The Court of Appeal reversed the decision and ordered a new trial. The Supreme Court of Canada will now have to decide whether a new trial is in order. The accused's argument is that Boris cannot be trusted.

I did not know dogs can be dishonest. However, after some research, I agree that Boris cannot be trusted.

I uncovered classified information that before Boris joined the RCMP, he was actually a Russian agent working for the KGB. He worked in tandem with another sniffer hound, called Natasha. Boris and Natasha spent five years working the Moscow International Airport nabbing drug dealers.

Little is known however of the scandal where when business was slow, Boris and Natasha are said to have planted various drugs into suitcases of arriving passengers whom the police wanted to frame. Boris in fact was also a trained locksmith and safe- cracker and he was readily able to unlock the suitcases of targeted travelers and insert the prohibited drugs.

After his improprieties were discovered, Boris was forced to resign from his job in shame. Following his resignation, Boris joined the Moscow Circus for a while. He eventually immigrated to Canada but on his immigration application he failed to disclose his past indiscretions. Immigration officials are currently looking into Boris' past record with a view of deporting him.

It is obvious this case is tainted. Boris cannot be trusted and his evidence is totally suspect. In fact in this very case, the evidence is that the RCMP were able to open Mandeep's suitcase only with the help of Boris who cracked the lock's combination after listening to the suitcase's sounds through a stethoscope.

The only question now is one of public policy. If a man smuggles in 3 kilos of cocaine, should he not be given the respect and consideration of allowing an honest dog to discover the stash?

It seems hardly a week goes by without hearing of similar incidents on the parts of schools. What's next? Is the nursery school pupil safe from the eyes and ears of Big Brother? What if a 2 year old says to his teacher, 'Thank you for changing my diaper; I love you;' The way things are going, heaven help little Jimmy if word of this harassment gets upstairs to the principal?

And what if a baby is breast-feeding off his mom while she is waiting at a primary school to pick up her older child? I would not want to think what would happen if the 1 year old would stop his lunch and smile at Ms Wilkins, a passing female vice principal. The kid would be banned from this school for life.

Nor are schools more tolerant with their zero tolerance policies on violence. Ten year olds have been suspended for bringing plastic butter knives to school and a kid in Alabama was even suspended for pointing a chicken stick at another student and shouting, 'Bang, bang'.

If that one year old baby should in addition to smile at Ms Wilkins, also point his index finger at her, the way schools have been reacting, it would not be 5 minutes before the SWAT team would surround the school. They would bellow on their blowhorns, 'Come out now; and drop your weapon.'

Actually, I think that kid would have a good argument that his constitutional rights have been violated, namely his inherent right to bear arms. This includes fingers.

Where is all of this heading? At this rate, it will not be too long before we shall be hearing an announcement on CNN, 'Expectant mom passing through elementary school gets thrown out after a female teacher insists the foetus gave her a wolf whistle. '

The big Z strikes again.

I don't see a problem. After all what can go wrong? How can his money go astray? It is not as if the zoo will put the pachyderms on a flight elsewhere, like Edmonton. Actually that would be a disappointment, for the elephants. Maybe the parties can give him a guarantee that they will not fly the Jumbos to Edmonton. Surely you don't need a world class mediator to work that one out.

Or perhaps, the zoo folks are telling Bob Barker it costs about $880k Canadian dollars for the flight but they will secretly arrange to fly them with a discount airline, like Porter. The tab here might be $241.00, each, all taxes in. If that happens, there would be a risk of someone pocketing the difference. Actually, I have flown with Porter and the service is superb. The elephants would have the time of their lives sitting in that pre-flight lounge, eating those complimentary peanuts. It would be an experience they would forever remember. Then again don't we know that.

Just maybe there are concerns the elephants might get to the airport and have problems with security. I will not stoop to suggest security officers will want to inspect the elephants' trunks. Or maybe I will so stoop. But trouble could arise at the airport when some of those more compulsive security folks insist that the elephants remove their shoes. Stand clear.

Actually, I can understand Bob Barker's concerns. After all, he means well and simply does not want to blow almost $900,000. In that event, the price would not be right.

My first question is, will the provincial government appeal? When it comes to these things, governments always have unlimited resources to litigate. This however s a touchy subject and I believe the decision on whether or not to appeal will come down to whether said decision must be made by a woman or a man. I don't see any guy in his right man who could be objective.

I have often considered becoming a judge but there is no way I would want to sit on the appeal panel on this one. The minute the government lawyer would open argument for the Appellant, I would say, 'I have not read the materials Ms Wilson. But it does not matter. We don't have to hear from you; appeal dismissed.'

My next question would be, how could a decision saying that a person with a penis and testicles is no longer a man, take up 95 pages? Even Lewis Carroll couldn't stretch it out that long. I haven't got a clue but sure as hell I'm not going to read it. If I were I don't know how long it would take me to uncross my judicial legs.

And so now, Ontario will be OK-ing brothels. This will certainly add a new dimension to the slogan on our license plates reading, 'Ontario- Yours to Discover'.

I have always wondered what is meant by a 'common' bawdy-house. Is that as opposed to an 'uncommon' bawdy house? Will Wanda the dominatrix be charged if her house is made out of gingerbread?

However, it will still be illegal to openly solicit business in the streets. I am surprised that the sex workers did not argue that they should have the same constitutional rights to solicit business in the streets as other providers of merchandise do, like those ice cream vendors. After all, how is their product different? I am talking about general principles of course. Both products are highly desirable. Ice cream comes in different flavours, shapes and forms. As for sex, I don't have to go any further in this direction. And sex does not raise your cholesterol.

Of note is that the new ruling does not come into effect for 12 months as the Federal government will be given time to revamp the law to ensure it complies with the Constitution. So for the next year we can expect to see the issue of common bawdy houses debated by a group of bodies in the House of Commons. Hear hear!

I disagree with the Court of Appeal. I say that since the Crown has unlimited resources to prosecute alleged offenders, all accused need every break they can get in order to beat the charges. If it takes a judge who runs a tight ship to hammer an irresponsible Crown Attorney for being two minutes late after a recess, and to toss the case out, so be it. In my view this levels the playing field. After all, what happens if you are two minutes late getting to Union Station to catch a train? If the train then leaves on time, leaving you stranded, kicking and screaming at track # 7, would you accuse the train's engineer of acting high-handedly? Would the Court of Appeal order him to reverse the train and come back to the station? Exactly.

In my view the proper course the Court of Appeal should have taken was to dismiss the Crown's appeal, allow that dirty dozen to get off free as birds and order that the Attorney General's office buy that tardy Crown Attorney a watch.

For example police arrest a suspect for robbery and put him into a cell. He needs to relieve himself but there is no toilet paper at his commode. Any lawyer worth his salt would ask that the charges against his client be dismissed for violation of the prisoner's constitutional rights under the Second Amendment, namely the right to bear arms. It is no big stretch to argue that when one uses the facilities they should be given toilet paper as in order to bear arms, you should have clean hands. Similarly, if you are not given toilet paper, you are virtually deprived of your right to counsel. After all, which lawyer would shake this lout's hands? We have another Miranda in the making.

And if toilet paper will become such a hot commodity, I can see some residents of Trenton getting stopped by police for speeding and when asked by the cop to produce their driving documents, they hand the cop their license, insurance and registration neatly tucked away inside a roll of toilet paper. The cop looks around nervously and lets the driver off with a warning.

Nor would it be too long before the mob gets into the picture. It would not be hard to visualize some Tony Soprano type meeting with the Trenton Police chief in an exclusive restaurant talking business with the conversation ending with the mobster saying, 'Hey chief. Just to show my appreciation for your hard work, let me send ya over a case of the finest Cottonelle 2-ply.'

Then again could this ever happen in New Jersey?

I think Michaud J erred in his judgment. I believe he should have simply given the plaintiff judgment, at least over some of the planets. After all, it's not as we will see some guy from Neptune rush over in the near future and file a motion at the Quebec Superior Court seeking to set aside the judgment as he was not properly served with the plaintiff's statement of claim. 'Hey, I was home all the time but they never served me. Binka, Binka.'

In any event it would be fun to watch Langevin trying to claim his prize.

Coca Cola and Pepsi are changing their use of caramel colour in order to comply with a California standard, designed to minimize the amount of carcinogens in those cola drinks. Coke has asked its caramel suppliers to reduce the levels of the culprit, 4-methylimidazole. I'll bet many of you did not know you were drinking 4-methylimidazole. You thought you were drinking the real thing. And if you think you are smart drinking diet Coke, you are still ingesting 4-methylimidazole. But at least you won't die fat.

I wonder what other side effects 4-methylimidazole causes. Maybe Sylvio Langevin has been drinking too many colas.

This story is one more of similar events depicting how common sense has gone out the window. These include a grade school child getting suspended in Alabama for picking up a chicken finger and going 'Bang, bang', a 6 year old boy in North Carolina getting suspended for giving a female classmate a peck on the cheek and 9 year old boy also in N.C. getting buster after a teacher overheard him referring to another teacher as being 'cute'.

The authorities in all of these cases cling to their mantra of zero tolerance violence or sexual harassment. What is the common denominator here? (aside from an abdication of the thought process) All of these instances involve children. And as it may be easier to control one's kids than it is to get the authorities to think, I suggest that the parents practice defensive child rearing. Here are some suggestions.

When you pack your kids' lunch, do not give them anything that might be turned into a make believe gun. It would be foolish to deposit into the Star Wars lunch box items such as granola bars, pickles or bananas. I would even avoid giving the kid sardines. Upon spotting a couple of these critters, any astute teacher will say these Brunswicks remind her of that scene in The Godfather where a dead fish is delivered to Sonny Corelione, the message being that his vanished henchman now 'lies with the fishes'. A sardine sandwich could clearly constitute a viable threat. Call 911.

As well make sure your kid does not under any circumstances hug or even touch another kid. If your child plays tag in the schoolyard, tell him that as he approaches the potential taggee, he should simply say something like, 'Listen Celia, I am within arm's reach of you now. Please admit that you are it. If you do not, I shall call my lawyer'. This should be safe.

Once of course the kids are adults, and they play hockey, they can be encouraged to emulate the real hockey players and if they choose, generally disembowel one another. It's called checking.

And as words are often the cause of the mischief, parents should consider telling their kids not to speak at all; only use gestures. It would be a worthwhile investment for the parents to enroll their kids in a course in mime. As the legendary mime Marcel Marceau once said, 'Do not the most moving moments of our lives find us without words?'

(He also used to say, 'It's good to shut up sometimes.')

Painting the kid's face white would be optional.

It is essential that parents take all precaution to prevent becoming the next news item. Now let me go hug my kids. And they are cute.

I believe it now opens up the floodgates for most of us to seek similar accommodation. There is no reason now why the rest of us going to court, for any reason, should not be granted free and easy parking. If for example, we go to the courthouse to argue a motion for a better Affidavit of Documents, or for Summary Judgement, or even for lunch at the coffee shop, we should be entitled to an order granting us a parking spot. And why stop at a parking spot? I think the judges should go further, and order that as we drive our vehicles to the court to do justice, that lawyers should also be entitled to free oil changes. The Attorney General's office should be ordered to hand out to all lawyers certificates from Mr. Lube. Oyez, oyez, oyez!

We recently celebrated the birth of the Gregorian calender, which was proclaimed on February 24,1582 by Pope Gregory XIII. Pope Gregory XIII by the way until age 40, was actually a notable legal scholar, serving as a law professor at the University of Bologna. He then decided at age 40 to become a priest and give up law. The reason was that he got into a heated argument with University officials when one day he arrived late with his horse and buggy for at a staff meeting and blamed his tardiness on not being readily able to find a parking spot.

Amazon notes that Kingstoners buy more romantic and sex books and romantic comedy DVDs per capita than folks in any other city. I have passed Kingston dozens of times while coming or going to Montreal along the 401, getting off at Kingston maybe 2 or 3 times for lunch at the Pizza Hut. I never imagined I was missing out on a possible setting for a Harlequin novel:

'Jerome was mesmerized by the sight of Allison's naked body as she emerged at sunset from a dip in Lake Ontario and made her way onto the campus of Queen's University....As they embraced, she uttered to him softly, 'Jer, take me and don't worry about that contracts exam....'

