Judge threatens to free prisoners!

Delay in getting prisoners to court on time agitates judge

A judge has warned that he'll free prisoners on bail if they don't start getting to Kitchener on time for their court appearances.

"People who should be in jail are going to be on the street because the government can't get them to court," Justice James Ramsay said yesterday.

"That's going to happen and it's going to happen soon."

For the last two weeks, prisoners have arrived several hours late from the Maplehurst Detention Centre in Milton each day because of a work-to-rule campaign by jail guards.

Ramsay ordered the superintendent of the jail, Doug Dalgleish, to appear before him yesterday to explain the delays.

He also blasted jail guards — members of Local 234 of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union — and the provincial government for letting the situation drag on this long.

Ramsay said it's unfair, illegal and "every other thing in the book" to deny prisoners their right to appear for scheduled court proceedings.

"You can't just lock someone up and leave them there," he said. "That's not English justice."

Ramsay threatened to throw guards in jail for "deliberately interfering with the administration of justice" and warned some criminal cases might be tossed out because of delays.

Dennis Brown, a lawyer for the Ministry of the Attorney General, also appeared in court.

He said the province applied yesterday to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to have job actions by jail guards declared an "illegal strike" and to get an order forcing them to stop.

"Hopefully, it will be dealt with expeditiously," he said.

Dalgleish said the dispute stems from an agreement between guards and the government on overtime.

During negotiations that led to ratification of a new contract in March, he said, the province said it was planning to withdraw its consent for guards to bank overtime and use it for days off.

When the government followed through after the contract was settled, Dalgleish said, it led to a "groundswell of anger."

Guards have since been refusing overtime and meticulously following procedures for the transportation of prisoners.

Dalgleish said the union characterizes it as "working safe," while administrators consider it "working slow."

"I would say it's a sham," Ramsay shot back.

At least four local judges have voiced concerns about delays gumming up the court system, meaning cases start late or aren't reached at all.

While Ramsay was trying to get answers in Superior Court, Justice Gary Hearn ruled in Ontario Court down the street that the delays amount to contempt.

Deciding on a motion brought before him last week, he found the delays were "deliberate" and showed a "wilful refusal to comply with court orders."

Hearn didn't actually cite anyone for contempt, however, and is expected to deal with the issue again next week.

Despite talking tough, Ramsay also took no direct action. Instead, he put the union and the government on notice that he is running out of patience.

"That sounds likes the Ontario government I know," he said after being told how the province is handling the situation. "In other words, they aren't doing anything about people trampling on the rights of people who have already had their liberty taken away."

Ramsay said nobody seems concerned about the prisoners, whom he described as "mostly drug addicts," but he vowed to do what is necessary to protect their rights.

"I'm proposing to bide my time — but not for long," he said.

Union officials have yet to comment.

Witness refuses to take oath at shooting trial

Just when you thought you'd heard of everything....

A crucial Crown witness who was supposed to begin testifying at a first-degree murder trial today stunned a downtown Toronto court this morning by refusing to take the oath.

"I'm not testifying," Marlon Wilson said shaking his head as jurors looked on in Superior Court.

"You're required to testify sir," Justice Michael Dambrot told Wilson.

"I'm not going to say my name ... I ain't taking no oath," Wilson replied.

"Nice to see you members of the jury," Dambrot said to the seven women and five men who had moments earlier taken their seats.

The jury has heard Wilson is alleged to be a "gang associate" of the three men on trial, Tyshan Riley, 26, Philip Atkins, 25, and Jason Wisdom, 23.

They're charged with first-degree murder and attempt murder in the March 3, 2004 drive by shooting at Finch Avenue and Neilsen Road that killed Brenton Charlton, 31, who worked in a concession stand at the SkyDome. His friend, Leonard Bell, now 48 and a renovator, was hit several times in a barrage of gunfire and survived.

The Crown has described the shooting as a case of mistaken identity linked to gang warfare between Galloway gang members and rivals in Malvern.

Wilson was supposed to testify about receiving a call on the night of the shooting as well as hearing his account about a social gathering later on. The jury was also told on opening day Wilson would give evidence about a .357 Glock found by police to have the presence of DNA of both Wilson and Atkins.

Ballistic evidence will show shells found at the scene were consistent with and could not exclude the fact that one of the guns used in the shooting, Crown attorney Suhail Akhtar told the jury on opening day last week.

About an hour after Wilson's refusal, the jury returned to the court and another attempt was made.

"Mr. Wilson you've indicated you are refusing to take an oath," Dambrot said facing him in the witness box.

"Right," replied Wilson, wearing a blue button-down shirt and a thick black beard and glasses.

"I'm ordering you to take the oath ..is your position still the same?," Dambrot asked.

"Yup," Wilson said,

Dambrot then told Wilson he has the power to find him in contempt of court and impose a punishment or that he could be charged with obstruction of justice.

Wilson shook his head to signal he wasn't changing his mind.

Dambrot then told the jury this was not "an everyday event," and instructed them to return to court Tuesday to give counsel time to reorganize the schedule.

