, it would seem appropriate to me to put a pause on things until full arguments are heard, but then again as I've said before I am not a lawyer. The government and the judge may be entirely correct legally, but it still seems pretty hostile to society and not a just process for this to be happening like this.

 

[A Torontonian Now]

The judge is a Harper government appointee FWIW.

Canada is not the US, and I do not think this is all that relevant. Different judges make different decisions, to be sure, but in my experience it is not highly correlated to who appointed them.

I do agree with you, however, that to me this looked like an appropriate case for the interim injunction, even if the final were not to be granted. That's why I want to see the reasons.

 

[concrete_and_light]

Canada is not the US, and I do not think this is all that relevant. Different judges make different decisions, to be sure, but in my experience it is not highly correlated to who appointed them.

100% — the relative lack of partisan influence on our justice system is a major difference between Canada and the US and a strength of our country. I hope that continues to be the case, and Justice Diamond is likely a completely honest and ethical judge!

That said, the Harper government was the most adversarial Canadian government towards the justice system in recent history and had much more of an American style view that the court system was taking on an improper role, and as this Globe piece "Stephen Harper's courts: How the judiciary has been remade" from 2015 (the year this judge was appointed) gets into, the Harper government made an effort to transform the court system and install judges who shared their view of the role of the judiciary and there were concerns that it was moving in a more partisan direction. Given that context, that's the only reason it stood out to me when I saw that the judge was a Harper government appointee.

But hopefully and likely this judge has made an entirely correct and ethical legal decision (even though I don't personally like it) with no kind of improper bias and as @Ottawan says, our judiciary does generally tend to be quite fair and non-partisan regardless of which government appointed which judges.

 

[GabrielHurl]

Demolition has been paused until Wednesday as an act of "good faith"

 

[Amare]

Demolition has been paused until Wednesday as an act of "good faith"

As an "act of good faith". What the hell does that mean?

As if they are doing the city a solid here. "Ok guys so we're going to demolish your beloved buildings, so take a few days to take your pictures and savour it's last remaining days before we tear them down in full".

I'll be blunt here: i'm so damn sick of this provincial government and the way they pander to corporations and developers, then turn around and say "we're for the people". Their corruption needs to be exposed, full stop.

 

[concrete_and_light]

Well, this should take it to the time of the full legal arguments on Wednesday at least, so that is good. Small sliver of hope.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

If it's an act of good faith, can we then not work with city to find an amicable solution? As in, the heritage structure doesn't need to be pulled down to build affordable housing on that lot, for example. So again, work with the city and don't be such a Trump-ass over this, Doug. And thus, better judge your sincerity about "good faith." Thnkx!