I don't see it. But who am I to argue.

Too bad I just made this discovery a week or so after Valentine's Day. But if Kingston is a bit too far from the greater Toronto area, you can visit the number 2 spot on the list...Guelph. Yes Guelph Ontario. Oh, to think I wasted my time going to law school at McGill.

I would say more, but all of this got me distracted, thinking about Allison.

Who would police this? Do you think our cops have the resources? Or the inclination? Offhand I don't see any police force planning to infiltrate and bust a high school desert ring. And even if they do, I somehow don't see the lead officer proudly displaying for the media a stash of confiscated Timbits. And do you see some school kids getting suspended because they violate the school's policy of zero tolerance Sprite? Certainly if these researchers get their way, sweets will be at a premium. We would likely see them sold at duty free shops. If you are out of Canada for at least 7 days, you would be allowed to import a liter of Crown Royal, a carton of cigarettes and a dozen muffins. Not my cup of tea.

Also in the news these days is the subject of dwarf tossing. This practice is illegal in Florida, New York, France and other places but still OK in Ontario. In this province the once proposed Dwarf Tossing Ban Act never got past first reading. In fact in Windsor, a club called Leopard's Lounge, advertises a contest attracting folks from distant places. Leopards announces, 'All skill levels of dwarf tossers are welcome to attend this event, from rookies to veterans to dwarf-tossing pros.'

My question is, who in their right might would boast about this skill? When applying for a job, would this person complete his resume and under the section, 'hobbies and pastimes', put down 'dwarf tossing pro'? Then again, who in their right mind would travel from distant points to Windsor to watch some dimwits throw a dwarf across the room?

'Rights of Carrier'

These rights follow and may further be revised without notice in the sole discretion of the carrier.

'Rights of Passengers'

These rights will be broadcast during third night of cruise in the theater, at the comedy review.

2) Liability for lost or damaged luggage.

The carrier will not be liable for any lost or damaged luggage unless passengers can prove that luggage handlers were negligent with your bags, when they threw them overboard. In that event, you will have to notify us in writing providing their full names, spelling them correctly, even if they are Sri Lankan. Liability furthermore will be limited in accordance with the Paraguay Convention to a maximum of $3.50 per bag.

3) Death or injury

The carrier is not responsible for any death or injury caused to passengers unless passengers can prove negligence:

a) In this event passengers must notify the carrier by email within 6 hours of the event, using the computers conveniently located in the guest computer room, which room carrier shall use its best efforts to keep unlocked.

b) Any action against the carrier must be commenced within 6 months and must be instituted in Florida, at the District Court of Disney World. Passengers must personally serve claim on carrier's representative who will be dressed in a Mickey Mouse outfit.

c) If you select a trial by jury, it must be a jury of carrier's peers. Of the 12 jury members, out of the jury pool, you must select at least 11 people who are cruise ship executives.

d) Passengers may sue carrier save and except if death or injury occurs on any ship that is registered in Panama, Liberia, or Malta.

e) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this contract, the carrier reserves the right to ignore any court verdict against it, on reasonable grounds. These grounds include but are not limited to, carrier not agreeing with the verdict.

If you also have a cruise lined up, don't let any of this deter you. Bon voyage.

'We were cruising near the island of Giglio which is known for its deep shores, when suddenly we were attacked by a group of Somali pirates. I immediately got on my blowhorn and told them they would get it from me if they did not back off and return to Somali. Suddenly they threw these large boulders into the sea. Within seconds my ship struck one of these rocks causing a small dent in the hull. This made me real mad. I saw no need to alarm the passengers by announcing a Mayday. I immediately jumped into a lifeboat and with the help of my second in command, we gave chase, charging at the pirates before they could get closer to the ship. It worked. The pirates took off as we approached them and within minutes they vanished. As I turned around to head back to my ship, I noticed it was listing a bit. From the great vantage point I had at the time in my lifeboat, I gave the command for the passengers to man the lifeboats and abandon ship. It was at that time that the local Coast Guard started to interfere, ordering me to get back onto the Concordia, thereby risking my life and hindering my valiant rescue efforts.'

With facts like these, I'll take on the captain's case anytime.

And we all know that Australia was firstly inhabited by criminals, shipped there from England starting in the 1780s. I visited a museum in Sydney and was amazed to learn that it did not take much for a felon to get sent to Down Under. Those judges at the Old Bailey were tough. A museum information board display read something like: 'Bill Reswick, stole a meat pie-sentenced to banishment to Australia for 7 years.' Or 'Jack Langley, stole a horse-sentenced to hanging-sentence commuted and shipped to Australia for 14 years.' One note even mentioned an 11 year old maid who stole a yard of lace from her boss. She was banished to Aussie land for life.

What ever happened to the maxim, 'de minimis non curat lex' a.k.a. 'the law does not concern itself with trifles'? Maybe this Latin phrase meant something to the Roman judges. I would have dreaded to be an English criminal lawyer in those times. I could just see some defence counsel pushing de minimis just before the lunch recess only to have some irate judge flip his wig and banish him to Australia.

I do wonder, why Australia? Then again, in those days there was no Edmonton.

But it is good to be back. Due to the 17 or so hour time difference however, my mind is totally plane jagged, or whatever that expression is. I haven't had a decent night's sleep in 3 days. I envy the koala. And those Senators.

A disbarred lawyer is on trial this week in Windsor, Ontario for assault. The complainant is his former bookkeeper. It seems that whenever his bookkeeper would make a mistake, the lawyer would take her aside, ask her to strip naked and then beat her with a stick. I don't think he was disbarred for this reason but in my opinion, conduct of this nature would not endear the man to the Law Society. Under these circumstances I doubt the Law Society of Upper Canada would care how many professionalism development hours he had logged.

I am sure we all find his actions not only appalling but also totally bizarre. I just don't see my bookkeeper making a mistake and I go ballistic and say, 'My trust account reconciliation is off by $14.57? Step into the photocopy room and drop your pants, Henry.'

The lunacy continues down south where in Gastonia, North Carolina, the principal of Brookside Elementary School suspended a 9 year old boy for 2 days when a supply teacher overheard the boy telling a classmate that his teacher was 'cute'. The principal said that this comment constituted 'sexual harassment'. When interviewed, the kid advised that he did not even know what sexual harassment was. I wonder what that school's policy is on dealing with bullies. Exactly!

I have an idea. If the judge in that Windsor case finds that disbarred lawyer guilty as charged, he should put him on probation, one term of which would be to make him pay a visit to that principal in Gastonia. That would be cute.

Defense counsel, Stan Rosenbaum, representing the Queen, said he would have to speak to his client. After a few days he told me Her Majesty was considering our offer and wanted to run it by her husband, The Duke of Edinborough, Prince Philip. Stan then called me the other day advising that Her Majesty called him back and said, 'Mr Rosenbaum, my husband and I are agreeable to allowing the plaintiff to dismiss the action without legal costs. And do tell Mrs DeVito that we sincerely regret any injury she may have suffered on one of my highways. We certainly must remember to throw more salt on same in the future.'

I don't know how anyone can knock the monarchy. Gd save the Queen.

I can however tell you that after 30 days of foreplay, if things go wrong, I would not want to be near a frustrated rhino.

Which brings me to water. The European Food Standards Authority in Brussels has come down with an edict which bans bottled water companies from claiming on their labels that water can hydrate. This comes into law in EU countries, including England, next month and violators can get up to 2 years in jail. Imagine serving time in the slammer for claiming water gets you wet.

This law was passed consequent to a three year study conducted by a panel of 21 European scientists. If you had any scepticism about Europe being able to successfully handle its economic crisis, I am sure news of this sort will remove all doubt. Next thing these scientist will tell us is that fire does not burn...or that the world is really flat... or that rhinos actually enjoy quickies.

We remember the horrors of the great one (and other great ones) every November 11th at 11:00 A.M. That's when all the shooting stopped in 1918.

But did you know the final peace deal was concluded in a railway car in France around 5 in the morning. The powers that be however, for some inexplicable reason, decided that the peace would take effect at 11:00 A.M. and that for the next 6 hours it would be business as usual.

As a result of this delay in implementing the peace deal, another couple of thousand young soldiers no doubt got killed or wounded that morning. Why couldn't the big shots just shake hands in that caboose and spread the word to lay down all arms? It's no excuse if in those days the military didn't have cellphones.

I imagine that had the soldiers in the trenches on both sides known about the recently concluded deal, they would have considered stall tactics for the next few hours. If I had been there, I know I would have turned to my commanding officer and said, 'I cant fight anymore. I've just developed flat feet.'

If that would not have worked, I might have surrendered as a prisoner of war to the Germans. Since the war would have been over in a couple of hours, I suppose they would have fed me breakfast and released me at 11:00. They would not even have had time to interrogate me. I would have been let go before the first, 'Vee have vays to make you talk.'

But every Remembrance Day, I think of Private George Lawrence Price, a 25 year old Canadian infantry soldier. He was the last soldier to be killed in the World War I. He was fatally shot by a German sniper in Ville-sur-Heine, Belgium on November 11th at 10:58 A.M.

This would not have happened had the politicians given a damn. And we expect our politicians to care about things like the decline of accident benefits for victims of motor vehicle accidents.

I for one shall spend part of my one minute of silence at 11:00 paying my respects to Private George Lawrence Price. Thanx for everything George.

I can see insurance issues arising out of this sale. I'd just love to look at the special items endorsement page of his house insurance policy:

Gents Rolex watch- $8,000; Lady's Diamond ring $12,000; .... Her Majesty's bloomers....'

They are however probably a safe bet in a burglary. Who would steal them? Exactly, some weirdo like the guy who bought them in the first place.

One thing for sure: Her Majesty Queen Victoria would not be amused.

The passing of counterfeit maple syrup has indeed been a problem of epidemic proportions in the U.S. Criminals making the counterfeit stuff are so adept at it that it looks like the real thing. They have been flooding the market with 5, 10 and 20 liter containers. One retail merchant from Bennington, Vermont, a Cy Perkins, said 'You look at a 20 liter container of the fake maple syrup and it looks identical to the real McCoy. I got stuck with 5 cases of the stuff. They ought to hang those rogues...from a maple tree.'

And I can just see some criminal trials involving prosecution of the maple syrup villains. Jury selection should be interesting. We'll see defence counsel challenging potential jurors, asking questions like, 'Madame, do you like pancakes?' Or 'Sir, have you or any of your close family members ever owned a creperie?'

And what will the prosecution's opening statement to the jury sound like. How much can the D.A. say with a straight face?

'Members of the jury. What you are about to hear is shocking. I ask that you gird up your courage and listen with all fortitude. I am talking about fake maple syrup.'

Meanwhile, In order to prevent the trafficking in bogus maple syrup, one company has come up with a scanner that detects counterfeit maple syrup. Customers can just put the jar in front of the scanner and if it's imitation, the device will shout out, 'Caution, it's Aunt Jemima.'

There is never a dull day in the law.

I don't think the local protesters have made their objective fully known to us but they appear to be blaming big businesses such as banks for our society's financial malaise. They believe banks are making too much money and something big has to give. Sounds good to me. Actually I believe the banks should stop operating. They have made enough money already. If I was to make a few billion a year, I 'd buy myself a cottage in the Laurentians and sit by some lake sipping a Molson Ex.

Once the banks stop operating, all the needy folks should be allowed to move into the banks' bastions. The Scotia Centre, TD Centre, First Canadian Place etc, would become vacant and the protesters would be able to occupy the office suites and turn them into their residences. You are talking about zillions of square feet of space.

The benefits of banks ceasing operations are inestimable. We would no longer have to watch hockey games at the Air Canada Centre and have to look at those ads on the boards touting Scotia, BMO or RBC. Then again at times looking at these ads is more exciting than watching the Leafs play.

And with all those bank employees now being out of work, this would lighten traffic considerably, allowing cyclists to travel on the downtown roads without having to worry about those annoying motor vehicles.

And with banks becoming history, we lawyers would benefit too. We could be rid of those pesky things called trust accounts. The Law Society hounds would no longer be able to show up at our offices and audit our trust records.

