Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Firebot]

^ You are quite correct, I was looking to keep Canadian examples but ones actually getting a judgement are few and far between. The CBC one took 9 years to resolve, that's the Canadian system for you. Interestingly, WE charity filed in Washington

The biggest high profile case is Subway vs CBC and Subway even had to pay the CBC 500K on the failed case

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/sub...cken-1.5480512

The CBC succeeded in November in having Morgan dismiss the action pre-trial under so-called anti-SLAPP legislation, which aims to protect free speech on matters of public interest. The company, Morgan noted, went all out in fighting the CBC's dismissal motion.

But has since gone ahead on appeal, verdict remains to be seen.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/sub...cken-1.5879467

And that case Subway has much more merit than Dong does.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Trump sued CNN, does it mean he has a slam dunk case because he can prove 3 elements and CNN must be shaking in fear?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-...0against%20him.

On the other side of the coin, Dominion and Fox news settle for 787 million dollars because Fox News did in fact defame Dominion with zero truth to the allegations and would assuredly not only lose the case, but likely could be penalized much harder.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...mation-lawsuit

Such a settlement isn't happening between Dong and Global (again unless Global made things up on their own which does not appear to be the case)

CBC was sued for defamation and lost recently (for good reason, elements of the story was fabricated and without merit).

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...case-1.6296600

WE also sued CBC, I expect that case that not go anywhere.

https://www.newswire.ca/news-release...840188570.html

Just because the 3 elements for the claim of the plaintiff case for defamation may be met, sure as heck doesn't make it a slam dunk case just because you claim it does. You most certainly can claim defamation, meet all 3 elements to make such claim, and still lose.

Heck I mean Must literally called someone a pedo guy on twitter and still won the defamation case against him.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50695593

You realize that the US and Canada are two different countries wth two different legal and political systems, right? It seems to be a point lost more and more on right wing Canadians since the pandemic.

edit: saw your last response

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

It is a shame that the Globe and Mail had the exact same story and refused to go to print because it did not meet journalistic standards. Really diminishes Global’s defence.

In the two Michael’s yes, but they were also reporting on the election interference which is why I found it notable that the defamation case includes both.

In a civil case can they force the Globe and Mail to send someone to testify? Without details on what each paper new you state they had the same information and global defense is unaffected.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Firebot

^ You are quite correct, I was looking to keep Canadian examples but ones actually getting a judgement are few and far between. The CBC one took 9 years to resolve, that's the Canadian system for you. Interestingly, WE charity filed in Washington

The biggest high profile case is Subway vs CBC and Subway even had to pay the CBC 500K on the failed case

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/sub...cken-1.5480512



But has since gone ahead on appeal, verdict remains to be seen.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/sub...cken-1.5879467

And that case Subway has much more merit than Dong does.

You actually think questioning whether Subway uses chicken has much more merit in a defamation case compared to what Global did to Dong?

Just to review, some guy came in and said he heard they Dong said this or that. Global said they did not need to see a transcript or hear the audio because they had an incredible amount of faith in what some random guy said he heard. Best of luck finding a defence for that.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

You actually think questioning whether Subway uses chicken has much more merit in a defamation case compared to what Global did to Dong?

Just to review, some guy came in and said he heard they Dong said this or that. Global said they did not need to see a transcript or hear the audio because they had an incredible amount of faith in what some random guy said he heard. Best of luck finding a defence for that.

It’s interesting how much you are assuming doesn’t exist. “Random guy” more likely is X person with x security clearance and x experience in espionage. There are also multiple sources that the conversation took place. This is what we publicly know and not the info global is holding.

Where does your certainty come from that global ####ed up vs this being a lawsuit designed to defend China and Dongs reputation by publicly declaring a lawsuit that has no intent to ever go to court.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

Where does your certainty come from that global ####ed up vs this being a lawsuit designed to defend China and Dongs reputation by publicly declaring a lawsuit that has no intent to ever go to court.

While it can’t be defined as certainty, even if this doesn’t go to court Dong could be putting himself in a situation where if the allegations are true and Global was right in reporting them then they may be in a position to file a counter claim against Dong for damages. Which may still happen but I haven’t read the filings in detail so I’m not sure when Global has to respond by.

[Doctorfever]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/psa...ines-1.6820011

Are they going to wait until the union runs out of money? Will the union start asking it’s members to take less than $75 per day? I guess Striking employees have to be more aggressive on the picket lines, their union doesn’t have the money to strike for too long.

It seems to be a game of who will blink first.

“PSAC members are receiving $75 a day in strike pay, and Aylward has been firm that the union has the money to continue the strike for as long as necessary.
"We have access to over $200 million, so, again strike pay is not an issue," he said Sunday.”

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/psa...ines-1.6820011

Are they going to wait until the union runs out of money? Will the union start asking it’s members to take less than $75 per day? I guess Striking employees have to be more aggressive on the picket lines, their union doesn’t have the money to strike for too long.

It seems to be a game of who will blink first.

“PSAC members are receiving $75 a day in strike pay, and Aylward has been firm that the union has the money to continue the strike for as long as necessary.
"We have access to over $200 million, so, again strike pay is not an issue," he said Sunday.”

The government might start running out of money first if they can’t get those returns filed.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The government might start running out of money first if they can’t get those returns filed.

