Languish.org

QuoteTORONTO, Oct. 26, 2014 /CNW/ - The CBC is saddened to announce its relationship with Jian Ghomeshi has come to an end.  This decision was not made without serious deliberation and careful consideration.  Jian has made an immense contribution to the CBC and we wish him well.

QuoteDear everyone,
I am writing today because I want you to be the first to know some news.
This has been the hardest time of my life. I am reeling from the loss of my father. I am in deep personal pain and worried about my mom. And now my world has been rocked by so much more.
Today, I was fired from the CBC.
For almost 8 years I have been the host of a show I co-created on CBC called Q. It has been my pride and joy. My fantastic team on Q are super-talented and have helped build something beautiful.
I have always operated on the principle of doing my best to maintain a dignity and a commitment to openness and truth, both on and off the air. I have conducted major interviews, supported Canadian talent, and spoken out loudly in my audio essays about ideas, issues, and my love for this country. All of that is available for anyone to hear or watch. I have known, of course, that not everyone always agrees with my opinions or my style, but I've never been anything but honest. I have doggedly defended the CBC and embraced public broadcasting. This is a brand I've been honoured to help grow.
All this has now changed.
Today I was fired from the company where I've been working for almost 14 years – stripped from my show, barred from the building and separated from my colleagues. I was given the choice to walk away quietly and to publicly suggest that this was my decision. But I am not going to do that. Because that would be untrue. Because I've been fired. And because I've done nothing wrong.
I've been fired from the CBC because of the risk of my private sex life being made public as a result of a campaign of false allegations pursued by a jilted ex girlfriend and a freelance writer.
As friends and family of mine, you are owed the truth.
I have commenced legal proceedings against the CBC, what's important to me is that you know what happened and why.
Forgive me if what follows may be shocking to some.
I have always been interested in a variety of activities in the bedroom but I only participate in sexual practices that are mutually agreed upon, consensual, and exciting for both partners.
About two years ago I started seeing a woman in her late 20s. Our relationship was affectionate, casual and passionate. We saw each other on and off over the period of a year and began engaging in adventurous forms of sex that included role-play, dominance and submission. We discussed our interests at length before engaging in rough sex (forms of BDSM). We talked about using safe words and regularly checked in with each other about our comfort levels. She encouraged our role-play and often was the initiator. We joked about our relations being like a mild form of Fifty Shades of Grey or a story from Lynn Coady's Giller-Prize winning book last year. I don't wish to get into any more detail because it is truly not anyone's business what two consenting adults do. I have never discussed my private life before. Sexual preferences are a human right.
Despite a strong connection between us it became clear to me that our on-and-off dating was unlikely to grow into a larger relationship and I ended things in the beginning of this year. She was upset by this and sent me messages indicating her disappointment that I would not commit to more, and her anger that I was seeing others.
After this, in the early spring there began a campaign of harassment, vengeance and demonization against me that would lead to months of anxiety.
It came to light that a woman had begun anonymously reaching out to people that I had dated (via Facebook) to tell them she had been a victim of abusive relations with me. In other words, someone was reframing what had been an ongoing consensual relationship as something nefarious. I learned – through one of my friends who got in contact with this person – that someone had rifled through my phone on one occasion and taken down the names of any woman I had seemed to have been dating in recent years. This person had begun methodically contacting them to try to build a story against me. Increasingly, female friends and ex-girlfriends of mine told me about these attempts to smear me.
Someone also began colluding with a freelance writer who was known not to be a fan of mine and, together, they set out to try to find corroborators to build a case to defame me. She found some sympathetic ears by painting herself as a victim and turned this into a campaign. The writer boldly started contacting my friends, acquaintances and even work colleagues – all of whom came to me to tell me this was happening and all of whom recognized it as a trumped up way to attack me and undermine my reputation. Everyone contacted would ask the same question, if I had engaged in non-consensual behavior why was the place to address this the media?
The writer tried to peddle the story and, at one point, a major Canadian media publication did due diligence but never printed a story. One assumes they recognized these attempts to recast my sexual behaviour were fabrications. Still, the spectre of mud being flung onto the Internet where online outrage can demonize someone before facts can refute false allegations has been what I've had to live with.
And this leads us to today and this moment. I've lived with the threat that this stuff would be thrown out there to defame me. And I would sue. But it would do the reputational damage to me it was intended to do (the ex has even tried to contact me to say that she now wishes to refute any of these categorically untrue allegations). But with me bringing it to light, in the coming days you will prospectively hear about how I engage in all kinds of unsavoury aggressive acts in the bedroom. And the implication may be made that this happens non-consensually. And that will be a lie. But it will be salacious gossip in a world driven by a hunger for "scandal". And there will be those who choose to believe it and to hate me or to laugh at me. And there will be an attempt to pile on. And there will be the claim that there are a few women involved (those who colluded with my ex) in an attempt to show a "pattern of behaviour". And it will be based in lies but damage will be done. But I am telling you this story in the hopes that the truth will, finally, conquer all.
I have been open with the CBC about this since these categorically untrue allegations ramped up. I have never believed it was anyone's business what I do in my private affairs but I wanted my bosses to be aware that this attempt to smear me was out there. CBC has been part of the team of friends and lawyers assembled to deal with this for months. On Thursday I voluntarily showed evidence that everything I have done has been consensual. I did this in good faith and because I know, as I have always known, that I have nothing to hide. This when the CBC decided to fire me.
CBC execs confirmed that the information provided showed that there was consent. In fact, they later said to me and my team that there is no question in their minds that there has always been consent. They said they're not concerned about the legal side. But then they said that this type of sexual behavior was unbecoming of a prominent host on the CBC. They said that I was being dismissed for "the risk of the perception that may come from a story that could come out." To recap, I am being fired in my prime from the show I love and built and threw myself into for years because of what I do in my private life.
Let me be the first to say that my tastes in the bedroom may not be palatable to some folks. They may be strange, enticing, weird, normal, or outright offensive to others. We all have our secret life. But that is my private life. That is my personal life. And no one, and certainly no employer, should have dominion over what people do consensually in their private life.
And so, with no formal allegations, no formal complaints, no complaints, not one, to the HR department at the CBC (they told us they'd done a thorough check and were satisfied), and no charges, I have lost my job based on a campaign of vengeance. Two weeks after the death of my beautiful father I have been fired from the CBC because of what I do in my private life.
I have loved the CBC. The Q team are the best group of people in the land. My colleagues and producers and on-air talent at the CBC are unparalleled in being some of the best in the business. I have always tried to be a good soldier and do a good job for my country. I am still in shock. But I am telling this story to you so the truth is heard. And to bring an end to the nightmare.

QuoteCBC fires Jian Ghomeshi over sex allegations
Ousted host of Q denies claims by three women of unwanted sexual violence and threatens to sue broadcaster for $50 million.
Share on Facebook

Reddit this!

Jian Ghomeshi, popular host of the CBC's Q radio show, was fired Sunday amid allegations by four woman of sexual  harassment or violence. He said he has "done nothing wrong" and will sue the broadcaster for $50 million.
/ TORONTO STAR FILE PHOTO

Jian Ghomeshi, popular host of the CBC's Q radio show, was fired Sunday amid allegations by four woman of sexual harassment or violence. He said he has "done nothing wrong" and will sue the broadcaster for $50 million.