There may be some start up glitches initially, like if any of the protesters should want to borrow money. But then again, why would they want to do that? With banks out of the way, wouldn't all their economic problems would be solved. In any event, those people are richer than they think.

Long live the people.

Marcel Strigberger

This makes me wonder. I recently switched my home insurer to a different insurance company. Before finalizing the policy, they sent an appraiser to my house to see what they were insuring. I'll bet you all know where this is going. No, I don't know how to land a job at Lloyds as an appraiser.

And we have all seen stories about celebrities insuring bodily parts. Yet I do not recall any reports of claims on these policies. I suppose if something were to happen to Holly Madison and she would have to make a claim, then she would have to complete a proof of loss form. I have looked at a standard proof of loss form for property and completing it in this case could be interesting. It reads something like:

'When bought---------Where bought---------Original Cost-----

Actual cash value after depreciation-------Amount of actual loss'

There is also a section that reads:

'The interest in the property of the insured was _____ , and no other person or persons had any interest therein except as follows: Name----
Nature of interest, charge or encumbrance'

At least with Lloyd's, they're in good hands.

I don't know if she'll win or lose but I can see Kraft soon modifying its packaging, simulating the warnings found on cigarette packs:

'WARNING: chewing this gum can cause it to suddenly fragment and stick to your dentures. This can cause severe depresssion, anxiety and post traumatic stress syndrome. Should this occur to you, see a psychiatrist immediately, as delay in seeking prompt treatment could result in strange behaviour, including but not limited to the urge to run into a church and swear at the worshippers, to stand in front of a police station and moon the passing police cars or to go into a post office and attack the sorting postal workers. Do not chew this gum if you are pregnant or nursing and wear dentures. If you have any doubts about this gum, ask a nearby teenager who cannot utter a sentence without repeatedly using the word, 'like'.

That should protect Kraft from future claims of this sort

Last time I came across a story with a legal twist, taking place in Venice, it was about Shylock. I think we have a great sequel here in the making. Shakespeare move over:

The parents bring an application to the court for an order for exclusive possession of their home. The bum son then counterclaims, asking that his parents be ordered to continue to support him, free of charge and in the alternative, he wants to hit them each for a half kilo of flesh. (That's a tad more than a pound: inflation).

The trial judge tries to appeal to the son's heart strings, urging him to vacate, with the following plea:

The quality of mercy is not strained.
It falleth like the gentle rain from heaven,
Upon the place beneath,
Like your ass is going to fall, if you don't
get it out of your parents' house.

I know it's not quite the way Shakespeare would have penned it; I never really liked Shakespeare.

The sequel, unlike the original, has a happy ending. The judge orders the son to leave and in addition, fines him $500 Euros, hits him for legal costs and makes him spend 150 hours riding in Guido's gondola listening to Guido singing 'O Sole Mio.'

The parents live happily ever after.

I'd hate to think of what do they do to you in Decatur, Georgia if you are late in returning a library book. I checked around and found that since 1882 Georgia has recorded over 450 lynchings. Next time I pass through Georgia, if I need a reading fix, I'll just buy a newspaper. For years now since reading To Kill a Mockingbird, I have felt uneasy about the Land of Dixie. Now after reading this library story, I'm joining the General Sherman Fan Club.

Closer to home the New Brunswick Court of Appeal ordered a new trial for a dad who was convicted of assault for spanking his 6 year old son who had been throwing tantrums in the car. Apparently the trial judge's measure as to what amount of spanking was reasonable under the circumstances, was too subjective.

Actually spanking of kids is banned in many countries including Iceland, Poland and Spain. In Spain instead of spanking mischievous kids, once a year parents bring them all to Barcelona, herd them into some alleyway and teach them a lesson they will never forget as they release a team of raging bulls. Sounds effective but I don't think it would ever work in Fredericton.

My question is, what is the animal group doing for Ernst? Imagine how he must feel. I believe for this exciting encounter he traveled all the way from Stuttgart. The very thought of being passed on by some cow must have been traumatic for him. I can see Ernst spending the next 6 months in therapy. I can also see a mental distress claim on the horizon against the group. Ya.

Meanwhile in Lake Tahoe, a bear somehow entered a parked car in a private driveway and set the vehicle into motion. The car soon hit a tree and after a valiant effort, Yogi managed to get out of the wreck and escape into the woods before the police arrived. I'm happy about that as no doubt the last thing the bear needed was to be charged with joyriding.

I note that Colonel Sanders would have celebrated his 121st birthday on September 9th. Did you know Colonel Sanders' first name was Harland? And did you know the Colonel lived in Mississauga, Ontario from 1965 to around 1980? And did you also know that he was not from Kentucky? But he died in Kentucky, in 1980. I don't know what happened to him afterwards but I sure hope that St. Peter wasn't a chicken. If he was, the Colonel is likely back in Mississauga.

After all, just weeks earlier in June, the kids finished school with all their supplies. What happened to all their stuff? Did it all suddenly vanish over July?

While sitting my neighbour's deck recently sipping an ice tea, Leo's kids were hounding him for must have school supplies.

His daughter Melissa demanded if he had bought her new school knapsack yet.

Leo asked her whether the Elmo knapsack he had tripped over in June was still around? .

Melissa replied, 'But I need one with Harry Potter. That's only fair.'

Her comment I thought certainly added a new dimension to the fairness test.

Meanwhile his son Josh pleaded that he absolutely needed to buy a dozen red pens. When Leo queried where Josh's June stash was, Josh responded, 'Dad, you just don't understand.'

Melissa, interrupting, said, 'If you get him more pens, you have to get me that Harry Potter knapsack. That's only reasonable'

Her argument was unassailable I thought.

During their heated debate, my mind drifted, visualizing research on the subject, like a study undertaken by a professor Jean-Jacques Lemouche, of l'Universit de Montreal, who found that pencils do indeed disappear. He was adamant that three boxes of his former pencils had turned into butterflies on July 1 and they were now flying around this summer all over Mount Royal.

Oxford Professor of Metaphysics Sir James Pedley disagreed with the butterfly theory. His study concluded that every summer, all supplies simply get sucked into a school-supply Bermuda Triangle.

The issue also caught the attention of Sigmund Freud, who observed that most of his patients were very depressed at the end of summer, as they could never find a pen or a pad of paper. Although he initially dismissed this neurosis, Freud noted that his own lunch box disappeared every July.

Even Albert Einstein was plagued by this problem. He ran around frantically one August day repeating to himself, 'E=MC@' and shouting, 'Quick, I need a pencil. Where is the pencil cup I had in June?'

I went home and thought about writing to my MPP about these ads, which incite the kids.

But just to hedge my bets, next summer, I am keeping an extra eye open on my own pencil case.

Being a plaintiff's lawyer, I am just thinking about the sympathy factor in this case. I can understand a judge or jury getting excited over a case of victims of a plane crash, tainted water or unsafe medication. But this? What does a jury member tell his or her family when they come home at the end of a court day ?

'What happened in court today honey?'

'Don't ask dear. Just bring me another Kleenex. I have already gone through a whole box.'

'Just compose yourself dear. And sit down.'

'And fix me a stiff drink as well please. This is too much to bear dear.'

'What is it sweetie? Who died?'

'Never mind. I'll get to the point. Did you know Tim Hortons is charging its franchisees 18 cents a donut?'

'No way. I'll fix myself a stiff drink too.'

Oh, for that sympathy factor.

I guess I for one am somewhat sympathetic. Then again, I would not lose too much sleep nor would I be surprised if the case ends and all the plaintiffs end up with is the middle of the donut.

I would give up a day's pay to see the look on the Crown Attorney's face when he came back to the Crown's office and was asked how his morning was going so far. One thing for sure, I don't see this guy ever being late again for the rest of his life, for anything. It's July 29th today. I'll bet he will be out this weekend starting his Christmas shopping.

I note that on this day in 1820 in Paris, the Arc de Triomphe was inaugurated. The cost today to ride up the elevator is 8 Euros. There is no charge however for members of the press, disabled ex-servicemen plus an escort, and job seekers. I have no clue why the latter get in free. But it would not surprise me if in the near future one of the people qualifying under this category will be that Ontario Court of Justice judge.

I can see this coming to an end soon when airlines will start employing special security measures to screen potential claimants like they do terrorists. We'll all be made to go through a further security phase requiring us to put our hand luggage through a litigation detection machine specially designed to detect offensive materials, such as Salmond on Torts. And should the machine scan your luggage , you will be bumped and placed on a no fly list if if it comes across a copy of Waddams on Damages.

Until then, on my next flight, if an Anglophone flight attendant passes by with the drink trolley, I'll be asking for 'un 7-Up s'il vous plait'. Hey, the pay is good.

I am besides myself. Total shock. She actually told the police, she did it because her husband 'deserved it'. What pray tell could he have done to deserve that? Forget her birthday?

I think I have excellent grounds for an action for mental distress against that Lady Macbeth. It was reasonably foreseeable that news of her actions would get around and some guys, like all of us, would freak out. Then again if I draw a judge like Chief Justice McLaughlin, she might say as she did in Mustapha, that we are expected to bear the vicissitudes of life with 'reasonable fortitude'. In this instance it's easy for her to say. Even the reasonable man on the Clapham Street Omnibus on hearing this story would cross his legs and turn a nice shade of emerald green.

By the way, I wonder what the authorities mean by 'aggravated mayhem'. Is this as opposed regular mayhem? Whatever the test is, certainly, in my view, tossing the thing into the garbage disposal would call for the elevated mayhem.

Today is July 17th. I know my wife was born in the winter but I'm not taking chances. When she gets home, I'm wishing her a happy birthday.

I don't quite think that this type of police conduct would shock that many of the community's consciences. I can't imagine a Gallup poll survey resulting in 1000 people being polled and they all say, 'I thought a man's home is his castle indeed. What is this world coming to. If my neighbour wishes to stash cocaine bricks, grow marijuana and collect a few Uzis, is it the state's business? If the police were to bust in on him by chance, unannounced, certainly my conscience would be shocked.'

It's good to know that I have nothing to fear should the police come into my garage and see my parked Sherman tank. I am more concerned however, about some by-law officer popping by demanding that I cut my grass. Maybe I'll build a drawbridge and a moat.

We know they are not bound by the laws and rules that regulate the rest of us. But what really sets the royal family apart from us commoners is their unlimited and unrestricted freedom to fly with all the luggage they want. I call it the 'royal luggage edge.'

I found it amazing for example that Prince Charles on his last visit here wore a different suit everyday, including on Remembrance Day, a military uniform with 100 medals on it . Camilla also wore a wide variety of coats and dresses.

The rest of us cannot travel this way. When my wife and I go on a cruise, there is a formal night or two which means going to the trouble of reluctantly squeezing in a long dress and a suit, which in turn cuts deep into our suitcase space and meager 23 kilo allowance. Some of Camilla's hats weigh 23 kilos.

Do the royals have packing issues? I thought I was brilliant in conserving suitcase space by stuffing my socks in to my shoes or rolling up underwear rather than laying them flat.

I don't see Prince Charles rolling up Jockies. He probably just grabs handfuls of his favourite boxers and throws them at an open suitcase, basketball style. If he misses and the shorts land on the bed, he says to himself, 'Hey, I'm a prince. I'll just take along the bed too.'

And their experience at the airport must be a breeze. They surely don't have to deal with those vigilant kick ass airline officials who weigh your bags. I just dare some Air Canada airport clerk saying to the Queen, 'Sorry lady, you'll have to repack this bag and remove 5 kilos.'

I imagine Her Majesty being the good soul she is would probably reluctantly toss out some of those flowers little girls are constantly handing her.

Then there is security. We have to empty our pockets and put our change into that little plastic tray. I'd love to see the Queen do that: 'Oh look Philip, this one is called a quarter. There is an elk on the back of it and hey, the likeness on the front looks just like me.'

'Is it? Let me have a look. Oh yes, and the image on the smaller coin with the picture of that sailboat on the back also so much resembles you, dear.'

And you and I board a plane and what is the first thing we do? We race to ensure that we nail down an overhead compartment for our hand luggage. Where do the royals put their overhead luggage? Answer: Wherever they please. The pilot probably make some announcement like, 'Please do be careful as items may shift and fall out during flight. We ask your Royal Highness to be sure that you have securely stored your case of Scotch.'