Quebec dad sued by daughter after grounding loses his appeal

A Quebec father who was taken to court by his 12-year-old daughter after he grounded her in June 2008 has lost his appeal.

Quebec Superior Court rejected the Gatineau father's appeal of a lower court ruling that said his punishment was too severe for the wrongs he said his daughter committed.

The father is "flabbergasted," his lawyer Kim Beaudoin says.

In its ruling, issued Monday, the province's court of appeal declared the girl was caught up in a "very rare" set of circumstances, and her father didn't have sufficient grounds to contest the court's earlier decision.

The family's legal wrangling started with a dispute over the girl's internet use.

She had been living with her father after her parents split, when he grounded her in 2008 for defying his order to stay off the internet. The father had caught her chatting on websites he had blocked, and alleged his daughter was posting "inappropriate pictures" of herself online.

Her punishment: she was banned from her Grade 6 graduation trip to Quebec City in June 2008, for which her mother had already granted permission.

The father — who had custody — withheld his written permission for the trip, prompting the school to refuse to let the girl go with her classmates.

That's when the girl asked for help from the lawyer who represented her in her parents' separation, and petitioned the court to intervene in her case.

"Going to court was a last resort," said Lucie Fortin, a legal aid attorney who represented the girl. "The question was that there was a problem between the father and the mother, and the child asked the court to intervene because it was important to her."

"The trip was very important to her."

Legal battle destroyed father-daughter relationship

A lower court ruled in the girl's favour in 2008. She went on the trip, but her father appealed the decision on the principle of the matter.

"He doesn't have regrets," his lawyer said.

"Either way, he doesn't have authority over this child anymore. She sued him because she doesn't respect his rules," Beaudoin said. "It's very hard to raise a child who is the boss."

The girl — who now lives with her mother — doesn't have much of a relationship with her dad now, Beaudoin said.

"We went from a child who wanted to live with her father, and after all this has been done, they're not speaking anymore."

"We have a lot of work to re-establish a link between those two."

Beaudoin believes the ruling reflects a loss of moral authority in Quebec's court system.

"Is this what we want in our society? Laws are supposed to reflect our values. And if the courts aren't reflecting that, maybe the government will, to prevent children from going this way," she said Tuesday.

In its Monday ruling, the appeal court warned the case should not be seen as an open invitation for children to take legal action every time they're grounded.

Groom gets cold feet, sets wedding hotel on fire

A Japanese man who set fire to a hotel in a bid to buy himself time to decide whether to stay with his wife or marry his girlfriend was sentenced to five years jail Thursday, a court official said.

Presiding Judge Yasushi Watanabe called 40-year-old defendant Tatsuhiko Kawata "egoistic and short-sighted" and dismissed the defence argument that no-one was hurt in the fire, the Kyodo news agency reported.

Kawata, who had been married to his wife since 1994, had also been seeing another woman for about three years and promised to marry her last October at the Risonare hotel in the mountain resort of Hokuto, Yamanashi Prefecture.

However, on the eve of the ceremony, the still-married Kawata sought to delay the ceremony by spilling seven litres of petrol in the hotel and setting it on fire, causing minor damage and forcing the evacuations of several guests.

Prosecutors had sought six years' prison for Kawata, who pleaded guilty to the charges of arson and unauthorized entry to the hotel, a Kofu District Court official told AFP.

Rihanna 'Appalled' by Chris Brown's Public Apology

Rihanna has not yet come out of her hiding place nor did she comment on her alleged altercation with Chris Brown which occurred last weekend, but a longtime friend of her has revealed to the Chicago Sun-Times that the songstress was "appalled" by the public apology Chris has issued.

Rihanna, according to the source, expected Chris to give details about their blow-up instead of simply saying he was "sorry and saddened" over what has happened.

"All of us, including Rihanna, don't understand how he can say he's sorry on the one hand, but still ... does not admit any guilt," so the Barbados-based friend said. "He should have expressed more contrition."

Elsewhere in Los Angeles, a close associate of Rihanna told the Chicago Sun-Times on Monday, February 16 that the sexy Barbadian performer was "royally pissed off" by Chris' statement. She even branded his comment as "cavalier and arrogant".

It's been more than a week after reports of them getting involved in an alleged physical fight dominate the headlines, but neither Rihanna nor Chris Brown has shared with the public the truth behind the incident. Both of them reportedly have been spending time with respective family and friends.

As of Chris Brown, he in the meantime is awaiting for his next court appearance, scheduled for March 5.

Edmonton man left quadriplegic after Bon Jovi concert awaits day in court

It's been 18 months since Dennis Schulz, an Edmonton,Alberta father of two, went to a Bon Jovi concert and in just a heartbeat, had his neck snapped under the weight of a falling fellow human being.

But any relief for the quadriplegic, who launched a multimillion-dollar lawsuit back in 2007, is still a year or two away in a case that has entangled the concert promoter, the arena owner, the company in charge of serving booze at the show and even Edmonton's chief of police.