By: Kevin Donovan Investigations, Jesse Brown Special to the Star, Published on Sun Oct 26 2014
CBC star Jian Ghomeshi has been fired over "information" the public broadcaster recently received that it says "precludes" it from continuing to employ the 47-year-old host of the popular Q radio show.
Shortly after CBC announced Ghomeshi was out the door on Sunday, Ghomeshi released news that he was launching a $50-million lawsuit claiming "breach of confidence and bad faith" by his employer of almost 14 years. He later followed that up with a Facebook posting saying he has been the target of "harassment, vengeance and demonization."
RELATED:
Why the Star chose to publish 'explosive' allegations
Fired radio host earned loyal following with interview show
PHOTO GALLERY: Jian Ghomeshi in studio and in front of the camera
Over the past few months the Star has approached Ghomeshi with allegations from three young women, all about 20 years his junior, who say he was physically violent to them without their consent during sexual encounters or in the lead-up to sexual encounters. Ghomeshi, through his lawyer, has said he "does not engage in non-consensual role play or sex and any suggestion of the contrary is defamatory."
In his Facebook posting Sunday evening, Ghomeshi wrote in an emotional statement that he has "done nothing wrong." He said it is not unusual for him to engage in "adventurous forms of sex that included role-play, dominance and submission." However, he said it has always been consensual.
Ghomeshi's statement said that he has been open with the CBC about the allegations. He said the CBC's decision to fire him came after he voluntarily showed evidence late last week that everything he has done was consensual. Ghomeshi blames a woman he describes as an ex-girlfriend for spreading lies about him and orchestrating a campaign with other women to "smear" him.
The three women interviewed by the Star allege that Ghomeshi physically attacked them on dates without consent. They allege he struck them with a closed fist or open hand; bit them; choked them until they almost passed out; covered their nose and mouth so that they had difficulty breathing; and that they were verbally abused during and after sex.
A fourth woman, who worked at CBC, said Ghomeshi told her at work: "I want to hate f--- you."
"I have always been interested in a variety of activities in the bedroom but I only participate in sexual practices that are mutually agreed upon, consensual, and exciting for both partners," Ghomeshi said in his posting.
"Let me be the first to say that my tastes in the bedroom may not be palatable to some folks. They may be strange, enticing, weird, normal, or outright offensive to others. ... But that is my private life. ... And no one, and certainly no employer, should have dominion over what people do consensually in their private life.
In September, Ghomeshi told the Star that he did not understand why the newspaper was continuing to pursue allegations when "my lawyers have already told you it is untrue." Over dinner at a chance meeting at a public event, Ghomeshi said he is a "good person" and described many of his recent successes, including an interview with Barbra Streisand. He said he could not answer any of the Star's questions about his alleged abusive conduct.
Early last summer, the Star began looking into allegations by young women of sexual abuse by Ghomeshi over the past two years. The Star conducted detailed interviews with the women, talking to each woman several times. None of the women filed police complaints and none agreed to go on the record. The reasons given for not coming forward publicly include the fear that they would be sued or would be the object of Internet retaliation. (A woman who wrote an account of an encounter with a Canadian radio host believed to be Ghomeshi was subjected to vicious Internet attacks by online readers who said they were supporters of the host.)
Ghomeshi is the co-creator of Q, one of the most successful shows in CBC history. It is the corporation's flagship radio show in Canada and is syndicated to 180 radio stations in the U.S. In his Facebook posting, Ghomeshi paid homage to his "fantastic team," a group of "super-talented" journalists whom he works with to produce the show five days a week.
That all ended over the weekend, Ghomeshi said. On Friday came the news that he had been put on indeterminate leave by the CBC to deal with "personal issues."
Then on Sunday, two bomb shells.
First, CBC issued a statement shortly after noon saying Ghomeshi was gone. "Information came to (CBC's) attention recently that in CBC's judgment precludes us from continuing our relationship with Jian Ghomeshi," CBC spokesman Chuck Thompson said in an interview.
Ghomeshi said in his Facebook posting that his CBC bosses gave him a choice to "walk away quietly" or to be fired. He chose not to walk away and "publicly suggest that this was my decision." And so, Ghomeshi said, he was "stripped from my show, barred from the building and separated from my colleagues."
Two hours later, his lawyers announced that Monday morning, when courts open, Ghomeshi would be filing a $50-million lawsuit against the CBC, a corporation he later said on Facebook he has "doggedly defended" for years.
His law firm, Dentons LLP, stated the lawsuit will claim general and punitive damages for breach of confidence and bad faith. The firm's statement also noted Ghomeshi will "commence a grievance for reinstatement under his collective agreement."
Sources say top CBC brass spent the weekend in closed-door meetings at their Front St. head office. Ghomeshi is a huge part of the CBC brand, and a fear that the brand would be tarnished is causing the CBC to try to "get out ahead of the story" by taking action before damaging reports in the media surfaced, sources say.
In his Facebook posting Sunday, Ghomeshi blames an ex girlfriend — whom he does not name — for spreading lies after he broke off the relationship early this year. He said he and the woman "began engaging in adventurous forms of sex that included role-play, dominance and submission." They used "safe words" and "regularly checked in with each other about our comfort levels," he said.
Ghomeshi also said he and the women jokingly talked about how their relationship was a mild form of Fifty Shades of Grey or a story from Lynn Coady's Giller Prize-winning book.
The Star had several detailed interviews with each of the three women, who said they experienced violence from Ghomeshi without consent, and with the former CBC employee, who complained of verbal and physical harassment in the workplace.
The women now accusing Jian Ghomeshi of violence began as his fans. Two had very similar early experiences with him. After Ghomeshi met them at public events, which he had promoted on CBC Radio, he contacted them through Facebook and asked them on dates. They eagerly accepted.
Each woman said she remembers Ghomeshi being initially sweet and flattering, then later suggesting or hinting at violent sex acts. When they failed to respond or expressed displeasure, they recalled Ghomeshi dismissing his remarks as "just fantasies," reassuring them he wouldn't ask them to do anything they weren't comfortable with. The women deny that "safe words" were employed in the relationship.
In one woman's case, she visited Ghomeshi at his Toronto home and alleges as soon as she walked into his house he suddenly struck her hard with his open hand, then continued to hit her and choked her. The woman alleges Ghomeshi repeatedly beat her about the head and choked her.
The Star's interviews of the women were lengthy. The women, all educated and employed, said Ghomeshi's actions shocked them.
Another woman, who described a similar alleged attack, said that in the lead-up to their date Ghomeshi "warned me he would be aggressive."
"I thought this meant he would want to pull my hair and have rough sex. He reassured me that I wouldn't be forced. (Later) he attacked me. Choked me. Hit me like I didn't know men hit women. I submitted."
None of the women has contacted police. When asked why by the Star, the women cited several reasons including fears that a police report would expose their names and worries that their consent or acceptance of fantasy role-play discussions in text or other messages with Ghomeshi would be used against them as evidence of consent to actual violence.
Only one of the alleged victims worked at the CBC. She never dated Ghomeshi. She alleges he approached her from behind and cupped her rear end in the Q studio, and that he quietly told her at a story meeting that he wanted to "hate f---" her.
The woman said she complained about Ghomeshi's behaviour to her union representative, who took the complaint to a Q producer. As the woman recalls, the producer asked her "what she could do to make this a less toxic workplace" for herself. No further action was taken by the CBC, and the woman left the broadcaster shortly thereafter.
The Star presented allegations gleaned from its interviews to the CBC. Spokesman Chuck Thompson said he could not respond to any of the allegations, citing both privacy rules related to the employer-employee relationship and Ghomeshi's intention to file a lawsuit.
Each of the women accusing Ghomeshi cite the case of Carla Ciccone as a reason why they desire anonymity. Last year Ciccone wrote an article for the website XOJane about a "bad date" with an unidentified, very popular Canadian radio host whom readers speculated to be Ghomeshi.
In the days that followed, Ciccone received hundreds of abusive messages and threats. An online video calling her a "scumbag of the Internet" has been viewed over 397,000 times. Ciccone's claims about the behaviour during her "bad date" were far less severe than the allegations of abuse from the women now accusing Ghomeshi, who fear the online backlash could be significantly worse for them if their names were made public.
After the Star initially sought comment from Ghomeshi in the summer (after interviewing the women), Ghomeshi's lawyer, Neil Rabinovitch, wrote to the Star saying that he had reviewed "emails and text messages" between Ghomeshi and the women Rabinovitch believed were the Star's sources. The lawyer said in a letter he believed this information would "discredit the individuals we believe to be your sources."
Rabinovitch said he was unable to disclose the emails and text messages because it "violates the privacy of all involved."
Ghomeshi is using the same law firm and has also hired crisis communication consultants Navigator.

In his Facebook posting, Ghomeshi stated there have been no complaints about him to the CBC human resources department, nor have there been any "formal allegations" or "formal complaints" about his behaviour.
Ghomeshi was to host the Giller Prize awards ceremony Nov. 10 but the Giller organizers said Sunday he would not longer be the host.

Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2014, 10:03:26 AM

So what say you Languish?

Quote from: Grey Fox on October 27, 2014, 10:27:30 AM
I don't know who that is.

The CBC terminating is relationship with him on those grounds is total prude Bullshit. I am very displeased with Hubert Lacroix.

Quote from: Malthus on October 27, 2014, 10:33:54 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on October 27, 2014, 10:27:30 AM
I don't know who that is.

The CBC terminating is relationship with him on those grounds is total prude Bullshit. I am very displeased with Hubert Lacroix.

If the allegations are true, they arguably have grounds to fire him for cause - I'll defer to those doing employment law.

Allegedly, he's being fired not for a little consentual BDSM, but for non-consentual assaults. Though I suppose the issue will be whether his employer acted reasonably in believing the accusers.

Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2014, 10:36:30 AM

Quote from: Malthus on October 27, 2014, 10:33:54 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on October 27, 2014, 10:27:30 AM
I don't know who that is.

The CBC terminating is relationship with him on those grounds is total prude Bullshit. I am very displeased with Hubert Lacroix.

If the allegations are true, they arguably have grounds to fire him for cause - I'll defer to those doing employment law.

Allegedly, he's being fired not for a little consentual BDSM, but for non-consentual assaults. Though I suppose the issue will be whether his employer acted reasonably in believing the accusers.

IMHO, CBC would be hard-pressed to fire him for cause, but would be well within their rights to give him payment in lieu of notice.

I have to say though I'm puzzled by Ghomeshi's aggressive defence strategy.  I would've thought you take a 6-month sabatical, refuse to discuss any allegations that are made (after all they are pretty weak - no one has gone on record), and then take a high-paid gig with a private radio network in 2015.

Quote from: PRC on October 27, 2014, 11:12:13 AM
Jian Ghomeshi was also in the hit band Moxy Fruvous!  "Once I was the King of Spain..."

QuoteThe women, all educated and employed, said Ghomeshi's actions shocked them.

Quote from: Malthus on October 27, 2014, 10:33:54 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on October 27, 2014, 10:27:30 AM
I don't know who that is.

The CBC terminating is relationship with him on those grounds is total prude Bullshit. I am very displeased with Hubert Lacroix.

If the allegations are true, they arguably have grounds to fire him for cause - I'll defer to those doing employment law.

Allegedly, he's being fired not for a little consentual BDSM, but for non-consentual assaults. Though I suppose the issue will be whether his employer acted reasonably in believing the accusers.

Quote(A woman who wrote an account of an encounter with a Canadian radio host believed to be Ghomeshi was subjected to vicious Internet attacks by online readers who said they were supporters of the host.)

Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2014, 02:13:43 PM

Quote(A woman who wrote an account of an encounter with a Canadian radio host believed to be Ghomeshi was subjected to vicious Internet attacks by online readers who said they were supporters of the host.)

Just unbelievable.  I do not understand the need by internet trolls to defend rapists.

Anyway with this many people corroborating the story it seems pretty obvious he did it to me, for what that's worth.

Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2014, 02:19:14 PM
It's not just that he's into BDSM (though I'm not a fan), it's that he serially picks and and attempts to, or does have sex with, girls 20+ years younger than him, like to hit them and engage in violent sex acts.

QuoteNot of course that I listened to him before, but that does not sound like a man I want to listen to on my radio.

Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2014, 02:19:14 PM
(though I'm not a fan)

Quote from: garbon on October 27, 2014, 02:43:42 PM

Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2014, 02:19:14 PM
(though I'm not a fan)

Thanks for sharing? :D

Quote from: derspiess on October 27, 2014, 02:46:33 PM
The whole concept of BDSM strikes me (heh) as a completely foreign concept.  To each his own of course, but I can't grasp how anyone would derive pleasure from it.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 27, 2014, 02:46:16 PM
So we are left with the conclusion that BB has tried but does not like it.  Yes TMI.

Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2014, 02:19:14 PMit's that he serially picks and and attempts to, or does have sex with, girls 20+ years younger than him,

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 27, 2014, 02:48:27 PM
I don't understand conservative 19th century Amish sensibilities either, but that's what makes us a colorful and unique palette of fucked-upedness.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 27, 2014, 02:52:28 PM
I let a girl tie me up once and found it completely useless.  Like local news.

Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2014, 02:44:33 PM

Quote from: garbon on October 27, 2014, 02:43:42 PM

Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2014, 02:19:14 PM
(though I'm not a fan)

Thanks for sharing? :D

TMI? :unsure:

Quote from: derspiess on October 27, 2014, 02:46:33 PM
The whole concept of BDSM strikes me (heh) as a completely foreign concept.  To each his own of course, but I can't grasp how anyone would derive pleasure from it.

Quote from: garbon on October 27, 2014, 03:30:16 PM
I guess it has something to do with the pain/pleasure receptors. I mean unless someone is loosey goosey, there's always some discomfort and/or pain with penetrative sex

Quote from: derspiess on October 27, 2014, 03:38:53 PM

Quote from: garbon on October 27, 2014, 03:30:16 PM
I guess it has something to do with the pain/pleasure receptors. I mean unless someone is loosey goosey, there's always some discomfort and/or pain with penetrative sex

I think we have different perspectives on that.  I can't think of any pain or discomfort and I'm always extra careful not to cause any (I'd definitely hear about it otherwise).

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 27, 2014, 04:05:19 PM
Eventually, we're all going to be reduced to sex being the Demolition Man method. Everyone so paranoid of accusations that touching is just forbidden.

Well, until somebody decides to claim virtual rape. Then we're over as a species.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 27, 2014, 04:05:19 PM
Eventually, we're all going to be reduced to sex being the Demolition Man method. Everyone so paranoid of accusations that touching is just forbidden.

Well, until somebody decides to claim virtual rape. Then we're over as a species.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 27, 2014, 04:09:07 PM
60 Minutes had a piece last night on genetic engineering and the future ability to map out pathways for eliminating potential genetic dispositions to birth defects, etc.;  the scientist even said that we'd eventually arrive at procreation without intercourse, as having sex would simply be too dangerous.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 27, 2014, 04:09:00 PM
The sex drive has been constrained by legal means since before written history. What makes you think it can't be done?

Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2014, 02:01:54 PM
Toronto Star says that they investigated the story, declined to publicize it due to lack of corroboration, but changed their mind after Ghomeshi's "extraordinary statement on Facebook".

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/26/why_the_star_chose_to_publish_jian_ghomeshi_allegations.html

Again - I'm no PR professional but his decision to "get in front of this story" still seems very questionable.

Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2014, 04:12:56 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 27, 2014, 04:09:00 PM
The sex drive has been constrained by legal means since before written history. What makes you think it can't be done?

Because it has generally failed to be effective?

Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2014, 04:12:35 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 27, 2014, 04:09:07 PM
60 Minutes had a piece last night on genetic engineering and the future ability to map out pathways for eliminating potential genetic dispositions to birth defects, etc.;  the scientist even said that we'd eventually arrive at procreation without intercourse, as having sex would simply be too dangerous.

Too dangerous for what?

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 27, 2014, 04:16:39 PMWell it's never 100% effective. But it was sure effective at the suppression of things like homosexuality. I don't want to drive sex into the black market any more than it already is.

Quote from: Josephus on October 27, 2014, 04:14:01 PM

Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2014, 02:01:54 PM
Toronto Star says that they investigated the story, declined to publicize it due to lack of corroboration, but changed their mind after Ghomeshi's "extraordinary statement on Facebook".

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/26/why_the_star_chose_to_publish_jian_ghomeshi_allegations.html

Again - I'm no PR professional but his decision to "get in front of this story" still seems very questionable.

Yes. The timing seems strange. There's some things we obviously don't know.
Why did CBC fire him this weekend? The Star's been working on the story for months, and CBC knew about it.
Why did Ghomeshi release his version of the story? ie. Why confess the lurid details and why now?

Seems to me he knew something was coming out and wanted to nip it in the bud. Or he new that the story would come out in any legal action he took, and wanted to come out first with a "see I got nothing to hide.'