When we finally do arrive at our destination, is our luggage there waiting for us? I just don't see Prince William standing at conveyor number 7 turning to Kate and saying, 'There's one valise dear. I recognize it. Good thing I tied that orange necktie around the handle.'

Do I wish I had blue blood in my veins? Probably not. I think they have too much baggage.

My concern is that in view of this total immunity on the part of the transit company, there may be some sadistic bus drivers who will deliberately be hitting their brakes just to see what happens. I can see some driver accelerating quickly after picking up passengers and before they get a chance to sit down, he slams on his brakes and goes, 'Wheeee'. When confronted, he says, 'Well yeah, I was just inching along Bathurst Street when this Lexus came out of nowhere and just parked in front of me'.

In view of the Supreme Court of Canada's seminal Amos decision of what 'use or operation of a motor vehicle' means, suggesting that any hint of involvement of a motor vehicle qualifies, I think this law is ultra vires. But then again I can see the Chief Justice buying into it saying,

'It is easy to see how some people may think that a bus is a motor vehicle. It does have an engine and 4 wheels and travels on the road. But does a wooden structure with 4 legs and a flat top necessarily make it a chair? As Humpty Dumpty once said, 'words mean what I choose them to mean, neither more nor less.' If the government wishes to do so, it has every right to call a bus a zucchini.'

My fear is that this type of legislation will snowball. We already are faced with the MIG, being minor injury guidelines, virtually decimating injured parties' rights to medical and rehab benefits. It will not be too long before we see the Insurance Act come up with the SVG, or stupid vehicle guidelines. There will be no accident benefits payable if you are involved in an accident while riding in or getting hit by a vehicle that the insurance adjustor doesn't like. The OCF- 9 explanation form will read, ' No physiotherapy for you- reason: I hate Honda Civics'.

For now next time you ride on a bus, highly consider getting off at the next stop if you hear the driver shouting, 'Spock, where's the power you promised me?'

The government wants to keep it that way. I disagree. You can't have it both ways. If prostitution is legal, then the players should be given all the support they can muster to ply their traditional trade. If indeed the Court of Appeal dismisses the government's appeal against a previous ruling by the Superior Court and finds that the surrounding activities are OK, where might this lead us?

Would prostitution products be governed by the provisions of commercial legislation, such as the Sale of Goods Act? If so, I imagine said products would certainly be of exemplary standards as otherwise the consumer would be able to sue for breach of warranty. An award for damages would be a cinch if the goods were not of 'merchantable' quality, or not 'fit for the purpose intended.'. I am not going any further on details as to what else might happen with the Sale of Goods Act. Your imagination is as good as mine.

But this will not stop me from considering the rights of the consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. Just look at what section 18 (2a) says:

'18(2) A consumer is entitled to recover the amount by which the consumer's payment under the agreement exceeds the value that the goods or services have to the consumer or to recover damages, or both, if rescission of the agreement under subsection (1) is not possible.

(a) because the return or restitution of the goods or services is no longer possible;'

The mechanism is in place for a green light from the Court.

As well it would not take too long before the mega retailers would get into the picture. I am thinking of Wal-Mart. I can just imagine what the greeters would look like. So can you.

And then there is one of my favourite stores, Costco. Think of the deals they would offer. But of course you would have to buy whatever it is they were offering in lots of six. And as per the super unbeatable Costco policy, satisfaction 100% guaranteed.

The Court of Appeal reserved its decision, likely to the fall. What are they waiting for?

The Court in a 6-3 decision agreed and allowed the Crown's appeal. Chief Justice McLaughlin
said that an unconscious person cannot consent. She noted about the accused,

'He must also take reasonable steps to ascertain consent, and must believe that the complainant communicated her consent to engage in the sexual activity in question. This is impossible if the complainant is unconscious.'

The dissenting judges however took the position that if the Chief Justice is correct, then kissing your sleeping partner would constitute an offence. This piques my curiosity. Seeing that three SCC judges along with our Court of Appeal believed that the accused was not guilty, I wonder what goes on behind closed doors at those judges' bedrooms.

I think we shall now see a rash of situations where parties, in order to protect themselves from potential charges of sexual assault, will get their partners' consent in writing up front. I can see more sources of business for us. We have pre- nuptial agreements. Now we shall be drafting pre-sexual agreements. And I can also see these agreements being boiler plated by some criminal lawyer and sold like those do your own Will or divorce forms. Available at places like Office Depot or Staples for $9.99. ( $9.43 at Wal-Mart.) They'll no doubt be simple; just fill in the check marks:

'If the party of the first part falls asleep during sexual activity, she still consents to:

__ having the bottom of her feet tickled with a goose feather;

__having her whole body covered in chocolate sauce;

__ having the party of the second part read excerpts of Chaucer's 'Miller's Tale' at her.'

__ other ( please be specific)____________

Canadians have been forewarned by the SCC. No sense taking chances.

This all piqued my curiosity. I for one would like to know if Storm is a boy or a girl. I decided to do some sleuth work and apply to the Ministry of Government Services for a copy of Storm's birth certificate. I expect to receive it shortly. If anyone wants to find out the answer, you can attend at my office during business hours but it will cost you $15.00 a peak. All proceeds will go to charity, (of course).

We have to agree that the parents are not breaking any law. They might if they do not declare the existence of the kid on the current census form, a copy of which I have just received to complete for my household. I note from the form that maybe the Government of Canada anticipated the likes of Storm's parents. Section 2 in fact asks for the 'Sex' of the person listed and the choices of boxes you can tick off read, 'male', 'female' or 'none of your business'.

Then again, speaking of statistics, I do see one advantage of not declaring Storm a boy in any event. After all, statistically, the lifespan of women exceeds that of men. If the baby is a boy, his parents have just added a few years to his life without stuffing him with vitamin D.

Maybe they know things we don't, about the power of It.

Then Arnold Schwarzenegger admitted fathering a son out of wedlock about 13 years ago. And he is sorry. That's the important thing. The media has not identified the kid, who lives with his mom in Bakersfield, California. Suspicion has however centred on a young lad in Bakersfield who goes around all day pointing to a mole on his forehead and saying, 'It's not a tooma'.

Billionaire Charles Bronfman however fared a bit better. He and his wife of 3 years, Bonnie are getting divorced. They decided to celebrate and hold a gala divorce party. I do wonder however how they could pull this off? After all to put together a lavish shindig like this both sides have to cooperate. I am curious how the planning discussions went:

Charles: Bonnie dear, here is my list of guests.

Bonnie: You've invited Max and Millie Rosenberg? Are you kidding? They're freeloaders.

Charles: I didn't object to the orchestra you picked. A 5 piece ensemble, all jack hammers.

Bonnie: That's not half as bad as the caterer you're suggesting. One bite of their roast beef would instantly kill even Rasputin.

Charles: Oh yeah? For the past 3 years I miraculously survived your cooking.

Bonnie: This divorce party isn't working Chuck. One more slur from you and we stay married.

Charles: OK, OK, but one thing I ask Bonnie dear. Just take those needles out of that male doll on the divorce cake.

It is amazing what folks can achieve when they behave civilly.

I agree with them. I think the U.S. Navy SEALS acted hastily, shooting from the hip. This is what they should have done. They should have knocked on Bin Laden's compound door and identified themselves. Osama would no doubt have opened the door and said, 'Gentlemen, what can I do for you?'

The SEALS then could have said, 'Sir, you are under arrest. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you will say may be held against you in a court of law. You also have the right to speak to a lawyer, before we cart you off to Guantanamo. Do you understand Mr Bin Laden?'

I have no doubt Osama would have told his wife, 'I have to go with these gentlemen honey. I need a super criminal lawyer. Would you please call Eddie Greenspan for me.'

I agree. There are certainly a number of legal issues I can think of. Firstly, immigration. I doubt those Yanks had a proper visa to enter Pakistan. They should not have jumped the cue and rather should have applied for a visa at the Pakistani Consulate. Had they been asked about the purpose of their visit to Pakistan, they could have said, 'We'd like to see the sights of Islamabad, have a nice curry dinner and kill one of your residents.' After all we can all agree that sneaking into a foreign country is a severe violation of that country's sovereignty.

Then there are human rights violations. Never mind seeing photos of the Bin Laden's body. I am more interested in seeing a search warrant allowing entry into Bin Laden's compound. Exactly. In my view any stuff including computer info and documents the raiders seized would no doubt be inadmissible under Pakistani law . Nor would it be admissible in a court of law in Canada, as constituting a violation under section 8 of the Charter. After all the Americans have not shown us a photograph of a sign on the door on Bin Laden's bedroom reading, 'Navy Seals, Welcome.'

As well, the choppers flying in as late as they did into a residential area, likely violated Abbottabad anti noise municipal by-laws. I know they would not be allowed to buzz around my home at that hour in Thornhill.

I unequivocally therefore agree with Foreign Secretary Bashir's comments that the American assault on of Bin Laden's home does raise legal issues.

I wonder if the defence hired an expert in jury selection.
After all you can never be too cautious. For example I would think at all cost you would want to avoid a jury composed of a preponderance of hot dog vendors.

What amazes me is how the prosecution had no problem spending time and money going the distance. Last time I saw something like this was when I read Les Miserables. Inspector Jabert relentlessly pursued Jean Val Jean who years earlier had stolen a loaf of bread and got sentenced to 20 years in jail for this crime.

I believe in this case in fact J.R. after being charged ran off to Vancouver. After months of sleuth work, the FBI caught up with him and asked Canadian authorities to extradite him. Our people did just that on the assurances of the Washington D.A.'s office that if found guilty, The People of Washington would not seek the death penalty.

As we are talking a less than $1 item, when asked whether de minimis was good law in the state of Washington, prosecution spokesperson said it was, but it did not apply in this case, as the hot dog was longer than 6 inches.

Go figure!

This was not a good decision for comedic expression. The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal (B.C. H.R.T.) just handed down a decision against Toronto comedian Guy Earle and the owner of the nightclub where he performed, ordering the respondents to pay $22,000.00 for discriminating against and violating the rights of lesbian Lorna Pardy. Apparently the complainant and her girlfriend were sitting front row centre heckling Earle at a Vancouver nightclub about four years ago. Things started getting ugly when Earle made some crude remarks about lesbians whereupon the complainant threw a cup of water at the comedian whereupon the comedian yanked her sunglasses off, breaking them. Pardy filed a discrimination complaint against Earle, and the B.C. H.R.T. ran with the complaint full throttle.

This type of decision concerns me. As a former stand up comedian who did the Yuk Yuks et. al. circuit for several years, I think I would have given myself the hook had there been any suggestion that Human Rights can enter the sanctuary of a comedy club and come after the court jesters, who I believed until now have had legendary immunity from prosecution. And as a practising lawyer, I wonder what is to stop H.R. from finding human rights violations in virtually every comedian's act?

For example, take the shortest joke ever, namely comedic icon Henny Youngman's signature gag, 'Take my wife, please.' Is even this joke safe?

'Human Rights Chair:

The Respondent uttered the phrase, 'Take my wife, please. ' The complainant is Ms Winona Purdy, the wife of Mr. Henry Purdy, who was sitting near the rear of the Open Mike Comedy Club. Ms. Purdy testified that she was totally offended by the remark and that she now suffers from post traumatic stress disorder.

I agree with the complainant. This rude comment suggests that wives can be given and taken like chattels. These words are demeaning, turning wives into slaves. The holiness of the institution of marriage, the very fibre of our society, is compromised and tarnished. In fact this vile phrase is even more degrading than out and out suggesting that wives are slaves in that by using the word 'take', there is no request by the husband for compensation. He is simply giving the wife away, gratis. Nor is there a mitigating factor in the comment just because the Respondent said, 'please'. In fact this form of entreaty demonstrates how devious the Respondent's intentions are.

The Tribunal further finds that the line uttered by the Respondent constitutes discrimination, in that it says, 'Take my wife, please. He does not offer anyone to take his sister, daughter or mother in law. The so called comedian is selective in tendering a wife, thereby discriminating against other family members.

