The posts are not published because inevitably they touch on details of the suit . And that is a no-no.
Libel and Slander laws are older by far than the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
dating back to English Common Law.
The question remains to be asked and answered.
In the eight years of writing, no matter how it starts, each post finds its own direction. Unless I write what's in the forefront of my mind, it's hard to deviate.
The previous to last comment takes the position my decision to litigate was wrong. I respectfully suggest that decision was mine to make. No-one else.
The town's insurance company acceptance of liability is a legitimate question the public has a right to know.
I suspect the argument about my decision is intended to distract from almost one million dollars being used or mis-used to satisfy an ineligible claim.
Had it been eligible, premiums would not have increased 41% in 2014 and every year hereafter
to cover the cost after the fact.
Expertise is hardly required to understand the rule of cause and effect
Familiarity with the Municipal Act is not required to understand it cannot possibly be interpreted to
breach of civil law for politicians.
breach of civil law for politicians.
Premier Kathleen Wynne is suing two Conservative members for public accusations that reflect on her integrity. The Liberal Party is paying the Premier's legal expenses. The Conservative Party are paying to defend the defendants.
NO PUBLIC FESOURCES ARE BEING EXPENDED.
NO PUBLIC FESOURCES ARE BEING EXPENDED.
Every lawyer in Ontario is an Officer of the Court. As such He/she is bound morally,ethically and legally to uphold the law. Solicitor/client privilege notwithstanding.
Libel and Slander laws are older by far than the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
dating back to English Common Law.
Even those laws were founded on religious principles predating Christianity: Judean-Christian principles.
It was Moses who came down from the mountain with Ten Commandments chiseled in stone. One of the prohibitions was taking away a neighbour's reputation.
You can't steal property either.
Aurora taxpayers have a right to be angry that taxes were used to increase premiums to cover exorbitant legal costs.
There is an an obligation to explain why normal checks and balances did not prevent it.
There is an an obligation to explain why normal checks and balances did not prevent it.
The question remains to be asked and answered.
WHY?