"I can't say if the [trial] date will be 2010 or 2011," Schulz's lawyer, Patrick Phelan, said in an interview with the Canadian Press. He said his client prefers not to talk to reporters but added that "his attitude is excellent," especially considering the circumstances.

"How would you feel if you had no motion in your arms and legs?" Phelan said.

Schulz was 40 at the time he and his wife, Elana Hartman, went to see the rock band perform at Rexall Place on July 12, 2007.

They were near the corner of the building in section 222, Row 22 (Schulz was in Seat 5) — good seats, the second row of the upper deck, not far from the stage.

Schulz and his wife were sitting in front of Kendra Stasyk and Darryl Allan. Behind that couple were Brad McCorry and Alisa Rabideau.

According to Schulz's statement of claim, the atmosphere wasn't safe from the get-go: the lighting was too dark, the music too loud and security lax.

Around 9:30 p.m. that night, things quickly got out of hand.

According to the statement, Rabideau was drunk and was "rudely, recklessly and repeatedly spilling beverages on spectators seated a row ahead of her."

This led to a conflict between Allan and Rabideau's companion, McCorry.

The two men began pushing each other, and Allan toppled straight back, pushing Schulz's head down until his neck snapped. His head was left hanging limply, say witnesses, his chin resting on his rib cage.

Wife, province also suing

Nobody noticed at first as the melee continued and the band played on.

Schulz's C4-5 vertebrae were snapped. Today, he can't feel anything below his neck. He can't feed himself or even cough on his own.

"Mr. Schulz ... has been advised by his doctors that he will not work at his job as a journeyman machinist again," Phelan wrote in a letter on file in the courthouse. "He will not walk again. Currently, he has no movement in his hands."

The allegations contained in the statement of claim have yet to be proven in court.

Schulz is one of three plaintiffs. His wife, Hartman, is also suing for loss of income and the province of Alberta is trying to recoup health care costs. Schulz is asking for $7 million for medical care.

His lawsuit was filed in November 2007, and in subsequent months, the defendants filed statements of defence. Many have also filed notices to each other stating that should they be found liable, they may be coming after each other for the money.

Rabideau, in her statement of defence, says she wasn't drunk or disorderly and that Allan started the confrontation by throwing a drink in her face.

In his statement of defence, McCorry said he accidentally spilled a drink on Stasyk and apologized, but Allan overreacted, throwing a drink on Rabideau, then lunging at McCorry. He said he "placed his open hand on Allan's chest to ward him off. Allan then went backwards."

Allan, in his statement, said McCorry pushed him without provocation or warning. He said he "had no opportunity to avoid contact with McCorry or to prevent himself falling."

Stasyk, in her statement, said she didn't do anything to start or inflame the melee.

Schulz accuses the concert promoter, Panhandle Productions, and the arena operator, Edmonton Northlands, of negligence for failing to provide adequate security. Both deny this.

Schulz says the employees of the company in charge of serving liquor at the concert, Dominion SportService, overserved and didn't check to see if anyone was drunk. Dominion denies this.

Schulz says the police, some of whom were contracted to provide security for the event, were lax. He claims that rather than monitor the crowd, officers simply asked ushers to report problems to them.

Edmonton Police Chief Mike Boyd has filed a statement of defense that says "adequate policing resources were supplied."

Police have not laid any charges, citing the case as non-criminal.

If the case goes to trial, it's expected to last about a month.

This is a terrible incident. There's no denying that, I hope this man and his family get some form of compensation. His life has been ruined over shameless stupidity and blatant negligence. Serving alcohol at public events where the crowds are large and impossible to control is a guaranteed recipe for disaster.

My problem with this isn't the law suit per se, but rather that it won't be the people directly involved in the incident, that actually caused the problem that will end up paying.

The reality is that the court will never order those people to pay, if the law suit is won, then the arena, and likely the police will have to pay simply because they have the money to pay (i.e. taxpayer's money for the most part).

I also have to ask this though: Who on earth would go to a Bon Jovi concert and be surprised that it is dark and loud and semi "out of control"? ITS A ROCK CONCERT!!!!

It is sad to say, but the lawyers of this country have made is so we can guarantee that a good sized percentage of that crowd will be high on drugs or drunk because the police and security have very limited authority to intervene until AFTER something actually happens.
If the police or security had marched down there and tried to remove this drunken couple and THEN this fellow was injured in a fight somehow, everyone would be blaming the police for it and the lawsuit would be a slam dunk.

Perhaps if we were to get back to some common sense and say that police and security have the right to search people entering and have drug dogs clearing the entire crowd, and that anyone deemed to be already high or drunk at the doors could be turned away, then maybe, just MAYBE, we could make public events like this fun for the good and decent folks again and get the jerks out of there.

I am not going to hold my breath though. There are too many lawyers out there who will sue and fight for anything anytime and basically doom the rest of us to live with this nonsense because we might be trampling on someone's rights by telling them that they can't be drunk or high at these events.