The Respondent's counsel also raises a 'Charter' argument. What relevance is charter? This Tribunal really does not care if counsel and his client and their entourage came to this hearing by chartered bus. '

In my opinion our comedians are in jeopardy. Are the cartoonists next? Nah, what kind of people would pick on cartoonists?

I am baffled how an action like this ever got off the ground. After all when you think class action , you think of the BP Gulf oil disaster in the Gulf, or a plane crash, or tainted toxic water in Walkerton. I wonder what the newspaper ads looked liked seeking victims who wished to join the class action. How would they excite potential participants?

'Have you been victimized? Have your rights been trampled on? We are not talking about premature death from ingesting Vioxx. This is even bigger. How would you feel if you knew that your Taco Bell burrito was composed of less than 35% beef?...'

And for that matter, how would damages be quantified and assessed? Are there any precedents? I don't think it would help to look to Lord Denning. And do the claimants have to show any ill effects from eating the tacos? Or are damages assessed pursuant to the proverbial meat chart; or rather a non meat chart.

I did a Westlaw search keying in the search terms, 'phony meat'. This led me to section 61 of the Canadian Agricultural Products Act, which reads in part:

'§61 A designated inspector may enter any place in which he or she reasonably believes there are agricultural products or other things to which the Act applies, examine any such object, take samples thereof, require reasonable assistance to be provided by the owner or person in charge of such place, and seize any thing by means of or in relation to which he or she reasonably believes a violation of the Act or regulations was committed.'

I am curious what the inspector might seize in a visit to Taco Bell. The Chihuahua? That would explain things.

I'm glad the case folded.

Today is Good Friday. I think I'll be eating fish.

In Vero Beach, Florida, Denise ('Dee')Harvey, now 45, was convicted in 2008 of having sex with a 16-year-old high school boy, a friend of her son. The Florida judge sentenced her for the crime to the maximum, get this, 30 years in jail. That's 5 years more than Paul Bernardo got in Toronto for first degree murder. But Dee wasn't stupid and she ran off to Pike Lake Saskatchewan where after a year the American authorities tracked her down and are seeking her extradition. Her lawyer is asking that Immigration grant her refugee status arguing that 30 years is cruel and unusual punishment, especially considering the fact that sex with a 16 year old is not a crime in Canada.

I think the fault in the trial court was that there likely was no victim impact statement from the 16-year-old lad. Maybe there would have been but the prosecution decided not to drag the victim into court, as they probably could not get him to remove the smile from his face.

Now if you were to run a survey, what would the answer be if you would ask most 16 year old guys what they consider a bigger crime: a 42 year old attractive woman stepping into the sack with them or someone stealing their favourite pen? Exactly! And what will happen to Vaclav Klaus? Exactly. Is there any justice?

At least Dee Harvey put Pike Lake Sask. on the map.

And while we're on the subject, the local school board in Lvis Quebec fired a secretary when they found out she was moonlighting doing porno films. The board called her actions, 'unacceptable behavior'. The lady is known by her stage name as 'Ms Ardente '. She starred in blockbuster films such as 'Serial Abusers 2'. Interestingly she was recognized by a teenage male student who wanted to get her autograph after watching one of her films on the Internet. When I was that age the only autograph I ever got was Maurice Richard's.

At least Ms Ardente put Lvis Quebec on the map.

I'm sure Aiden posed a major threat. There is no doubt that 8 year old waving that stick reminded the teachers and police of that biblical incident where Samson waved around that jawbone belonging to a dead ass. As we all know, Samson then proceeded to kill 1000 Philistines with said jawbone. Imagine therefore what could have happened had the cops not zapped that 60 pound monster. A disaster was neatly averted.

Actually I have thought of a sure way to now end the war in Libya. NATO should enlist Aiden's help. The allied forces can parachute him in, dropping Aiden in the midst of the government forces. I can assure you that once these guys see Aiden waving around a stick, Ghadafi will be down on his knees begging for mercy. Yo Aiden.

Sounds fair to me. I say his employer should have kept him on after he made bail. Said employer should have said, 'Hey Timmy, you have been a loyal employee. A real team player. But we are downsizing, seeking to rid our company of employees who burglarize us. Sorry but you are terminated in two weeks. However we shall make the services of an employment counselor available to assist you for when you get out of jail.'

By the way the N.B. Labour and Employment Board reversed the Employment Standards Branch ruling. What is the world coming to?

Before restarting, I was given an option: 'Alert Microsoft, yes or no'.

Naturally I did the sensible thing. I asked my kids what to do. My son told me to click, 'no'. Then again, I wondered what happens if anyone clicks, 'yes, alert Microsoft.' Does Microsoft really care?

You'll be surprised.

My phone rings. It's a long distance call from a gentleman.

'Hi Marcel, this is Bill Gates. I noticed that you just sent us a message alerting us of the problem in your computer. Here at Microsoft we take our Windows seriously. I just took a break of a few minutes from counting my money. I thought I would personally deal with your problem, especially since I have a soft spot for Canadians.'

'Oh thank you Mr Gates. That's kind of you. I have seen similar messages appear in the past and I never expected anything to happen if I push, 'alert Microsoft 'of this problem'.

'Marcel, please be assured that our priority here at Microsoft is customer satisfaction. And call me Bill.'

'Yes Bill. But I never expected you personally to telephone me. I thought maybe I'd get some email back from employee HX345Y or whatever telling me to download some update.'

'Like I said, Marcel, I did have some free time. And a soft spot for Canadians. In fact I am negotiating with your government to purchase Edmonton.'

'Really Bill. I was not aware of that. '

'Yeah, I have told the media not to broadcast it yet. They generally listen to me; I own them.'

'No kidding Bill. What will you do with Edmonton?'

'Hold on a minute Marcel. It's my call waiting...That was Pierre, another faithful customer from Montreal. His computer also had an error message. He called to thank me for personally fixing it.'

'You gave him your personal phone number Bill?'

'Sure did. I did tell him however in future not to call me collect. $3.50 per minute is outrageous; even though I own the telephone company.'

'Tell me Bill. Do many people push the alert Microsoft button when they get the error message option?'

'No, hardly anyone ever does. This is another reason why I called you. I wanted to speak to one of the handful who ever does. You must know very little about technology. '

'What makes you say that Bill? What does that error code I responded to mean?'

'Heck if I know Marcel. We just put those in and set them off here and there. They just make the system look more complicated and important. Each version of Windows has a new set of error codes. Hey, tell you what. How about you email me a few good looking codes and I'll use them in our next version of Windows. But don't use a code like, '# %^@* x'. Google will think you're using off colour language. Then whenever anyone Googles my name, I won't come up anymore.'

'No problem Bill. Incidentally, is my computer OK now? Can I reboot?'

'Go ahead. It should be fine. '

'I hope I don't get these messages again.'

'Hey Marcel, you sound like a nice guy. And since you took the time to let us know about your concerns and how those messages disturb you, I'll make sure you never get those messages again. I shall send you with our compliments a computer that never gets these error messages, that never crashes, that is as good as Windows will ever get. I shall send you an Apple Mac. '

Don't I now feel good about the road taken!

It suddenly hit me that judges don't like riding in the same elevators with their litigants and their lawyers and unlike a usual courthouse building, judges did not have their own backstage elevator in this building.

The situation was rather spooky and tense. Then again I wondered why there was a problem to start with. Was the judge vulnerable to our presence? I observed His Honour, twitching restlessly, expecting him to don a gas mask. I thought about that scene in the Wizard of Oz; I almost felt that if either my client or I got any closer, the judge would scream .'I'm melting....'

We did not get to the ground floor a second too soon. As the doors opened, His Honour put away his can of mace.

Here's an idea. How about we all chip in and buy the judges their own elevator. After all, we already have a feed the hungry program. It would be a natural progression of our benevolence.

In the interim legal issues are on the horizon. Authorities have confirmed that Knut died interstate. He apparently had an appointment to see a lawyer later on in the month for the purpose of getting a will done but alas! Too late. Isn't that often the case.

Zoo officials and others expect a major estate fight surrounding the passing of the world's most famous bear. The zoo has already been put on notice of a claim by, Zut, who claims to be Knut's brother, from Alaska. As well there have been suggestions that one Dieter Von Klauss, who worked at the zoo taking pro bono photographs of Knut and adoring visitors, will also be taking a shot at the bear's estate as he claims Knut often promised to take care of Dieter in his will. Then there is the question about movie rights, on the about to be released Disney film, 'The White Bear'.

What a mess! If only people would deal with their legal issues before it's too late.

Lord Denning said it best:

'An Englishman must be of reasonable fortitude. If he slips and falls after stepping on a snail, this will be actionable. However a banana is different. Even the reasonable man on the Clapham Street Omnibus will slip on a banana peel. It is expected that he will do nothing less.'

Speaking of slip ups, Nathan Wayne Pugh, tried to rob a bank in Dallas, Texas. The teller would not give him any money unless he showed her two pieces of I.D. Pugh complied with her request and she gave him the money. He will now be serving 8 years in jail. The police must feel real proud about catching this guy. I wonder if the cops tried to make a challenge of it: 'Let's see, who could the culprit be? Shall we get forensics into this one?'

And in Sydney, Australia, scientists have discovered that tiger poo is an excellent deterrent to keeping wild animals such as goats or kangaroos away. They just hate the smell of it. The scientific team at the University of Queensland has been working on this project for 8 years. Don't we all admire their perseverance! This is probably several years more than it took Edison to invent the lightbulb, and he tried and failed 10,000 times. I can just imagine the frustration these guys suffered over the eight years. Did they work with faeces of an assortment of animals before striking the motherload? 'Hey, Wallace, take that zip bag away; we've already tried giraffe.'

And I sometimes get fed up doing family law.

And for those of you considering an application to get appointed to the bench, to boost your chances, you might consider putting on the application that you once played defensive tackle for the Argos.

This is a good a time as any to talk about breasts. Singer Lady Gaga is threatening to sue a London England ice cream outfit called The Icecreamists, for marketing a new ice cream flavour made out of lemon zest, vanilla pods and breast milk. Icecreamists is calling the new flavour 'Baby Gaga'. This does not sit well with the Lady and her solicitors have fired off a nasty letter to The Icecreamists to change the flavour name or else. Lawyers should take this as a warning not to mess with the singer and try to cash in on her name. I guess this incident reduces the likelihood that we shall soon see an ad in the Ontario Reports proudly announcing the new firm name of McCarthy,Tetrault and Gaga.

As an aside I do wonder where The Icecreamists get their breast milk from? It's not as if Sealtest is big on it. I've never even seen it at Costco. I'll just stick to jamoca almond fudge.

'To meeting with you, to discussing your case and to betraying and double crossing you....'

I wouldn't want to be in this lawyer's shoes when his client assesses his account. Moreover I just hope she isn't very friendly with the local chapter of the Hell's Angels. And how do the testimonials on his website read? ' Recommended by Benedict Arnold'?

Ouch

Galliano has decided to take the high road, deal with the situation responsibly and own up to the matter. He has launched a legal action for defamation against the two victims he insulted. I actually think he has a reasonable chance of succeeding these days. All he has to do is get characters such as Charlie Sheen and Colonel Gadhafi on his jury. Seems there are enough of these clowns out there. The chances of filling a jury box of them are forever increasing. I'm sure they would have no difficulty concurring that listening to a hammered eccentric telling you that Hitler should gas you, constitutes defamation.

For years now I have been kicking in thousands of dollars a year into a self-directed Registered Retirement Savings Plan. And for years now (the same number actually), I have been trying to think of ingenious ways of getting the money back out without promptly paying tax.

A few months ago I bought a house and my accountant suggested that I could finally hit the fund, using the same to finance the purchase. The catch, however, was that I would have to replenish the kitty with a mortgage and pay back the money monthly.

'Do you mean I would be both the mortgagor and mortgagee?' I asked my accountant.

'Exactly. You pay the money to yourself. But it's an arm's length mortgage. You must pay it monthly, come hell or high water - or my bill.'

This sounded like a win-win situation. I busted my RRSP and placed the mortgage on the house. I made the first couple of mortgage payments no problem.

Unfortunately the conflict of wearing two hats soon started heating up. I received a whopping realty tax bill from the township. It was so high that the amount apportioned to school taxes alone could have bought all of Oxford University.

