Tag Archives: court

Unions can be sued for protest inconvenience

A judge has ruled that a 2003 blue-collar protest which tied up traffic downtown inconvenienced Montrealers significantly enough that they should be compensated. In a judgement on a class-action suit from Boris Coll, the judge ordered the union to give $1.16 million to charity (determining individual compensation was deemed too impractical).

Reaction has been mixed. The Gazette calls it a victory for regular people who should be able to travel freely without inconvenient traffic jams. Dennis Trudeau, meanwhile, worries about future protesters getting sued because their marches might cause traffic disruption.

Both sides have reasonable points, but I have to side with Trudeau. A traffic jam is an inconvenience, but there’s no constitutional right to free roadways. There is, however, a right to assemble, protest and express yourselves on political issues. The latter right should take precedence.

Protesters already wear masks and keep their routes secret because they fear police repression. Making these things actionable is just going to drive them further into lawlessness and make those protesters angrier.

Legal battle costs arm, leg, kidney

Here’s an interesting story that’s been raising eyebrows today: Jean Bédard, who runs an offshore financial services company apparently called Offshore Financial Services, is being sued by the National Bank, and because he’s running out of money and the moral and financial stakes are so high, he’s decided he has no choice but to sell a kidney to pay for court costs.

He hasn’t actually sold a kidney yet. He hasn’t even really setup the procedure or figure out where he’s having it done (it’s illegal to sell organs in Canada). But that didn’t stop him from talking to Gazette freelancer Mark Cardwell and CTV’s John Grant, suggesting that only a settlement with the bank would stop him from performing this dangerous operation.

Bédard is clearly trying to use the media (and doing so effectively with a good news hook) to influence the outcome of his case. But unlike those consumer advocate segments where grandma gets reimbursed her $50 fee error, I doubt the National Bank is going to walk away from a six-figure legal case.

The legal precedent of the case is interesting. In essence, Bédard deposited a $1.5 million cashier’s cheque (which is a cheque guaranteed by a bank) into an account at another bank. He then sent some of that money overseas before the bank realized the original cheque was forged. (Sound familiar? Yeah, it’s the old overpayment scam) The bank was out $179,957.67, and sued Bédard.

What sets this case apart from other similar scams is the use of a cashier’s cheque or bank note, which is guaranteed by the issuing bank. As such, it’s usually cleared immediately and is considered as good as cash. That’s what happened in this case: the bank cleared the cheque and Bédard assumed it was genuine. The judge dismissed the case because the bank accepted the cheque (and because Bédard clearly wasn’t trying to defraud them). The bank is appealing:

“It’s not the money, it’s the principle,” said the bank’s lawyer, François Viau, a partner with the Montreal office of Gowlings, Lafleur, Henderson. “If the ruling prevails, banks would have the burden of verifying bank drafts against the issuer.”

That, he added, “defeats the very idea of a bank draft.”

That’s true. But for a bank to suggest that it shouldn’t have to verify bank drafts before releasing funds is just as silly. Either it has to be treated like a regular cheque (frozen, verified and then released) or like cash (checked for obvious signs of forgery and immediately redeemed). They can’t have it both ways.

UPDATE (Sept. 22): Letter-writer Sheryl Keeble points out that those in desperate need of a new kidney aren’t finding this funny, and that perhaps simply declaring bankruptcy would be preferable to getting third-rate doctors to harvest your organs for a few pennies.

Gross negligence is an understatement

Gojit logo

Ever consider using GoJit or Dicom for deliveries? You might want to reconsider, because apparently they don’t keep track of their packages, and won’t reimburse you when gross negligence causes tonnes of merchandise to grow legs and disappear right under their noses.

Last week Quebec Superior Court ruled that the company was liable for $90,000 of boots that were lost in 2004. The company had offered a laughable $6,000 compensation when the 88 cartons over six palettes disappeared, and never called the police to report a theft.

Considering these actions take “gross incompetence” to a new level, the $118,307.65
judgment against them (plus interest retroactive to 2004) seems small.

