1/ I’ve stated several times that carrying empty gas cans, in these circumstances, is a crime. Perhaps I should briefly explain why.
2/ Its not actually that complex. There seems to be some belief that while carrying in full gas cans might be assisting in the ongoing convoy (mischief and breach of lawful order when they honk), the empty cans don’t really do anything. Thus not a crime.
3/ Not so. If they wished, police could arrest them all. Why? Because every person knows they are trying to create a deception designed to assist the obtaining of more gas for the trucks - the underlying crime that has prompted this behaviour.
4/ Say I rob a bank wearing a certain mask. I get the money myself. But I have ten friends planted outside the bank wearing the same clothes and masks. We all disperse to lessen the chance I get caught.
5/ We are all guilty of robbing the bank. Im the main PARTY, and they all assisted me. That is the same situation as the gas can shenanigans.
6/ As I tell my students, you don’t have to do something that is actually illegal to commit a crime. Carrying an empty can is no crime. Nor is wearing a mask@outside a bank.
7/ But if you do it for the purpose of assisting an actual crime and know this (the Ottawa gang all know this - the police told them!) you are committing a crime. Hope that helps!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ Court of Queens Bench, Friday. Sankoff J. presiding (fictional obviously - no one is insane enough to appoint me to the bench). "Call the first case!" Clerk: "It's the AG Alberta v "Freedom Convoy"" Sankoff J: "Great, another family law case." [Cue laugh track].
2/ AG Alberta: "Your Honour (I love the sound of that), we're here asking for an injunction that will forbid the freedom convoy from operating near the border and blocking all our commerce." Freedom Convoy: "We oppose!"
3/ Sankoff J: "I'm confused. AG Alberta, what are you asking for exactly? Why do you need authority? You can enforce any time." AG Alberta: "Well, we believe that the police are independent, and we need judicial directions to ensure they act properly."
The first rule of injunctions is that... you do not talk about injunctions. (Sorry. I couldn't resist. Tough day...).
No, the first rule of injunctions is that "the court will generally not grant an injunction for the purpose of enforcing moral obligations or as substitute for the criminal law or quasi-criminal law. There usually must be some property right or some other right infringed."
"When a statute provides a penalty for its breach but is silent as to whether a court may grant an injunction to restrain its contravention, a court must consider the statute as a whole, including its objects, to determine whether the court has such jurisdiction."
2/ I believe that we are at an important time in history. The manner in which (mis)information can circulate has changed our thought processes and belief systems. This is an oversimplified description of a complex problem, but there's nonetheless some truth to it.
3/ A growing number of people are attracted to ideas that strike many others as preposterous. Without question, there have always been groups of people attracted to conspiracies and falsehoods. That's just humanity.
4/ But this feels different to me. I never would have imagined Donald Trump could be elected. I realize that's the US, and whatever Canada is, we're not the U.S. (yet). But I do think we should not underestimate the power of disinformation.
Interesting to hear people throwing out all the crimes being committed in Ottawa. I'm far less convinced. Mischief seems clear, but everyone suggesting that this is "clearly" a riot, unlawful assembly, causing disturbance or nuisance needs to look at those sections more closely.
Let's take the "unlawful assembly" section as an example, since a lot of people want the Riot Act read. It requires proof that the peace was disturbed "tumultuously". There's very little jurisprudence on what this means, because this charge is rarely brought.
But it's not hard to know what a historical "riot" is, because we've all seen one. Just think of Vancouver after the Stanley Cup or Montreal. Whatever you think of Ottawa, it has little in common with what happened in Vancouver, and this will matter to any interpretation of s 63.
In writing about legal education this morning, I did a terrible job of keeping my tweets together. In a nutshell, I might be OK at online learning, but I suck at Twitter. @ericadams99 could even follow my tweets. So, I'm now going to post as a single "thread" - largely for him.
I'm just going to focus on the "sessional" part, rather than the 10 advantages of online learning, though I may throw a few key points from there in too.
The move online has me now re-thinking the entire concept of what a teaching module actually is, something I started doing years ago with the flipped classroom. It's more about trying to do the best with the math.
1/ All right. Here we go. This is going to be a long thread, so bear with me. I apologize in advance. Here are the results of the poll.
2/ My starting point: It should not be this confusing. This is a fundamental problem that arises regularly (more regularly with lots of affidavits required prior to trial for 276 and, unless struck down, 278.92). Everyone should be on the same page. We're not - because...
3/ The jurisprudence on point is poor - and confusing - and it has not been clarified in a way that makes sense. Wait until you see how many precedents I have to address to get to an answer of how this should be dealt with. Who (aside from a Professor) has the time???