'There's no way I'm paying this,' I said to myself. I missed the due date and I felt good. It then hit me that the mortgage had a provision in it that if the mortgager fails to make a tax payment, he is in default and the mortgagee can pay it and add the tab to the mortgage debt. That didn't worry me.

As mortgagee, however, there was no way I was going to permit any compromise to my retirement next egg and I promptly made the payment. I then sent the mortgagor a letter as follows:

Dear Mortgagor:

WE have just paid the outstanding realty taxes that ought to have been paid by you. We trust that this was just an oversight. Please don't let it happen again or action will be taken against you.

Yours very truly,
The Mortgagee

When I received the letter, I was furious. 'Stuff it!' I exclaimed, tearing it to confetti.

A few weeks later there was a leak in my basement. It was apparent that major work was necessary. But funds were a bit tight and I had other matters to worry about than a dumb leaky basement.

As mortgagee, I just happened to peruse the mortgage and I noticed the provision whereby the mortgagee has a right to inspect the premises to make sure his investment is sound and if the place needs repairs, he can compel the mortgagor to fix it up.

Quite by chance I decided to go down to the basement to check on my security and lo and behold, a flood.

'How did that irresponsible duffer allow it to go this far?' I bellowed.

I didn't even bother writing. I called in a contractor immediately and tacked the bill onto the mortgage debt. 'I'm going to have to inspect this place more often in view of the slob living here,' I told my wife.

For the next few months the debtor and creditor lived in harmony until one day I had bought a new car and I wanted to defer my mortgage payments for a couple of months.

'The hell with that mortgagee,' I said to myself. 'What will he do if I don't pay? Take a pound of flesh?'

It was mid-month and as I was sitting at my office desk contemplating my fortune I realized that I had not yet received my mortgage payment. I decided to call the mortgagor at home and guess what, there was no answer. I was convinced I was dealing with a deadbeat and enough was enough. I decided to see a lawyer.

It occurred to me however that since I was a lawyer myself perhaps under the circumstances I could take a shortcut and handle the matter in-house. I might have a fool for a client, but who's going to tell? I fired off the following letter, by registered mail.

Dear Mr. Strigberger:

MY client advises that once again you are in default. Monies now overdue must reach this office no later than 4pm this Friday, failing which foreclosure proceedings will be commenced against you without further notice. In addition you must also include the sum of $100 for legal costs.

Yours truly,

Marcel Strigberger

I got home from a hard day at the office one day and what do I see in my mailbox? A notice indicating that there was a registered letter waiting for me at the post office. Now who would be sending me a registered letter I wondered?

I attended the postal clerk, who wanted to see some identification to make sure who I was. She then handed me the letter. She seemed puzzled as she put away my business card.

I noticed the envelope was from a law office. I opened it, read the letter and hit the roof. 'Foreclose me will he? I slaved for years to buy this house and to make a home for my wife and three lovely kiddies. Doesn't he care?'

The clerk asked me if there was a problem with the letter and after explaining it all to her, she put on her hat and coat and left the building.

I was livid. In view of my emotional state I thought I had better see a lawyer. I then thought to myself, 'what the heck.' I made a call and the secretary said that Mr. Strigberger could see me first thing tomorrow morning.

I got to the law office at 8:30 the next morning. Unfortunately in my eagerness I had to wait a half hour, as the office did not open until 9:00. At 9:01 I charged right past the secretary into Strigberger's office and threw the letter on the desk.

It was 9:02 when I was sitting behind my desk and noticed this very upset character barge into my office and throw a letter on my desk. I skimmed the letter and the urgency of the matter was apparent.

I told the client to relax and assured him that I would take the situation in hand. I firstly wanted to dispose of an important preliminary matter and so I made a couple of comments.

I came to the office for legal assistance and you won't believe this: before taking on the case, Strigberger wanted a $1,000 retainer. He said something about it being novel. I stormed out of the office.

'Let him foreclosure me all he wants.' I said. I pondered the situation and realized that I would have the last laugh. I would rigorously defend any action brought and come trial time, I would pull the necessary strings to make sure the mortgagee and his lawyer would never show up in court.

This sort of reminds me of that Monty Python sketch about the joke that killed. During World War 2 a comedy writer wrote this joke which was so funny that the listener would die laughing. The written joke was discovered next to the writer's body by his cleaning lady, who upon reading the gag also died laughing. The military soon got wind of this deadly joke and decided to use it as a weapon. They had a few people each read a word of the joke and then they translated it into German. The English soldiers at the front lines then shouted out the joke in German. Suddenly you'd hear a burst of laughter and a platoon of Hitler's finest would fall dead out of their trenches.

As a lawyer, I wonder how the Crown in the blasphemy case will ever be able to provide disclosure to the defence? After all, said Crown also risks committing blasphemy. And how would the indictment in court sound? 'You Sami Ullah are charged that you did commit blasphemy in that to wit, you on an exam paper wrote the words: 'blah,blah blah'?

The good new is I am sure Sami will be acquitted. You see Pakistan is a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which guarantees freedom of thought and conscience to anyone under 18. OK, and I'll bet some of you believe that this year the Leafs will win the Stanley Cup. I see salvation elsewhere. If the police and prosecution are that concerned about repeating those dreadful words themselves for fear of themselves committing blasphemy, how will they ever tender the blasphemous exam paper into evidence? Exactly.

And in passing, I wonder how Sami ever did on his exam. This event adds a new dimension to the expression, 'It's academic'.

I saw it again recently and this time I focused on a scene of great legal significance.

That mean old Myra Gulch comes to auntie Emm and uncle Henry's house and she declares that she has come to take their vicious dog Toto to the sheriff to have him destroyed.

Dorothy is besides herself and she says to uncle Henry,

'You won't let her destroy Toto will you uncle Henry.'

Uncle Henry replies confidently, 'Of course we won't.'

Then Myra suddenly whips out a 'sheriff's order' authorizing her to confiscate Toto forthwith.

An argument ensues when predictably Dorothy refuses to hand over the prisoner. Myra admonishes the family that they had better hand over Toto forthwith, 'Unless you want to go against the law.'

Uncle Henry scans the order for about two seconds and after a puff of his pipe he nods stoically and says, 'I'm afraid she's right.'

Vociferous protests by Dorothy who calls Myra Gulch an ugly old witch don't get her to change her mind about the extinction of Toto.

Uncle Henry reluctantly hands Toto to Myra who carts him away in a basket.

After this sequence I did some thinking. Orders made without notice scare me, almost as much as barking dogs.

It occurred to me that surely there must have been some provision to set aside this order of the sheriff. A special motion perhaps.

OZZIE J.: This is a motion by Dorothy Gale to set aside the ex parte order obtained by the respondent Myra Gulch from Twister County sheriff Charlie Farley.

The order was obtained pursuant to the provisions of the Dogs That Annoy Fine Folks Act.

Miss Gulch alleges that Dorothy's dog Toto frequently used to enter her garden and harass her. When she recently politely asked Dorothy to remove Toto, the dog lunged at her biting Miss Gulch in the shin.

The learned sheriff, after hearing the evidence ordered the accused removed from the Gale residence and brought before him an order to be destroyed by means of a lethal injection.

Dorothy alleges in an affidavit that Toto is a fine dog really. She denies that Toto ever entered the garden and pleads that the complainant startled both her and Toto as they passed by suddenly jumping in front of them with her broom and cackling.

An affidavit sworn by Emma Gale, (Auntie Emm) alleges that Myra Gulch feels that she owns the entire county and that that for twenty three years she has wanted to tell Myra Gulch a few things, but being a Christian woman she couldn't say them.
After reviewing all the evidence I find that Toto did indeed take a nibble of Myra Gulch's shin. Not only did the complainant suffer physical pain but she was also forced to endure emotional trauma after the bite when Dorothy started singing.

The question now however is whether or not this order should have been sought with notice to Dorothy. And to Toto too.

Section 4 of the Act provides as follows:

4. The sheriff may issue the order without notice if:

a) The dog or owner cannot be readily located;
b) There is a likelihood that upon receiving such notice the dog or owner might abscond from the jurisdiction;
c) There is a likelihood that upon receiving such notice the dog or owner might bite the sheriff.

There is no doubt that the original application fails to meet the first leg, so to speak, of the test. Both Dorothy and Toto could readily be found at the Gale residence talking to the farm animals.

There is some skimpy evidence with respect to subsection 'b' applying. Myra Gulch insists that had they received notice, both Toto and Dorothy would have been out of here like a tornado. She claims that Dorothy was always singing to herself a weird song about being off to see the wizard.

Gulch argues that there was furthermore good reason to believe that provision 'c' was a likely contingency.

I disagree. The evidence of uncle Henry is that the Sheriff often came over to the Gale farm to pitch horseshoes with uncle Henry. When they were done Toto then used to engage Charlie in a vigourous game of checkers over a plate of Auntie Emm's chocolate fudge. I cannot see how Toto would have bitten the Sheriff had he attended to serve him papers. Perhaps he would have licked his hand. But that's it.

I find that the order of the sheriff should not have issued without notice and I set it aside. I award costs to Dorothy; and to Toto too.

Unfortunately she had a similar offence conviction 5 years earlier, drawing a fine. This time the judge remanded the case for sentencing, dropping a subtle hint that jail was a possibility, saying, 'When you leave here next time you will not be passing GO and collecting $200.00.'

My client was a young woman originating from the Maritimes. The judge was a visiting judge. I recalled the words of my student days' mentor, Henry, 'It's not how well you know the law; it's how well you know your judges that counts most'.

I asked around and all I could determine was that His Honour was a heavy hitter who especially abhorred alcohol offences. I also discovered that he was a tenth generation Ottawa native and that he was very proud of this fact.

The crown incidentally was out for blood. He was looking for something like a life sentence less time served. He would have been more favourably disposed to Lizzie Borden. At least she wasn't drinking while she was whirling that hatchet, doing a piñata on her parents' heads.

The big day arrived and with trepidation of the kind I had not felt in years I started my submissions:

'Your Honour. My client has committed a dastardly crime.'

His Honour interrupted, looking over his moon shaped spectacles, 'Yes and she will be punished accordingly. Continue counsel.'

I resumed, 'My client originates from Digby, Nova Scotia. Her family still remembers that great explosion in the Halifax harbour in 1917, just a year after the Parliament buildings burnt down.'

'And that was quite the disaster wasn't it counsel. The House of Commons up in smoke, ' His Honour commented.

'My very point your Honour, my very point. This woman's life has been filled with many disasters. She wanted always to be an artist. But in Digby opportunity was scarce. There were not many world-class museums, like the Louvre, the Rijksmuseum or the National Gallery of Canada in Ottawa. In fact the highlight of her teen age years was making that high school trip to Ottawa.'

'She liked Ottawa, did she?' His Honour queried.

'She talked of nothing else. Every spring she would purchase tulips to remind her of that lovely experience.'

The crown attorney interrupted, 'Well let her set up her bouquet in jail this spring Your Honour.'

'Mr. Crown, where is your sensitivity? Go on Mr. Strigberger. Why did she drink and drive?'

'I was getting to that your Honour. You see she had a number of paintings on display at an exhibition at a small museum in Toronto, on Parliament Street.'

'There is a Parliament Street in Toronto?'

'Yes sir. There is even a market place, called Kensington. It's something like Byward Market but they don't sell beaver tails. No pastry in the world holds up a candle to a Byward beaver tail.'

'It certainly doesn't counsel. Beaver tails with powdered sugar. Heavenly. Go on counsel, I'm listening.'

The Crown busted in again: 'I say we send her tail to jail Your Honour.'

'Counsel, do not irk me. I am trying hard to follow Mr. Strigberger' most interesting submissions. Go on please.'

'Thank you sir. You see the public loved her paintings, especially her depiction of the Gatineau Hills country-side. It won a blue ribbon.'

'There is scenery and then there are the Gatineau Hills', commented His Honour.

'Exactly Your Honour, exactly,' I conceded. 'And after the awards presentations the museum hosted a reception. A couple of toasts were made. My client realized she had drank a glass or two too many only after she got into her car and drove for a few minutes. She noticed she had difficulty reading the time from the Old City Hall clock tower. '

'Old City Hall clock tower?'

'Yes Sir, that cheap imitation of the Peace Tower.'