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 27, 2014, 04:16:39 PM

Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2014, 04:12:56 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 27, 2014, 04:09:00 PM
The sex drive has been constrained by legal means since before written history. What makes you think it can't be done?

Because it has generally failed to be effective?

Well it's never 100% effective. But it was sure effective at the suppression of things like homosexuality. I don't want to drive sex into the black market any more than it already is.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 27, 2014, 04:18:15 PM

Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2014, 04:12:35 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 27, 2014, 04:09:07 PM
60 Minutes had a piece last night on genetic engineering and the future ability to map out pathways for eliminating potential genetic dispositions to birth defects, etc.;  the scientist even said that we'd eventually arrive at procreation without intercourse, as having sex would simply be too dangerous.

Too dangerous for what?

To risk the potential in birth defects.  Everybody is a carrier of bad genetic material for something;  it's when two people who carry the same bad genetic material procreate that bad shit can happen.  It's all X and Y stuff.

Quote from: garbon on October 27, 2014, 03:41:08 PM

Quote from: derspiess on October 27, 2014, 03:38:53 PM

Quote from: garbon on October 27, 2014, 03:30:16 PM
I guess it has something to do with the pain/pleasure receptors. I mean unless someone is loosey goosey, there's always some discomfort and/or pain with penetrative sex

I think we have different perspectives on that.  I can't think of any pain or discomfort and I'm always extra careful not to cause any (I'd definitely hear about it otherwise).

Well I suppose penis size does play a role. ^_^

Quote from: Josephus on October 27, 2014, 04:14:01 PM

Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2014, 02:01:54 PM
Toronto Star says that they investigated the story, declined to publicize it due to lack of corroboration, but changed their mind after Ghomeshi's "extraordinary statement on Facebook".

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/26/why_the_star_chose_to_publish_jian_ghomeshi_allegations.html

Again - I'm no PR professional but his decision to "get in front of this story" still seems very questionable.

Yes. The timing seems strange. There's some things we obviously don't know.
Why did CBC fire him this weekend? The Star's been working on the story for months, and CBC knew about it.
Why did Ghomeshi release his version of the story? ie. Why confess the lurid details and why now?

Seems to me he knew something was coming out and wanted to nip it in the bud. Or he new that the story would come out in any legal action he took, and wanted to come out first with a "see I got nothing to hide.'

Quote from: Martinus on October 27, 2014, 04:54:50 PM
From experience (and that is quite counterintuitive to most people who do not engage in BDSM), I know that sexual submissives can be some of the most demanding, "my way or highway" people when it comes to relationships and arranging sexual encounters.

Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2014, 04:21:33 PM

Quote from: Josephus on October 27, 2014, 04:14:01 PM

Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2014, 02:01:54 PM
Toronto Star says that they investigated the story, declined to publicize it due to lack of corroboration, but changed their mind after Ghomeshi's "extraordinary statement on Facebook".

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/26/why_the_star_chose_to_publish_jian_ghomeshi_allegations.html

Again - I'm no PR professional but his decision to "get in front of this story" still seems very questionable.

Yes. The timing seems strange. There's some things we obviously don't know.
Why did CBC fire him this weekend? The Star's been working on the story for months, and CBC knew about it.
Why did Ghomeshi release his version of the story? ie. Why confess the lurid details and why now?

Seems to me he knew something was coming out and wanted to nip it in the bud. Or he new that the story would come out in any legal action he took, and wanted to come out first with a "see I got nothing to hide.'

Lots of the timing is perfectly clear.

CBC fired Ghomeshi (A).  Later that day, Ghomeshi posts on Facebook (B).

Then today the Star posts its story (C).

It seems clear that A caused B, which caused C.

WHat's missing of course is what caused A, and whether or not there are any other shoes to drop.

Quote from: Josephus on October 27, 2014, 05:18:48 PM

Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2014, 04:21:33 PM

Quote from: Josephus on October 27, 2014, 04:14:01 PM

Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2014, 02:01:54 PM
Toronto Star says that they investigated the story, declined to publicize it due to lack of corroboration, but changed their mind after Ghomeshi's "extraordinary statement on Facebook".

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/26/why_the_star_chose_to_publish_jian_ghomeshi_allegations.html

Again - I'm no PR professional but his decision to "get in front of this story" still seems very questionable.

Yes. The timing seems strange. There's some things we obviously don't know.
Why did CBC fire him this weekend? The Star's been working on the story for months, and CBC knew about it.
Why did Ghomeshi release his version of the story? ie. Why confess the lurid details and why now?

Seems to me he knew something was coming out and wanted to nip it in the bud. Or he new that the story would come out in any legal action he took, and wanted to come out first with a "see I got nothing to hide.'

Lots of the timing is perfectly clear.

CBC fired Ghomeshi (A).  Later that day, Ghomeshi posts on Facebook (B).

Then today the Star posts its story (C).

It seems clear that A caused B, which caused C.

WHat's missing of course is what caused A, and whether or not there are any other shoes to drop.

Yeah, figured all that. By timing I specifcally meant why did CBC fire him NOW and cause the chain? They wouldn't have done so unless they knew the story was going to come out.

Quote from: Josephus on October 27, 2014, 06:12:34 PM
Wow the Star acting responsibly....someone on this forum said they did...can't remember who.


:hmm:

Quote from: garbon on October 27, 2014, 04:42:51 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 27, 2014, 04:18:15 PM

Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2014, 04:12:35 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 27, 2014, 04:09:07 PM
60 Minutes had a piece last night on genetic engineering and the future ability to map out pathways for eliminating potential genetic dispositions to birth defects, etc.;  the scientist even said that we'd eventually arrive at procreation without intercourse, as having sex would simply be too dangerous.

Too dangerous for what?

To risk the potential in birth defects.  Everybody is a carrier of bad genetic material for something;  it's when two people who carry the same bad genetic material procreate that bad shit can happen.  It's all X and Y stuff.

That doesn't mean sex is too dangerous - just "too dangerous" for procreative purposes.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 27, 2014, 04:09:07 PM
60 Minutes had a piece last night on genetic engineering and the future ability to map out pathways for eliminating potential genetic dispositions to birth defects, etc.;  the scientist even said that we'd eventually arrive at procreation without intercourse, as having sex would simply be too dangerous.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 27, 2014, 07:18:45 PM

Quote from: garbon on October 27, 2014, 04:42:51 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 27, 2014, 04:18:15 PM

Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2014, 04:12:35 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 27, 2014, 04:09:07 PM
60 Minutes had a piece last night on genetic engineering and the future ability to map out pathways for eliminating potential genetic dispositions to birth defects, etc.;  the scientist even said that we'd eventually arrive at procreation without intercourse, as having sex would simply be too dangerous.

Too dangerous for what?

To risk the potential in birth defects.  Everybody is a carrier of bad genetic material for something;  it's when two people who carry the same bad genetic material procreate that bad shit can happen.  It's all X and Y stuff.

That doesn't mean sex is too dangerous - just "too dangerous" for procreative purposes.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 27, 2014, 04:09:07 PM
60 Minutes had a piece last night on genetic engineering and the future ability to map out pathways for eliminating potential genetic dispositions to birth defects, etc.;  the scientist even said that we'd eventually arrive at procreation without intercourse, as having sex would simply be too dangerous.

I kinda thought you guys would be able to figure that out on your own, without having to type shit twice without having to type shit twice.

Quote from: garbon on October 27, 2014, 07:49:58 PM
Sure maybe they can work on sentence structure. :)

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 27, 2014, 08:16:58 PM

Quote from: garbon on October 27, 2014, 07:49:58 PM
Sure maybe they can work on sentence structure. :)

Says the guy that skips the punctuation. 

Quote from: Martinus on October 28, 2014, 01:22:31 AM
Jacob is becoming Martim Silva of the Canadian entertainment industry.  :D

Quote from: Jacob on October 28, 2014, 01:24:53 AM

Quote from: Martinus on October 28, 2014, 01:22:31 AM
Jacob is becoming Martim Silva of the Canadian entertainment industry.  :D

You remain the Martinus of languish :(

Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2014, 11:33:39 AM
Sex can be dangerous if you don't have safewords.

