Month: September 2009

I found this on the blog of a lawyer from British Columbia and thought it was interesting. In this case the Defendant driver was found negligent for having parked on the side of the road with his high beams on that caused the Plaintiff driver who was driving on the opposite side to drive off the road.

The decision can be found here.

Below are some key excerpts from the judgement.

[25] Those circumstances included the fact that, although he was not parked on the roadway, the defendant knew or should have known that he was close enough to it that his headlights to be visible to oncoming traffic. He also knew or should have known that there were no streetlights or other sources of light that would help oncoming drivers determine the position of his vehicle.

[26] In those circumstances, it was reasonably foreseeable that an approaching driver seeing the defendant’s headlights would assume they were the lights of an oncoming vehicle in the northbound lane and would attempt to ensure that she stayed to the right of that vehicle….

I find that if the defendant had properly turned his mind to the potential hazard he was creating, the proper course would have been to turn off his headlights. If the absence of light from his headlights would have made it more difficult for the defendant to find and open his mailbox, that problem could have been solved with the simple use of a small flashlight.

[29] The hazard created by the defendant in stopping as he did was aggravated by the fact his lights were on high beam, further interfering with the ability of the plaintiff to properly see and assess the situation…

I find that, by leaving his lights on high beam, the defendant was in further breach of his common law duty of care. Whether or not he was stopped on a portion of the highway, the defendant clearly knew or ought to have known that he was stopped close enough to the travelled road surface that his headlights would be shining toward oncoming drivers and the vision of those drivers could be impaired if the lights were on high beam.

[33] I therefore conclude that, in stopping his car in the position he did with his headlights not only illuminated but on high beam, the defendant breached his duty of care.

Here is a more detailed list of products that contain Triclosan:

http://drbenkim.com/articles/triclosan-products.htm

If you haven’t heard of Triclosan, think again. You probably use products that contain it every day. Triclosan is the main ingredient for anti-bacterial products such as, soaps and other products such as, ”Colgate Total, Old Spice High Endurance Stick Deodorant, Aveeno Therapeutic Shave Gel and J Cloth towels” and even garden hoses.

Recently, the Canadian Medical Association lobbied the Canadian federal government to ban anti-bacterial products.

Studies suggest the chemical can have many adverse effects. One, that it kills good bacteria and two, that it can be found in human bodies.

Studies have found traces of the chemical in women’s breast milk and indicators the chemical can stick around for a long time, especially in our drinking water.

The Globe and Mail reported:

According to Mike Layton, program manager with advocacy group Environmental Defence, triclosan can react to chlorine in drinking water and form chloroform, which is a carcinogen. And when triclosan reacts with light, it can actually form poisonous dioxins, he says.

Click here for more information.

The Press Secretary sought an injunction that the Halifax Herald be barred from publishing the contents of a tape recording. The recording consisted of five hours of conversation between the Federal Minister of Natural Resources, Ms. Raitt and her Press Secretary. The conversation took place in a vehicle with a driver, an employee of the department. The recording was accidental and by inadvertence ended up in the hands of a reporter with the Halifax Herald.

The reporter notified the Minister but she failed to pick up the recording. Eventually, the reporter decided to publish it.

The Halifax Herald was successful and the court commented on the tort of invasion of privacy by citing previous cases but stopped short of providing any substantive comments other than, such a tort might emerge.

On the issue of privacy the court stated that:

I agree with the submission for the Herald that the recorded conversation was not private because some or all of it was heard by a department driver.

However, later the court acknowledges:

Privacy was invaded in January 2009 when the conversation was recorded, in February when the record was left in a press washroom, and in March when it was not retrieved as agreed. Ms. MacDonnell’s lack of knowledge that her recording device contained a record of the conversation cannot, to my mind, put Mr. Mahar in the position of an intentional invader.

Even if there was an invasion it seems in this case the court was not about to stifle freedom of the press:

Here is where I see the restriction on prior restraint having some place in

laws of invasion of privacy, if such a tort is to emerge. It is wrong to deprive the press, and the public it serves, of remarks made privately, but not confidentially in the sense of trade secrets or privileged communications, after those remarks became available because of poor record keeping or management.

The decision can be found here.

According to the Montreal Gazette the Canadian government has found that the chemical known as 1,4-dioxane, is not toxic.

Despite, the fact that The International Agency for Research on Cancer lists 1,4-dioxane as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" and California’s Prop 65 identifies it as a chemical known to cause cancer and the European Commission identify it as a Category 3 carcinogen as found on Toxic Nation.

The Gazette also reported, “"All data indicated the trace amounts Canadians may be exposed to through inhalation and skin absorption are several thousand times lower than levels at which health effects occur in laboratory animals," Health Canada said in a backgrounder.”

The chemical is often found in products used by children such as shampoo. Exposure to the chemical has been linked to, “tumors of the liver, gallbladder, nasal cavity, lung, skin, and breast.

According to Toxic Nation:

The U.S.-based Campaign for Safe Cosmetics conducted testing of children's bath products available in North America for 1,4-dioxane. They found it in 32 of 48 products. It is also likely an impurity in 22% or more of the 25,000 products in the Environmental Working Group's.

The official movie website states, “welcome to the world of My Toxic Baby, a documentary about my search as a new mom for safe, sane and affordable ways to raise my child in a world embedded with toxic threats.

Furthermore, the movie, “isn’t a cautionary tale telling you the ‘do’s and ‘don’ts’ of healthy parenting.  Parents and mothers especially have enough to worry about without yet another voice making them feel inadequate.  This is a personal essay that aims to broaden the options that are made available to parents in the context of the chemical world we live in today.

The Toronto Star reported that the City of Toronto was charged by Ontario’s Ministry of Environment for allegedly dumping partially treated sewage into Lake Ontario for several days. If the allegations are proven to be true the City of Toronto could face hefty fines.

The incident stems from Toronto’s Ashbridges Bay sewage plant that might have occurred in 2006.

The City has been charged under the Ontario Water Resources Act.

The article can be found here.

In August 2009 a New York judge ordered Google to reveal the identity of a blogger for the site “Skanks in NYC” who may have been making some defamatory comments about a Canadian Vogue model, Liskula Cohen. Cohen had initiated a lawsuit to find out the identity of the blogger. The blogger, Rosemary Port is now looking to commence an action against Google.

Port stated that she had believed her privacy rights were being protected by Google who was initially defending the suit.

This month in Canada an Ontario Superior Court Judge has ordered that Rogers and Bell identify an individual that sent a defamatory email to the President of York University.

The Judge was satisfied that the plaintiff had established a case for defamation in good faith and that Bell and Rogers despite being innocent were, “implicated in the alleged defamation because their services were used for publication.”

In terms of the privacy argument the Judge concludes, “the internet service customer(s) who published the communications could not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the use of the internet for the purpose of publishing defamatory statements.”

Looks like this means you can’t hide behind privacy arguments when you’re saying bad things.

The Judge actually cites the Cohen v. Google case in regards to notice to the individual whose identity may be revealed. “It may be that in an appropriate case the internet service provider should be required to give notice to its customer for the purpose of enabling the customer to make submissions as to whether the order should be granted.”

This decision will likely have future implications in cases involving disclosure in all practice areas regarding the internet.

Toronto Star investigation revealed serious flaws regarding a private college that offered certification for personal support workers. There is also a video that accompanies the article where the reporter finally confronts the owner.

Personal support workers are often used by lawyers in personal injury actions. This type of investigation is yet another reason lawyers on both sides of the tables to ensure they do their homework.

French authorities are warning the public to avoid and reduce unnecessary contact in the wake of the H1N1 virus. How will the French cope?