'Oh yes, of course. Pure fake. Go on sir', His Honour said encouragingly.

'No it's not, Your Honour. It was built before the Peace Tower. The Peace Tower imitated the Old City Hall, and Big Ben,' the Crown interrupted.

Triple bogey. His Honour took off his spectacles and eye-balled my friend. 'One more display of this xenophobic attitude Mr. Crown and you'll find yourself up the Rideau Canal without a paddle.'

I continued, 'At that time she immediately tried to pull her car over. But alas she got arrested. I ask Your Honour not impose a custodial sentence. Thank you sir.'

'Mr. Crown have YOU anything else to say?'

'Well, sir, I don't think...'

'Thank you sir. The offence is grave. But a judgment must be tempered with common sense and leniency where warranted. The accused is a poor young artist who came from a rather deprived area. Her heart was always in the right place. Just observe the subject matter of her paintings. She did not waste her time doing lighthouses. We cannot allow a moment of indiscretion to ruin her life. I order her to pay a fine of $100. She shall have reasonable time to pay. Ten years. After all she is only a poor artist, not the Royal Mint.'

There is nothing like pleading a case before a judge with an open mind.

Jean Valjean, unemployed for six months, had just purchased a bucket of fried chicken for his wife and six kids. The tab came to $12.95 plus 91¢ GST. Jean Valjean could ill afford the additional 91¢ and so he tendered the $12.95 to the cashier, grabbed the bucket of chicken and bolted.

The cashier ran after Jean Valjean shouting 'Stop! GST thief!'

By chance there happened to be one of the dreaded plain-clothes GST gendarmes just next door at the donut shop. He heard the chicken cashier's frantic cries and promptly arrested Jean Valjean, charging him with GST evasion.

Jean Valjean pleaded with the officer, 'But, Monsieur le Gendarme, I have a family to feed, six hungry children who asked me to bring them back a few modest pieces of fried chicken, and some pommes frites.'

The poor man's pleas fell on deaf ears. 'Tell it to the judge,' was the gendarme's response as he tightened the handcuffs.

When the court clerk asked Jean Valjean how he wished to plead, he replied, 'Guilty,' hoping he could rely on the mercy of the Court (considering those six hungry children).

Judge Javert was in a miserable mood. He told Jean Valjean the GST was the best thing that had ever happened to this country and that evading it was a heinous offence which must be deterred. Javert then sentenced Jean Valjean to 14 years of hard labour.

Jean Valjean was led away shouting frantically that he'd expected a tongue-lashing, an order for community service, perhaps a $28 fine, but nothing like this.

Guards soon whisked him off to the infamous prison, the Chateau Don. Nobody ever wanted to go there. It was like a jail.

The days felt like years to Jean Valjean. He made a mark on the stone wall for every day he was confined. Then he found he could stand it no longer -- six hours was just too much. (He hadn't made his first mark on the wall yet, you see, but he was going to after the end of the first day).

He knew he would have to escape. But how?
A stroke of genius hit him He would wait until someone died and then hide inside man's shroud and get removed. 'What the heck,' he thought. 'lt worked for the Count of Monte Cristo.'

Now for someone to die. That evening in the dining hall he carefully observed the other prisoners, looking for signs of expiry. No luck. All that his observation earned him was a slap across the face from a jailmate who wouldn't believe Jean Valjean was only taking his pulse.

Jean Valjean returned to his cell that evening, perplexed. Then, as he observed his cellmate snoring, he had an idea! He shouted, 'There's a dead man in here. Help! '

He quickly zipped himself up into a shroud that he'd made that afternoon out of a bar of soap. (He was very good with his hands.) The guards arrived and removed him.

Jean Valjean expected to be taken to a cemetery from whence he might escape. He felt himself being transported by truck and finally being plopped down on a hard surface.

Suddenly he heard voices. To his horror, he realized he was on a dissecting table of a medical school anatomy classroom.

Foremost in his mind was the question, where would they cut first? He started getting nervous as one of the students began removing his trousers.

He rolled off the table quickly, causing the female student to scream and drop her cleaver. Jean Valjean charged out. The medical students immediately reacted by asking the professor, 'Is this on the exam?'

The fugitive had just reached the courtyard of the university when whom did he see to his shock? Javert. The judge was on his way to the law school to deliver a lecture entitled 'The Government Understands Your Concerns About the GST.'

'J'accuse you', cried the implacable Javert.

Jean Valjean darted into a nearby manhole. Javert followed in pursuit, shouting, 'I'll see that you get another 14 years for this.'

The poor devil ran frantically through the sewers for what seemed like hours.

'Jean Valjean!' he heard a familiar voice shouting suddenly.

He looked around and saw his wife by his side. He'd had an awful nightmare.

His wife said to him, 'Jean Valjean, go out now and get that chicken. We're hungry.'

'No way,' he said firmly. 'We're having eggs.

Not long ago one fine Sunday morning I went to the fridge to pour myself a tall glass of refreshing Florida pure 'not from concentrate' orange juice. Unfortunately due to fridge malfunction the carton was frozen solid. I removed it, let it thaw out for a while and soon a few millilitres of juice trickled out. I proceeded to consume same. It then occurred to me, was it safe to drink orange juice which went from liquid to frozen to liquid?

As I questioned my action, I thought that I started feeling funny. Lightheaded perhaps. As well I may have sensed a tickle in my throat. Maybe even an intermittent jabbing pain in my ribs. Maybe not. Actually I was quite certain that I was feeling like Rasputin after he ate those arsenic laced cakes. In Rasputin's case however it took 5 bullets, an assault from a dagger and a dip in the Volga to finish him off. In my case I felt that the latter two weapons were going to be superfluous

Not being one to panic I read the information on the carton. I noticed a 1-800 number to call for information. I dialled same and on came a message:

...We are closed on weekends but if this is a medical emergency, please leave your name and number...

I of course left my vital information including name, phone number and provisional diagnosis, citrus fruit poisoning.

Three minutes later a lady called me back, from Florida. Her name was something like Maggie Anne. I explained what had happened and how I was feeling. She assured me that there was no danger at all in drinking unfrozen-frozen-unfrozen orange juice. With those words my symptoms seemed to subside instantly. I felt reprieved. She took my address and thanked me for calling.

I forgot about the incident and went on to enjoy life and to continue to practice law.

About three weeks later I received a letter from the juice company apologizing for the unfortunate incident and asking if there was anything they could do for me.

Being a courteous person, I took two minutes to write back, on my legal letterhead, saying thank you but that there was not much more I could say at this time.

A week later I received the following letter from Tallahassee Florida from some insurance adjustor:

Dear Mr. Strigberger:

Re Squeezed from the Sun Orange Juice - claim #AD28374-04

We are the adjustors handling this matter. This claim is presently under investigation. Do you still have some of that frozen juice or the container? Please send it to us by Fedex. We look forward to your cooperation and to sitting down to discuss this case with you. . .

I was really a bit busy for this but once again out of an abundance of courtesy, I answered the adjustor.

Dear sir,

I do not have anymore of the juice nor the container. In any event I have said all I have to say about the incident to Maggie Anne. . .

I thought that ended that. Two weeks later the following letter arrived from Miami from a Sherman, Lamarre and Grant, Attorneys at law:

Dear Attorney Strigberger

Squeezes from the Sun has decided to remove this matter from the adjustor level and to refer it to us. We are quite concerned about the allegations you have made. Our clients in the food industry take those comments seriously. Especially the one about Rasputin. Although you have 2 years to sue, my client would like to set its reserves early and to get an idea of the magnitude of the claim it might be facing. Please send us a copy of all your doctors' clinical notes and records, including the records of the hospital where you received emergency treatment. We would like to avoid litigation and resolve this mater amicably, but if need be, we shall fight your claim to the fullest.

Sincerely,

C. Jackson Sherman Jr.

I decided to have some fun with him. I wrote back.

Dear Attorney Sherman:

I am really besides myself since this calamity. Thanks to the quick thinking paramedics and the entire emergency department at the Toronto Hospital, my physical wounds have more or less healed.

have however been left with deep psychological and emotional damage. My psychiatrist Dr. Felix Schindler can attest to my post traumatic stress disorder. The mere sight of the colour orange makes me cringe with fear. This past Halloween season I could not leave my home for three days after a terrifying experience I underwent just looking at a pumpkin. Some days I just think about ending it all. Can you get me a booking with your electric chair? A date with Old Sparky would be merciful. What can money do for me now? . . .

Within a day I received a fax letter from Mr. Sherman:

Dear Colleague:

We were most sorry to hear about your debilitating experience. Without prejudice to our client's position, we are prepared to fly you and your wife down for a week's all expense paid vacation at Disney World. All you have to do is submit to an insurer's defence medical examination for one day. As you may know the State of Florida Practice Rules permit the defence to conduct such examinations and refusal by the plaintiff to submit will lead to the denial by the court of any award it might otherwise make for punitive damages.

I am enclosing a copy of the case of Smedley v Happy Sun Orange Juice where in a claim most similar to yours the jury awarded $250,000 for pain and suffering. But do note that the trial judge did not allow punitive damages of $2,000,000 as the plaintiff failed to submit to a defence medical.

I look forward to hearing from you. . .

I am presently studying my options, as I am sipping on a vodka and orange juice. I am considering making the trip. The only problem is this is Florida. These guys take their orange juice seriously. Very seriously. I suspect that if the insurer feels I am doing something nifty or illegal, it can probably invoke some penal provisions and I could find myself getting that date with Old Sparky.

Socrates v. The Republic of Greece and Hokos Pokos Pharmaceuticals Limited

OUZO J.: This is an action by the plaintiff for damages arising out of the consumption by him of a portion of hemlock served to him by the defendant, The Republic of Greece (The Republic) and manufactured by the defendant, Hokos Pokos Pharmaceuticals Limited (Hokos Pokos).

The facts are simple. The plaintiff is a prominent philosopher born in Athens seventy-three years ago, ten years after the Battle of Salamis. He has three children and is married to one Xanthippe (pronounced Xanthippe).

Two years ago he was charged with two counts of corrupting the young in contravention of Section 1321 of the Criminal Code, which reads:

Any person who knowingly corrupts the young is guilty of: (i) An indictable offence and shall be sentenced to death; (ii) An offence punishable on summary conviction.

The prosecution proceeded by way of indictment and the plaintiff was convicted on each count. He was sentenced to death on each conviction, sentences to run concurrently. He decided not to appeal after reviewing the matter carefully with duty counsel.

The execution was to have taken place three weeks later in the plaintiff's cell, where he was to drink two tablespoons of hemlock. Just prior to his execution, the plaintiff was asked by the jailer, one Zeno the Elder, whether he had any last requests. The Plaintiff, rather perturbed at this stage, said 'I could sure use a good drink'. The jailer thereupon gave him a small flask of Metaxa brandy, which the plaintiff hastily gulped down. The plaintiff then said that he was all set and Zeno the Younger, the jailer's son, proceeded to pour two tablespoons of hemlock manufactured by Hokos Pokos into a goblet and handed the goblet to the plaintiff. The plaintiff drank the hemlock and he was expected to die almost instantly. But he did not die. Instead, he developed a sudden and severe skin rash all over his body.

The Zenos were astonished. The authorities were baffled, fearing this to be an omen from the gods, and they immediately released the plaintiff. The skin rash persisted and the plaintiff sent a letter to Hokos Pokos complaining about this side effect. The defendant promptly replied as follows (Exhibit 5):

Dear Sir,

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. As you know, all our products are subjected to stringent measures of quality control. We have examined the sample sent to us by the Republic and we must say that we have found nothing wrong with it. As a gesture of good faith, however, we are sending you under separate cover, with our compliments a case of Hokos Pokos hemlock and other fine Hokos Pokos products.