Quote from: Martinus on October 28, 2014, 11:49:40 AM

Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2014, 11:33:39 AM
Sex can be dangerous if you don't have safewords.

What if your safeword is "harder"?

Quote from: Josephus on October 27, 2014, 04:14:01 PM

Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2014, 02:01:54 PM
Toronto Star says that they investigated the story, declined to publicize it due to lack of corroboration, but changed their mind after Ghomeshi's "extraordinary statement on Facebook".

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/26/why_the_star_chose_to_publish_jian_ghomeshi_allegations.html

Again - I'm no PR professional but his decision to "get in front of this story" still seems very questionable.

Yes. The timing seems strange. There's some things we obviously don't know.
Why did CBC fire him this weekend? The Star's been working on the story for months, and CBC knew about it.
Why did Ghomeshi release his version of the story? ie. Why confess the lurid details and why now?

Seems to me he knew something was coming out and wanted to nip it in the bud. Or he new that the story would come out in any legal action he took, and wanted to come out first with a "see I got nothing to hide.'

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2014, 01:13:55 PM

Quote from: Josephus on October 27, 2014, 04:14:01 PM

Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2014, 02:01:54 PM
Toronto Star says that they investigated the story, declined to publicize it due to lack of corroboration, but changed their mind after Ghomeshi's "extraordinary statement on Facebook".

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/26/why_the_star_chose_to_publish_jian_ghomeshi_allegations.html

Again - I'm no PR professional but his decision to "get in front of this story" still seems very questionable.

Yes. The timing seems strange. There's some things we obviously don't know.
Why did CBC fire him this weekend? The Star's been working on the story for months, and CBC knew about it.
Why did Ghomeshi release his version of the story? ie. Why confess the lurid details and why now?

Seems to me he knew something was coming out and wanted to nip it in the bud. Or he new that the story would come out in any legal action he took, and wanted to come out first with a "see I got nothing to hide.'

One thing I had missed is he is a unionized employee.   I would have thought he was an excluded employee but apparently not.  So he is not entitled to take any legal action - nevermind one claiming 50 million.  All he is entitled to is a greivance procedure to try to get his job back with backpay.  That grievance procedure is not open to the public and so I really dont understand what he and his advisors are doing.  They seem to have really overplayed their hand.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 28, 2014, 01:39:04 PM
So it isn't an employment grievance at all.  Defamation plus breach of confidence. 

Does Canada have an equivalent to Upjohn warnings?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2014, 03:11:52 PM
I've always wondered what it would be like to win the right to your old job back.  Surely it must be kind of strained to work for people who wanted you gone.

Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2014, 03:18:55 PM
I'm shaking my head at how Ghomeshi can be unionized, and potentially restored in his job.

Surely key questions like "who hosts one of our biggest radio shows" can't be dictated by a labour arbitrator?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2014, 03:11:52 PM
I've always wondered what it would be like to win the right to your old job back.  Surely it must be kind of strained to work for people who wanted you gone.

Quote from: PRC on October 28, 2014, 03:58:58 PM
CBC also has a radio host named Sook Yin-Lee.  In 2006 she did an arthouse film called Shortbus with full-on sex scenes and the CBC fired her over it. 

There was a letter writing campaign to bring her back and she did come back and now hosts a popular radio show "DNTO (Definitely Not the Opera)". 

Quote from: PRC on October 28, 2014, 03:58:58 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2014, 03:11:52 PM
I've always wondered what it would be like to win the right to your old job back.  Surely it must be kind of strained to work for people who wanted you gone.

CBC also has a radio host named Sook Yin-Lee.  In 2006 she did an arthouse film called Shortbus with full-on sex scenes and the CBC fired her over it. 

There was a letter writing campaign to bring her back and she did come back and now hosts a popular radio show "DNTO (Definitely Not the Opera)". 

Here is a very NSFW link to her hardcore scenes in shortbus (found only for research purposes): http://www.xvideos.com/video205981/sook_yin_lee_shortbus

Quote from: PRC on October 28, 2014, 03:58:58 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2014, 03:11:52 PM
I've always wondered what it would be like to win the right to your old job back.  Surely it must be kind of strained to work for people who wanted you gone.

CBC also has a radio host named Sook Yin-Lee.  In 2006 she did an arthouse film called Shortbus with full-on sex scenes and the CBC fired her over it. 

There was a letter writing campaign to bring her back and she did come back and now hosts a popular radio show "DNTO (Definitely Not the Opera)". 

Quote from: Jacob on October 28, 2014, 04:08:22 PM

Quote from: PRC on October 28, 2014, 03:58:58 PM
CBC also has a radio host named Sook Yin-Lee.  In 2006 she did an arthouse film called Shortbus with full-on sex scenes and the CBC fired her over it. 

There was a letter writing campaign to bring her back and she did come back and now hosts a popular radio show "DNTO (Definitely Not the Opera)". 

They fired her? The summary I read elsewhere explicitly claimed that they kept her on, but I guess that was wrong?

Quote from: Jacob on October 28, 2014, 04:08:22 PM

Quote from: PRC on October 28, 2014, 03:58:58 PM
CBC also has a radio host named Sook Yin-Lee.  In 2006 she did an arthouse film called Shortbus with full-on sex scenes and the CBC fired her over it. 

There was a letter writing campaign to bring her back and she did come back and now hosts a popular radio show "DNTO (Definitely Not the Opera)". 

They fired her? The summary I read elsewhere explicitly claimed that they kept her on, but I guess that was wrong?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2014, 04:20:45 PM
Is that her getting shtupped on the piano?

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2014, 04:46:15 PM
Yeah, his PR firm might want to reconsider the strategy...

Quote from: Josephus on October 28, 2014, 05:00:49 PM
Hey Lawyers...can you dumb down Upjohn and Weber for us plebes?

Quote from: Josephus on October 28, 2014, 05:00:49 PM
Hey Lawyers...can you dumb down Upjohn and Weber for us plebes?

Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2014, 05:06:33 PM

Quote from: Josephus on October 28, 2014, 05:00:49 PM
Hey Lawyers...can you dumb down Upjohn and Weber for us plebes?

Sorry - I'm just a poor unfrozen caveman prosecutor who doesn't understand those words either.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 28, 2014, 06:46:08 PM
Potential significance of Upjohn concept here is it throws into question whether Mr. Q had a reasonable expectation that what he told the company would be kept in confidence.

This of course assumes that CBC actually revealed a confidence in the first place . . .

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2014, 06:59:22 PM
The pleading recognizes this problem by characterizing it as a "common interest" but I dont think that gets him there.  Absent some kind of agreement that he could give the information without consequences, I am not sure he is going to be successful even if he can overcome the Weber exclusion of his Action.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 28, 2014, 07:09:37 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2014, 06:59:22 PM
The pleading recognizes this problem by characterizing it as a "common interest" but I dont think that gets him there.  Absent some kind of agreement that he could give the information without consequences, I am not sure he is going to be successful even if he can overcome the Weber exclusion of his Action.

I'll bet Canadian dollars to donuts there is no written or even oral common interest agreement.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 28, 2014, 07:09:37 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2014, 06:59:22 PM
The pleading recognizes this problem by characterizing it as a "common interest" but I dont think that gets him there.  Absent some kind of agreement that he could give the information without consequences, I am not sure he is going to be successful even if he can overcome the Weber exclusion of his Action.

I'll bet Canadian dollars to donuts there is no written or even oral common interest agreement.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2014, 04:15:29 PM

Quote from: Jacob on October 28, 2014, 04:08:22 PM

Quote from: PRC on October 28, 2014, 03:58:58 PM
CBC also has a radio host named Sook Yin-Lee.  In 2006 she did an arthouse film called Shortbus with full-on sex scenes and the CBC fired her over it. 

There was a letter writing campaign to bring her back and she did come back and now hosts a popular radio show "DNTO (Definitely Not the Opera)". 

They fired her? The summary I read elsewhere explicitly claimed that they kept her on, but I guess that was wrong?