I’d suspect it saves money because the filing dates and payment dates aren’t changed so it’s just refunds being delayed going out.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

I’d suspect it saves money because the filing dates and payment dates aren’t changed so it’s just refunds being delayed going out.

Not for those who owe. But to be honest I have no idea whether they usually collect more than they return.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/psa...ines-1.6820011

Are they going to wait until the union runs out of money? Will the union start asking it’s members to take less than $75 per day? I guess Striking employees have to be more aggressive on the picket lines, their union doesn’t have the money to strike for too long.

It seems to be a game of who will blink first.

“PSAC members are receiving $75 a day in strike pay, and Aylward has been firm that the union has the money to continue the strike for as long as necessary.
"We have access to over $200 million, so, again strike pay is not an issue," he said Sunday.”

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The government might start running out of money first if they can’t get those returns filed.

Unions doing math?

$200mm sounds like a lot... except when you have ~150,000 members collecting $75/day...

[GordonBlue]

regarding the strike.
For pay, they're asking for 12% over 3 years and the government is offering 9%?

Strictly looking at pay, I think 9% is pretty fair.
I don't know what else is a stumbling block in the negotiations, but to me striking over that 3% is greedy. (again, just my opinion.)

[Ironhorse]

After multiple pay cuts and a ~1% raise since 2015, I’d be ecstatic with a 9% raise over 3 years. What kind of fantasy world does the PSAC live in?

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

regarding the strike.
For pay, they're asking for 12% over 3 years and the government is offering 9%?

Strictly looking at pay, I think 9% is pretty fair.
I don't know what else is a stumbling block in the negotiations, but to me striking over that 3% is greedy. (again, just my opinion.)

The sticking point is the ability to work from home from what I understand. The workers and union want greater flexibility to WFH while the government wants more people back in the office.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

You actually think questioning whether Subway uses chicken has much more merit in a defamation case compared to what Global did to Dong?

Just to review, some guy came in and said he heard they Dong said this or that. Global said they did not need to see a transcript or hear the audio because they had an incredible amount of faith in what some random guy said he heard. Best of luck finding a defence for that.

It wasn't some guy, it was not one but two CSIS operatives who's rank we don't know. Globe and mail doesn't believe it didn't happen, they just could not independently validate confidential information and chose not to run it for that sole reason.

I love how you keep on stating the 'just a guy' to devalue the info brought forth by multiple CSIS operatives.

And Dong did not deny the meeting, he denies what transpired in the meeting. He also claims that CSIS may have gotten it wrong due to translation difficulties (if that's not a tell tale sign?).

The transcripts and recordings clearly exist.

Dong is only denying what cannot be reliably corroborated without CSIS opening up the confidential info and providing transcripts and recordings. He cannot hide he met with a diplomat at that could be easily verified so he conceded that point and passed it as a normal occurrence. He can also deny the bus involvement as again CSIS (well rather Global) would need to provide proof.

So is it normal for an MP to be under CSIC surveillance to such a high level that they have a codename scarecrow? Did you read up on why CSIS targeted Dong in the first place (or do you deny he was under surveillance)?

https://globalnews.ca/news/9504291/l...cret%20matters.

Another reason the service decided to target Dong, an intelligence official said, was his alleged meeting with a senior official from Beijing’s United Front Work Department in New York state, according to sources and documents. This event is alleged to have taken place during the service’s 2019 election interference probe

Understand it's not one meeting, or one bus, or one situation, it's multiple red flags. And Dong is denying anything that cannot be corroborated without CSIS itself testifying.

The case isn't going to go anywhere for the reasons I listed prior. Doesn't matter what you subjectively think.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

While it can’t be defined as certainty, even if this doesn’t go to court Dong could be putting himself in a situation where if the allegations are true and Global was right in reporting them then they may be in a position to file a counter claim against Dong for damages. Which may still happen but I haven’t read the filings in detail so I’m not sure when Global has to respond by.

Global has 20 days.

The CBC Subway case shows that court costs is likely going to be awarded on a dismissal, I doubt Global would go after an individual for anything more than court costs which they are certainly within their rights should it go to court.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by you&me

Unions doing math?

$200mm sounds like a lot... except when you have ~150,000 members collecting $75/day...

Geez I guess their screwed then eh?

Union math doesn’t usually include members not actually on strike.

Try to keep up. Seek help from Me&you if you’re having trouble

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse

After multiple pay cuts and a ~1% raise since 2015, I’d be ecstatic with a 9% raise over 3 years. What kind of fantasy world does the PSAC live in?

Reality?

That’s really rough that you’ve had to deal with those kinds of cuts and no raises to boot but I can assure you that that’s not what everyone is dealing with.

Don’t worry I’m sure someone will be around shortly to tell you if you just work harder you’ll be rewarded for it and get ahead.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

regarding the strike.
For pay, they're asking for 12% over 3 years and the government is offering 9%?

Strictly looking at pay, I think 9% is pretty fair.
I don't know what else is a stumbling block in the negotiations, but to me striking over that 3% is greedy. (again, just my opinion.)

Inflation over the past 3 years has been 13.5%. Asking for 13.5% over 3 more years basically is asking for wages to be stable instead of taking a cut. Doesn't seem too unreasonable to me.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Not for those who owe. But to be honest I have no idea whether they usually collect more than they return.

If you owe you still need to pay by May 15th. Many of those payments will be automated. So it’s really a small subset of payments sent in by cheque that won’t be collected.