UPDATE (Aug 8th): Just got off the phone with a VP at GoJIT. Apparently they haven’t received the decision yet from their lawyer, so won’t comment (too much) on the legal case. But apparently the compensation situation is an industry standard, and not just GoJIT policy. Look out for the interview in an upcoming article.

Bureaucracy killed the Journal’s website

Ever wonder why the Journal de Montréal doesn’t have a real website? Legal reasons, apparently.

Apparently the Journal’s union contract has some vague language about the use of its members’ work on the Internet. It states that the Journal’s parent organization can use the content online, provided certain silly requirements are met (the Journal’s logo has to appear, and people can’t be assigned exclusively online unless they’re given a new job title or something).

An extra sentence added later says that the employer should negotiate before starting a new website.

The union tried to sue, claiming Quebecor broke the agreement by setting up this kinda-website without talking to them first.

The judge saw right through their flimsy argument, referring the case to union arbitration.

Hopefully that will talk some sense into both sides. This is a really stupid reason for the Journal not to have a true web presence for itself.

Zeke maintains status quo in court

Chris Hand, the Zeke behind Zeke’s Gallery, spent most of today in the Palais de Justice with his lawyer and mother. At issue was an injunction which stops Hand from making specific statements about Pierre-Antoine Tremblay, an art dealer who is suing him for libel.

After hearing about an hour’s worth of arguments from both sides, the judge has ordered a renewal of the existing injunction against Hand, but without changes asked by the plaintiff (those seemed centred around preventing Hand from using other media to make statements against Mr. Tremblay). The injunction prohibits Chris Hand from saying that Pierre-Antoine Tremblay is associated with Frank Martorana and the mafia, or that he tried to sell fake paintings to Loto-Quebec. Both statements Tremblay’s lawyer says are entirly false.

The injunction lasts until Sept. 6, 2007, when further hearings will take place on this matter.

Among other things of note:

  • Tremblay wasn’t present in court.
  • Tremblay and his lawyer have increased their monetary demands. What was once $25,000 is now $60,000.
  • Hand was barely recognizable. His hippie haircut has been replaced with a professional-looking crewcut. He sat well-behaved in a suit (no tie) and didn’t bite the head off even one chicken throughout the proceedings.
  • The proceedings were held entirely in French, except for what was read from blog posts and newspaper articles.
  • From the plaintiff’s lawyer: “Comment ça se dit en français ‘quack’?” Hand’s mother tried to explain before Chris cut her off and explained that she’s helping opposing council.
  • Legal chit-chat between the lawyers and court reporter are always cute. They talk about the temperature of the drinking water in the courtroom, or what lawyer was at which firm when, or about the noise of construction on the floors above them.
  • Shout-outs to Montreal Tech Watch and Hou-Hou Blog whose posts were used in evidence by the plaintiff. No mention of my huge post, but my article did get quoted so I won’t complain.
  • Both lawyers were very effective at pleading their case. The plaintiff’s arguments boiled down to the fact that this is a very specific injunction (the facts of the libel case weren’t argued today), that Hand is using other media (Yahoo! Groups, other blogs, personal communication at YULblog meetings) to repeat the same allegedly libellous claims, and that Zeke’s Gallery is in competition with Tremblay’s Galerie 2000 (a claim Chris calls an exaggeration).
  • There are still three related cases pending. All have been postponed to Sept. 6:
    • The injunction preventing Hand from making these statements about Tremblay
    • A contempt of court charge for allegedly ignoring the previous injunction
    • The libel case itself
  • Tremblay’s lawyer said outright that the paintings sold to Loto-Quebec were not forged. This is the first complete denial of this charge I’ve heard. The out-of-court settlement between Tremblay and Loto-Quebec is secret, but I’d love to find out what the real story is behind it.
  • The Zeke’s Gallery blog remains effectively shut down. Hand isn’t sure if he’ll bring it back, even if he ends up winning the case.