He is misremembering what occurred.  They actually ended up giving her leave to shoot the movie


http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/arts/story.html?id=9b153b3a-46b2-424f-aea1-ab780e7cfd4d

QuoteWIth all the talk of Jian Ghomeshi in the news these days, I thought it was time that I come forward with my own shocking news about him. It was in 2010 at some afterparty for some event connected to the Olympics and I was rather intoxicated. I saw Jian at the snack table chatting with some ladies. He picked up a pita chip, and dipped it into what I believe was an artichoke dip (not positive on that). He took a bite out of the chip. . . . . And then, he dipped that same chip back into the dip. I kid you not, Jian Ghomeshi is a DOUBLE DIPPER.

Quote from: katmai on October 28, 2014, 07:58:35 PM
hedwig or something else?

Quote from: Ed Anger on October 28, 2014, 08:13:17 PM
OMG

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 28, 2014, 07:26:36 PM
Bottom line - it makes me glad to see all this, as it shows that Canadians can match Americans in their gusto and flair in bringing dubious legal claims.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 28, 2014, 08:19:16 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on October 28, 2014, 08:13:17 PM
OMG

It's like putting your whole face in the bowl.

QuoteFor a lot of listeners of CBC Radio, the past few days have been surprising and possibly disappointing.  My purpose in sending this e-mail is only to raise and think about some of the legal issues that may interest civil litigation lawyers.  I do not intend to talk about the factual aspects of the story.

What caught my attention in particular was the announcement on Monday that Jian Ghomeshi's lawyers (Dentons Canada LLP) (i) were about to issue a statement of claim in the regular courts against the CBC as defendant, and (ii) intended to file a grievance under the applicable collective agreement ("CA") against the CBC in respect to their client's dismissal.

So on your show today: some thoughts on the legal aspects of this situation.

The dual attack: (i) lawsuit in the regular courts, and (ii) grievance under the collective agreement:

Employment lawyers know that the regular courts have no jurisdiction over, and will not entertain, a lawsuit for wrongful dismissal brought by an employee who is within a bargaining unit that is subject to a CA under applicable labour legislation.  This is because labour relations statutes contain strong privative clauses that prevent such lawsuits, and instead provide the remedy of arbitration under the CA instead.  The leading case in this regard is still Weber v. Ontario Hydro (1995, SCC) (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1995/1995canlii108/1995canlii108.html).

Jian Ghomeshi is a member of the Canadian Media Guild, which has a CA with the CBC, the current version of which runs from 2014 through 2019.  You can see the CA here: http://www.cmg.ca/en/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/CMGCBCCollectiveAgreement20142019.pdf.  As a result, his exclusive remedy for his dismissal by the CBC is arbitration of a grievance under the CA; he cannot have his dismissal adjudicated in a wrongful dismissal lawsuit in the regular courts.  Any wrongful dismissal lawsuit that he might bring in the regular courts would be dismissed by preliminary motion under rule 21.01(3)(a).

This is why the action in Ontario Superior Court that Dentons has framed on his behalf does discuss his dismissal from the CBC, but frames the alleged legal wrong not as the dismissal itself, but rather on what they will argue are the unrelated common law wrongs of (i) breach of confidence, (ii) breach of common interest privilege, and (iii) defamation.  I have uploaded a copy of the statement of claim as TOR_LAW doc. # 8553097, if you are interested in reading it.

Grievance arbitration under the collective agreement:

Employees in a bargaining unit are not parties to the CA with the employer; rather, their union signs the CA as their exclusive bargaining agent.  An employee may therefore not personally file a grievance under the CA; the union has the sole right to do so.  The union has broad discretion whether or not to file such a grievance on the employee's behalf.  If the union refuses to do so, the employee's remedy is an unfair representation application against the union to the applicable labour relations board.  Because the CBC is a federal undertaking under the Constitution, I assume that the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) would have jurisdiction.

If the Guild were to agree to grieve Ghomeshi's dismissal, and were to win, the CIRB has the jurisdiction to award the remedy of reinstatement (which Ghomeshi is seeking), as well as damages.  By contrast, the regular courts will not grant the remedy of reinstatement (which is really equivalent to the equitable remedy of specific performance) to a successful plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal lawsuit.  This is often considered to be one of the benefits to employees of a unionized workplace.

The CBC's likely response:

I will give up my ticket to practise law if the CBC's lawyers do not bring a Rule 21 motion to strike out and dismiss Ghomeshi's statement of claim.  I think that the claim is vulnerable on several fronts:

•   Breach of confidence - I expect that the CBC will argue this:  Ghomeshi pleads that the alleged breach of confidence led to his dismissal, and that is what has caused him damage.  The breach of confidence is so closely tied to his employment and his dismissal that this entire part of the claim properly falls under the CA and must be arbitrated, in accordance with a long and consistent line of jurisprudence.

Further, Ghomeshi does not plead any express term of confidence on which he voluntarily disclosed facts concerning his personal life to the CBC.  At most he is making the argument that there was an implied term of confidence (i.e. that the information that he was providing would not be used for any purpose other than the joint purpose with his employer of fending off any adverse publicity and denying the allegations that were being made against him).  In the circumstances of the case, as pleaded in the claim, no such term of confidence can be implied.  It would be unfair to impose an implied term of confidence in respect of information that could be very damaging to the reputation of the employer if the employer were forced to ignore the information and not use it to dismiss an employee where such dismissal might well be warranted based on the facts of the case.

This would be a matter for trial, but I also expect that the CBC will ultimately argue that even if there was a breach of confidence, Ghomeshi didn't suffer any damage because of it.  He would have suffered the damage anyway, the argument would go, because of the detailed information that the Toronto Star revealed on Sunday evening as a result of its months-long investigation into Ghomeshi.

•   Defamation:  Our expert defamation lawyers Julian Porter and Rick Dearden may well shudder at my mangling of the legal principles, but here goes:  The question whether a published utterance is capable of being construed as defamatory has always been considered to be a question of law rather than fact, which can be adjudicated on a preliminary motion under Rule 21.  See, for example, the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Elliott v. CBC (http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/1995/1995canlii244/1995canlii244.html).  (the separate question whether a statement actually IS defamatory is a question for the jury at a trial; in that regard, before 1985 in Ontario all defamation actions had to be tried by a jury; that is not the case any more)  The argument may well be that the short public statement that the CBC made on Sunday cannot be considered defamatory, either in its plain and ordinary meaning or by innuendo.

The CBC may also raise the defence of qualified privilege, in that it had the right and as a public broadcaster arguably the obligation (i) to dismiss Ghomeshi in the circumstances, and (ii) to explain to the public in as neutral terms as possible its reason for doing so.  That is probably a defence for trial, however, rather than an argument to strike out the claim under Rule 21.

Justification: It will be fascinating to see whether in its defence the CBC pleads what in defamation law is called "justification" (what the rest of us call "truth").  The truth of a statement does not make it non-defamatory; truth simply provides a defence to an action for damages based on a defamatory statement.  The theory is that a person is entitled only to that reputation that s/he deserves.  Pleading justification is risky; if the defendant pleads justification and loses, that is considered to aggravate the damages (i.e. it's a repetition of the defamation).

•   Common interest privilege:  I must say that the statement of claim makes admirably inventive use of this concept, but I'm really sceptical.  While the case law is a little mixed, the prevailing (and correct, I think) view is that "common interest" is not a free-standing privilege in and of itself.  Rather, it is a principle or doctrine having to do with waiver of some other privilege (usually litigation privilege, but sometimes lawyer-client privilege).  That is, the disclosure of a privileged piece of information by one person to another will not constitute a waiver of the privilege where the two persons have a "common interest" in the information and using it for a common purpose.  The principle developed originally in the context of the sharing of privileged information and communications between co-defendants in a lawsuit, in which they have a common interest in defeating the plaintiff's claim.  The concept now has been expanded to business relationships and transactions as well.

There are at least two reasons why I am sceptical that this legal principle will assist Ghomeshi:

(i)   As is say above, common interest is not a free-standing privilege.  Rather, it operates as an exception to the principle that voluntary disclosure of privileged information constitutes a waiver of the privilege.  That is why I far prefer to refer to this as the "common interest doctrine" rather than the misleading term "common interest privilege".