Sincerely,

Xenoppedopolous
(Pronounced Xenoppedopolous)
Public Relations

The plaintiff subsequently commenced this action. Let us first consider the possible liability of Hokos Pokos. This defendant argues that the plaintiff's damages are unforeseeable and remote. Evidence was led that Hokos Pokos has been the purveyor of hemlock to the Republic for over one hundred and twenty years and that there never have been any complaints. The president of Hokos Pokos did, however, admit in cross-examination, that there had been some brief and isolated complaints in the past about the hemlock having an after-taste. Counsel suggests that the plaintiff survived the hemlock only as a result of a physiological idiosyncrasy. This argument does not hold water. It is well established in law that a tortfeasor takes his victim as he finds him. It is just too bad for this defendant that the plaintiff has eggshell skin. The defendant clearly owes a duty to its potential consumers to unequivocally warn them of possible side effects if they consume the product. I find that in this case the defendant did not go far enough merely by affixing a label on the bottle bearing the inscription 'Shake Well Before Using'. The court makes a finding of negligence against this defendant.

Focusing on the issue of liability of the Republic, the plaintiff argues that the Republic was negligent in the way it carried out its abortive execution. He says that he relied upon the representations of the defendant that the hemlock would knock him out with the speed of Hermes and had he known otherwise, he would have asked for another form of execution, perhaps to be thrown into a wrestling ring with two Spartan women.

The Republic argues that the plaintiff undertook a voluntary assumption of risk. Counsel has attempted to persuade the court that the skin rash resulted from a chemical change in the plaintiff's body as to consequence of the contact of the hemlock with the Metaxa, and that it was the plaintiff who requested the Metaxa. The Republic attempted to file as proof of this proposition a report of its deputy soothsayer containing his findings and conclusions of his examination of a calf's entrails. On the objections of counsel for the plaintiff, the court could not admit this evidence as the Defendant neglected to serve a copy of this report at least seven days before the trial. The provisions of the Evidence Act concerning the opinions of soothsayers and physicians are clear on this point.

I have no hesitation in holding that the Republic was negligent and is liable to the plaintiff for damages.

This leads the court to adjudicate upon the third party claim which the Republic has instituted against the defendant, Hokos Pokos. The Republic relies on the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, and claims that the hemlock sold to it by Hokos Pokos was not merchantable. Section 15(2) reads:

Subject to this act, and any statute in that behalf, there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract for sale, except as follows:

2) Where goods are bought by description from a seller who deals in goods of that description (whether he is the manufacturer or not) there is an implied condition that the goods will be of merchantable quality, but if the buyer has examined the goods, there is no implied condition as regards the effects that such examination ought to have revealed.

The third party argues that the Republic in fact examined the hemlock prior to purchase.

The evidence is that a representative of the Republic, one Pappanodekolis (pronounced Pappanodekolis) attended at the Hokos Pokos plant before ordering the hemlock in question. He followed the usual practice and brought along with him three slaves to sample the product. He testified that two of the slaves overpowered him and fled minutes before they were to have tasted the hemlock. The third slave did indeed sample the hemlock. Mr. Pappanodekolis ought to have realized at the time that there was something wrong with the hemlock when the slave, instead of dropping to the ground, turned around and asked 'Is this the Pepsi'?

The court finds that the exclusionary provision of section 15 applies and the third party action is dismissed with costs. I apportion liability to the plaintiff equally between the two defendants.

We now turn to the issue of damages. The plaintiff's dermatitis prevented him from resuming his duties as a philosopher in the market place for over eighteen months. This resulted in a loss of income of about 9,000 mena. During this period, however, he recovered the sum of 9,000 mena from the Phaedo Assurance Company pursuant to a policy of disability insurance taken out by him prior to his arrest on the advice of his close friends, Aristophenes, a lawyer who sells insurance on the side. Both defendants argue that this compensation ought to be taken into account in determining an award for loss of income. I do not agree. It is trite law as well as common sense that a plaintiff who suffers pecuniary loss ought to recover twice for this loss. I might add that my decision is in no way influenced by the plaintiff's comments that in any event he will give it all to charity.

Turning to general damages, the Plaintiff has been suffering from severe dermatitis all over his body for over two years. The problem is more concentrated on certain parts of his body and the severity of the problem was made evident to the court when the Plaintiff advised that he had to stand even during the examinations for discovery. His enjoyment of life has certainly been lessened. The assessment of general damages in this case is made all the more difficult as there was no medical evidence before the court as all the physicians in Athens were afraid to draw too close to the plaintiff for fear of contracting his rash. The plaintiff testified that even when he called upon Dr. Hippocrates several times the nurse always told him that the doctor had just gone fishing. Even the plaintiff's colleagues and students have kept their distance from him. One of his students, Plato, recently asked the plaintiff whether he would be interested in teaching a correspondence course in metaphysics.

The assessment of general damages is never a simple task. I have considered this matter carefully and in view of the gravity of the dermatitis and the profound effect it has had upon the Plaintiffs personal and social life and furthermore, in view of the fact that insurance companies will be paying for all of this, I assess general damages at 20,000 mena. I see no reason why costs should not follow the event.

Judgment accordingly.

I recently approached my car one fine morning as it was stationed comfortably on my driveway in Thornhill (also known as the City of Vaughan, the 'City above Toronto'). Suddenly I noticed a ticket also sitting comfortably on my windshield. The offence section read...'Park on boulevard, By-Law section 4(6) (h) (ii) as amended.'

I got curious. To me a boulevard is something like the Champs-Elysees. My two car driveway in Thornhill bears no resemblance to the Champs. I decided to investigate further.

In the good old days if you received a ticket you could just sign the back of it indicating you wanted a trial and then months later the court would notify you of the big day. You would show up in Court and win as the infractions' officer had better things to do that day than attending Court. Good luck now.

The ticket was quite clear that if you wanted to fight it, you could not mail in a not guilty plea. You firstly had to attend at some municipal office in Maple, near the shadows of Canada's Wonderland, where you would be instructed further. In bold lettering the ticket admonished, 'DO NOT ASK FOR A TRIAL THOUGH THE MAIL. SORRY. HA HA'.

It listed a telephone number and read, 'For your convenience, call to make an appointment'.

I called and a voice mail message came on. In Italian. Then in Portuguese. Then in Chinese. After 15 minutes, it said in English, 'Still want to fight that ticket? No problem. Just push 3.'

I complied. A lady's voice advised, 'You have a number of options, depending on the offence committed. If you are charged with parking within 10 meters of a Japanese sushi restaurant, push 1....'

I was determined. Fifteen minutes later my offence came up. I pushed 43.

The voice continued, 'If you were driving a Ford Edsel, push 1'.

I dreaded to think of what would have happened had they not considered our convenience.

Twenty three minutes later my Toyota Camry came up and I pushed 62. I am pleased to say the voice neglected to mention a 1953 Studebaker.

The message then said, 'Your call is most important to us. 'If your traffic violation officer was called Zezi Zoroaster, please press 4.'

It only took 10 minutes for Ron Smith to surface. Once I hit number 18 guess what? A real voice came on. I spoke to a lady who wanted to make an appointment with me. I asked if I could just set a trial date and she said, 'No, we have to discuss this matter in person. This is serious.'

I suppose in York Region there is probably a rash of Edsels parking right in front of Japanese sushi places.

She gave me an appointment for three weeks later with a George Langley.

When I arrived at the main municipal offices and I announced my business to the security guard he was very gracious; he frisked me. He then told me to park my car in the lot and he directed me to the violations office, which was located in a portable building, 'just a short walk through the garden around the back of the main office.' I arrived at the portable ten minutes later after crossing over a field laced with poison ivy.

As I entered, the receptionist hid under her desk. Ten minutes later she surfaced and said, 'Hi, just looking for my contacts. Please have a seat. Mr. Welldrick will be with you shortly.'

'Mr. Welldrick?' I queried. 'I'm here to see George Langley.'

She hesitated and replied, 'George Langley? Is he new here?'

She got on the phone and made some inquiries. Then she went for a coffee break. When she returned, she said, 'Oh yes, we do have a George Langley working here. But he is off today. He decided to spend the day with his family at Wonderland.'

I asked whether I could meet some other person, perhaps Mr. Welldrick.

She replied, 'Were you parked within 13.25 meters of a Belgian chocolate factory? Mr. Welldrick is doing those today.'

Although there were two boxes of Godiva chocolates in my house, I did not think this qualified. I immediately booked another appointment with Mr. Langley for January 11. This way I knew at least he would not be at Wonderland. As I left the lady took out a box and offered me a chocolate.

I made the trek back to the parking lot and I got into my car. As I as about to take off I noticed something stuck to my windshield. It was a ticket. It read, 'Offence: parking in designated lot on day that George Langley is at Wonderland.'

My car is now up for sale.

Isn't it all a matter of perspective?

As I write these words there are demonstrations going on in Toronto as the G-20 is taking place. Hooligans have been rampaging through downtown, vandalizing and looting. They even torched four police cars.
Meanwhile in Brantford, about 100 plus kilometres away, a 42 year old man who had been drinking earlier this week put a banana up the tailpipe of a police vehicle. This certainly surprised the officer occupying the vehicle and he exited and arrested the man charging him with mischief. Not surprisingly the gentleman confessed to his deed.

I doubt that Toronto police will ever bring to justice the thugs who torched their four vehicles. Meanwhile my concern is that the judge hearing the case in Branford may be swayed by those vivid scenes of the four Toronto police vehicles blazing away and that this may affect the sentencing of the Brantford man. I can just see it now:

'I know that the accused does not have a criminal record but then again most recently there have been just too many instances of assaults on police vehicles. Today the accused might put a banana into the tailpipe of the police car. Tomorrow it might be a zucchini. Sentencing must have both specific and general deterrence in mind. Sir, did you bring your toothbrush along?... '

Good thing that most unlikely there are no videos on YouTube showing that Branford cop car with the banana sticking out of the tailpipe. The guy would get penitentiary time for sure.

I believe that Toronto police would have been tickled pink if the only damage their four vehicles would have suffered would have been through people placing produce up their tailpipes. Isn't it really all a matter of perspective?

We are capable of being nice to one another and at the same time, being nasty to other anothers.

It is my belief however that if there were two people left in the world, that they would quickly divide the world into a north and a south and become instant rivals. Take Chile for example. I find its geography fascinating. On the map it looks like it is about 2000 miles long north/ south and about 20 miles wide, east/west. I am probably close. That country has the shape of an earthworm.

I know very little about Chile except that it is probably not safe to make fun of its leaders. But I am willing to bet there is a split between different regions. I mean even east and west. The westerners border on the Pacific Ocean and they probably make fun of the eastern landlubbers. The eastern farmers probably joke about their maritime counterparts, coming up with zingers such as, 'How many westerners does it take to...' And if a western lady wants to marry an eastern sodbuster, she risks getting whacked by her father's fishing net. Romeo and Juliet, move over.

At least Chile has a seaport. Bolivia on the other hand is landlocked.. No sea. Yet they do have a navy consisting of 4 vessels, which patrols Lake Titicaca. The Bolivians feel that when the borders were set, they were shafted by the Chileans and the Peruvians. Then again, there was a Bolivian in the group of rescued miners and I guess they all gave the man full respect when he was down there. I doubt they made fun of his country's navy. Like I said we can be good or we can be bad.

It is not yet clear yet if Paul died intestate.

Keeping on an animal theme, Barbara Smith is a lawyer residing near Victoria B.C. on a farm. Apparently a few dozen rabbits from a nearby sanctuary escaped and ended up her farm. Ms. Smith called in a pest control outfit that proceeded to kill about 30 rabbits. The Law Society of B.C. found out about the incident and investigated Ms Smith's conduct. Eventually the LSBC cleared her, saying her actions did not constitute 'conduct unbecoming of a lawyer'. My question is what got them to investigate Ms Smith in the first place? Was business so slow at the LSBC that they had to go out and look for it? Either way Smith had unexpected grief. I have been hearing noises in my house at night and I suspect we have some mice. I'm not taking any chances. The first thing I am going to do is call the Law Society, Practice Advisory.

And if you are planning a trip to Italy this summer, you may have to think twice before visiting Castellammare di Stabia on Italy's southwestern coast between Naples and Salerno. Mayor Luigi Bobbio has taken a kick ass approach to what he considers 'public decency'. Women wearing short skirts or revealing too much cleavage or men wearing no shirts or people sunbathing will be hit with a fine of about 300 Euros. Don't laugh. It's too early to tell what Toronto Mayor elect Rob Ford might be up to. He was seen the other day inside a novelty story on Yonge street buying a case of whoopie cushions.