(ii)   Presenting a favourable public image goes quite far beyond the type of common purpose that the courts have to this point recognized as being subject to the common interest doctrine.  But who know?  The so-called "neighbour" principle that emerged from the famous 1931 Donoghue v. Stevenson case resulted not from a trial decision, but rather a motion to strike out the claim on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action – the English equivalent at the time of our Rule 21.

That's full time for today.  Happy Hallowe'en, everyone.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2014, 10:11:39 AM
Ok, confess Malthus, you gave him a link to this thread didnt you  :mad:

Quote from: Malthus on October 29, 2014, 10:23:55 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2014, 10:11:39 AM
Ok, confess Malthus, you gave him a link to this thread didnt you  :mad:

:D

I might as well have.

Anyway, it is interesting to see how our Langush Cabal stacks up against fairly top legal talent - pretty well, as it happens.

Quote from: Josephus on October 29, 2014, 10:58:03 AM
Next time I have legal issues I'll just post them here and let the cabal give me (free) advice.

Quote from: Malthus on October 29, 2014, 10:23:55 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2014, 10:11:39 AM
Ok, confess Malthus, you gave him a link to this thread didnt you  :mad:

:D

I might as well have.

Anyway, it is interesting to see how our Langush Cabal stacks up against fairly top legal talent - pretty well, as it happens.

Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2014, 11:05:46 AM

Quote from: Josephus on October 29, 2014, 10:58:03 AM
Next time I have legal issues I'll just post them here and let the cabal give me (free) advice.

Plead guilty.

Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2014, 12:38:31 PM
B. To intimidate any potential accusors from going public or else risk being sued themselves by Ghomeshi's multinational law firm.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2014, 12:50:49 PM

Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2014, 12:38:31 PM
B. To intimidate any potential accusors from going public or else risk being sued themselves by Ghomeshi's multinational law firm.

As an aside, I chuckle whenever someone says they are being represented by a "multinational law firm" when the matter doesn't actually involve multiple jursidictions.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2014, 12:50:49 PM

Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2014, 12:38:31 PM
B. To intimidate any potential accusors from going public or else risk being sued themselves by Ghomeshi's multinational law firm.

As an aside, I chuckle whenever someone says they are being represented by a "multinational law firm" when the matter doesn't actually involve multiple jursidictions.

Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2014, 09:45:15 PM
Four more women come forward.  One gives her name.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/29/jian_ghomeshi_8_women_accuse_former_cbc_host_of_violence_sexual_abuse_or_harassment.html#

It's as if these women are offended that Ghomeshi was trying to portray himself as a victim. :hmm:

QuoteTwo of the women who allege they were physically assaulted also say that before the alleged assaults in his home he introduced them to Big Ears Teddy, a stuffed bear, and he turned the bear around just before he slapped or choked them, saying that "Big Ears Teddy shouldn't see this."

Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2014, 09:59:56 PM
2. From the accounts it seems to me that Ghomeshi was - is - into what he thought was consensual but rough BDSM style sex (in that he pulled back when he registered a lack of interest), but that he had a very fucked up idea of how to obtain such consent - basically something like "a quick sample, and if you like it we're good to go; if not, no biggie, we'll part ways amicably". The problem, of course, is that the "quick sample" probably constitutes sexual assault, and even if it doesn't it's creepy as all hell to be subjected to.

Quote from: Tonitrus on October 29, 2014, 10:03:48 PM

Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2014, 09:45:15 PM
Four more women come forward.  One gives her name.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/29/jian_ghomeshi_8_women_accuse_former_cbc_host_of_violence_sexual_abuse_or_harassment.html#

It's as if these women are offended that Ghomeshi was trying to portray himself as a victim. :hmm:

QuoteTwo of the women who allege they were physically assaulted also say that before the alleged assaults in his home he introduced them to Big Ears Teddy, a stuffed bear, and he turned the bear around just before he slapped or choked them, saying that "Big Ears Teddy shouldn't see this."

:hmm:

Quote from: PRC on October 29, 2014, 10:53:34 PM

Quote from: Tonitrus on October 29, 2014, 10:03:48 PM

Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2014, 09:45:15 PM
Four more women come forward.  One gives her name.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/29/jian_ghomeshi_8_women_accuse_former_cbc_host_of_violence_sexual_abuse_or_harassment.html#

It's as if these women are offended that Ghomeshi was trying to portray himself as a victim. :hmm:

QuoteTwo of the women who allege they were physically assaulted also say that before the alleged assaults in his home he introduced them to Big Ears Teddy, a stuffed bear, and he turned the bear around just before he slapped or choked them, saying that "Big Ears Teddy shouldn't see this."

:hmm:

@BigEarsTeddy twitter account.  Note the date of the tweets: https://twitter.com/bigearsteddy

Quote from: April 9th TweetHi there @jianghomeshi. Remember louring me to ur house under false pretences? Bruises dont lie. Signed, every female Carleton U media grad.

Quote from: April 9thSo I guess it's not abuse if you're paying the girl to like it. Right, @jianghomeshi? #happyhitting #hookerhero

Quote from: April 10thBREAKING NEWS: @jianghomeshi keeps an impressive anthology of videos and photos of the young girls he chokes out... #howromantic #rapecultre

Quote from: April 10thYes, a friendly FYI @jianghomeshi to cement your great depression,
snuck a viddy of you punching me – OOPS this is my confession #staytuned

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 29, 2014, 11:10:36 PM
This is a witch hunt.   :(

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2014, 11:13:37 AM
As women start coming forward with their accounts of being assualted a few questions come to mind:

1) Was Ghomeshi completely open and honest with those who were advising him;

2) If yes, was Ghomeshi advised not to take this approach;

3) If he was, what was he thinking?

4) If he was not warned off this approach then what were his advisors thinking?

5) If the answer to #1 is no then the approach taken by his advisors makes a lot more sense.

QuoteMr. Ghomeshi has retained the services of public-relations firm Navigator Ltd., which famously defended former Ontario attorney-general Michael Bryant after a 2009 motor-vehicle incident in which a cyclist was killed. But Navigator has reportedly been directing questions about Mr. Ghomeshi to another public-relations firm, Rock-It Promotions.

Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2014, 11:23:32 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2014, 11:13:37 AM
As women start coming forward with their accounts of being assualted a few questions come to mind:

1) Was Ghomeshi completely open and honest with those who were advising him;

2) If yes, was Ghomeshi advised not to take this approach;

3) If he was, what was he thinking?

4) If he was not warned off this approach then what were his advisors thinking?

5) If the answer to #1 is no then the approach taken by his advisors makes a lot more sense.

I saw this brief report:

QuoteMr. Ghomeshi has retained the services of public-relations firm Navigator Ltd., which famously defended former Ontario attorney-general Michael Bryant after a 2009 motor-vehicle incident in which a cyclist was killed. But Navigator has reportedly been directing questions about Mr. Ghomeshi to another public-relations firm, Rock-It Promotions.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-jian-ghomeshi-scandal-what-we-know-so-far/article21379820/

Which suggests that indeed Ghomeshi was not completely open and honest with Navigator.

Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2014, 09:00:13 AM
Big Ears Teddy shouldn't see what's happening to Mr. Ghomeshi's public image.

Quote from: Josephus on October 30, 2014, 12:24:35 PM
Apparently one of the women, an actress who played Lucy in Trailer Park Boys, is also an RCAF captain.

Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2014, 12:30:57 PM

Quote from: Josephus on October 30, 2014, 12:24:35 PM
Apparently one of the women, an actress who played Lucy in Trailer Park Boys, is also an RCAF captain.

Yeah, it was mentioned in an obscure paper - the Tonic Sitar or something like that. BB linked the article in post 129 of this thread, and we discussed it for a bit.

Quote from: Josephus on October 30, 2014, 01:56:04 PM

Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2014, 12:30:57 PM

Quote from: Josephus on October 30, 2014, 12:24:35 PM
Apparently one of the women, an actress who played Lucy in Trailer Park Boys, is also an RCAF captain.

Yeah, it was mentioned in an obscure paper - the Tonic Sitar or something like that. BB linked the article in post 129 of this thread, and we discussed it for a bit.

Sorry....that's twice..... :blush:

I work for a living you know! :D

Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2014, 11:23:32 AM
Which suggests that indeed Ghomeshi was not completely open and honest with Navigator.

QuoteRandi Rahamim @randiraha  ·  32m 32 minutes ago
Regrettably, circumstances have changed. Navigator confirms it does not advise Jian Ghomeshi. No further comment will be issued.

Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2014, 04:30:11 PM

Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2014, 11:23:32 AM
Which suggests that indeed Ghomeshi was not completely open and honest with Navigator.

QuoteRandi Rahamim @randiraha  ·  32m 32 minutes ago
Regrettably, circumstances have changed. Navigator confirms it does not advise Jian Ghomeshi. No further comment will be issued.

https://twitter.com/randiraha

:contract:

Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2014, 04:34:39 PMHeh, you were right - the obvious conclusion is that he out and out lied to them about the factual matrix, and they based their PR strategy on his lies. A strategy which is now in ruins as a result. So they parted ways. 

Enough to make Big Ears Teddy sad, it is.  :(

Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2014, 04:48:14 PM

Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2014, 04:34:39 PMHeh, you were right - the obvious conclusion is that he out and out lied to them about the factual matrix, and they based their PR strategy on his lies. A strategy which is now in ruins as a result. So they parted ways. 

Enough to make Big Ears Teddy sad, it is.  :(

I assume the there is little in the way of client-PR firm privilege? If you admit criminal wrongdoing to your PR firm, there's nothing the prevents them from divulging it (other than protecting their own reputation, but that likely won't stand up in court)?

Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2014, 04:48:14 PM

Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2014, 04:34:39 PMHeh, you were right - the obvious conclusion is that he out and out lied to them about the factual matrix, and they based their PR strategy on his lies. A strategy which is now in ruins as a result. So they parted ways. 

Enough to make Big Ears Teddy sad, it is.  :(

I assume the there is little in the way of client-PR firm privilege? If you admit criminal wrongdoing to your PR firm, there's nothing the prevents them from divulging it (other than protecting their own reputation, but that likely won't stand up in court)?

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2014, 04:57:46 PM
That is why the smarter thing to do is tell your lawyer everything before you decide a PR strategy.  The lawyer can then retain experts to help with things incidental to the legal advice being given.  All of it is then priviledged if the expert is being retained in contemplation of litigation, which would seem a good argument to make in this case.

Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2014, 04:48:14 PM

Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2014, 04:34:39 PMHeh, you were right - the obvious conclusion is that he out and out lied to them about the factual matrix, and they based their PR strategy on his lies. A strategy which is now in ruins as a result. So they parted ways. 

Enough to make Big Ears Teddy sad, it is.  :(

I assume the there is little in the way of client-PR firm privilege? If you admit criminal wrongdoing to your PR firm, there's nothing the prevents them from divulging it (other than protecting their own reputation, but that likely won't stand up in court)?

Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2014, 05:33:27 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2014, 04:57:46 PM
That is why the smarter thing to do is tell your lawyer everything before you decide a PR strategy.  The lawyer can then retain experts to help with things incidental to the legal advice being given.  All of it is then priviledged if the expert is being retained in contemplation of litigation, which would seem a good argument to make in this case.

I'll keep that in mind should the need ever arise.

QuoteThe Canadian Broadcasting Corporation told its employees Friday afternoon that it fired host Jian Ghomeshi as a result of seeing graphic evidence last week that he had caused "physical injury to a woman."

Quote from: Jacob on October 31, 2014, 05:30:16 PM
... so showing your own sex videos to your employer?

I don't quite know what to think of that.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 31, 2014, 06:19:10 PM

Quote from: Jacob on October 31, 2014, 05:30:16 PM
... so showing your own sex videos to your employer?

I don't quite know what to think of that.

You show pics of your family to people in the office every day, yet everybody manages to keep their mouths shut about it.

Quote from: Josephus on October 31, 2014, 04:41:22 PM
You gusy bored of this already?

Here's something new (hopefuly)

Apparently Ghomeshi showed The CBC video of him in action prior to getting fired in an effort to explain how consensual BDSM can still lead to bruising. It was after watching this video that CBC decided to let him go.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/10/31/jian_ghomeshi_showed_cbc_video_of_bondage_beating_sources.html

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 01, 2014, 01:01:10 AM
That's what you guys get for making an Indian greaseball a star.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 01, 2014, 01:01:10 AM
That's what you guys get for making an Indian greaseball a star.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 01, 2014, 01:01:10 AM
That's what you guys get for making an Indian greaseball a star.

Quote from: Barrister on November 01, 2014, 07:33:37 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 01, 2014, 01:01:10 AM
That's what you guys get for making an Indian greaseball a star.

Iranian greaseball. :contract:

Quote from: Josephus on October 31, 2014, 04:41:22 PM
You gusy bored of this already?

Here's something new (hopefuly)

Apparently Ghomeshi showed The CBC video of him in action prior to getting fired in an effort to explain how consensual BDSM can still lead to bruising. It was after watching this video that CBC decided to let him go.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/10/31/jian_ghomeshi_showed_cbc_video_of_bondage_beating_sources.html

Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 04, 2014, 01:08:10 AM

Quote from: Josephus on October 31, 2014, 04:41:22 PM
You gusy bored of this already?

Here's something new (hopefuly)

Apparently Ghomeshi showed The CBC video of him in action prior to getting fired in an effort to explain how consensual BDSM can still lead to bruising. It was after watching this video that CBC decided to let him go.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/10/31/jian_ghomeshi_showed_cbc_video_of_bondage_beating_sources.html

Dude must be completely off his rocker if he thought that would help.

Quote from: viper37 on November 01, 2014, 11:17:04 AM
It's sad Boston Legal is non longer on air, this would have made a great scenario for an episode :D

QuoteIn a motion to Ontario Superior Court, the CBC maintains Ghomeshi's allegation of defamation and breach of confidence is frivolous or vexatious.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2014, 05:02:10 PM
and the CBC has filed its predictable motion to strike the legal action.

QuoteIn a motion to Ontario Superior Court, the CBC maintains Ghomeshi's allegation of defamation and breach of confidence is frivolous or vexatious.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2014, 05:02:10 PM
and the CBC has filed its predictable motion to strike the legal action.

QuoteIn a motion to Ontario Superior Court, the CBC maintains Ghomeshi's allegation of defamation and breach of confidence is frivolous or vexatious.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 05, 2014, 05:46:09 PM
Meanwhile he is pursuing a civil action which will lead to him making more reps and statements that can used against him in a possible criminal action.

Good decision making does not seem to be a job qualification for radio show host.

Quote from: Josephus on November 05, 2014, 06:56:07 PM
Well you do have to decide what questions to ask.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2014, 07:31:20 PM

Quote from: Josephus on November 05, 2014, 06:56:07 PM
Well you do have to decide what questions to ask.

He had writers for that....

Quote from: Josephus on November 05, 2014, 08:01:40 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2014, 07:31:20 PM

Quote from: Josephus on November 05, 2014, 06:56:07 PM
Well you do have to decide what questions to ask.

He had writers for that....

Maybe. I have heard, that he did do a lot of research and was pretty good at interviewing. You can have a shit load of questions in front of you, but as the interview  goes, a good interviewer knows which way to direct the interview. I don't pretend to be in the same shoes as his, but even when I prepare for an interview, I may have 20 questions prepared, of which, I tend to only use 5 or 6 and then come up with new ones as the interview moves along.

Say what you want about his extracurricular activities, he was generally considered a good interviewer.

Quote from: Barrister on November 06, 2014, 12:03:52 PM
Defence lawyers are pretty sensitive about mentioning what they charge, and it really isn't any of my business anyways.  So I don't quite know, other than to say "a lot".

Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 06, 2014, 12:10:05 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 06, 2014, 12:03:52 PM
Defence lawyers are pretty sensitive about mentioning what they charge, and it really isn't any of my business anyways.  So I don't quite know, other than to say "a lot".

:huh: Here in the US, price-gouging by attorneys is a serious ethics no-no, so it's pretty easy to determine the usual and customary rates.  Do your rules of professional conduct not have an analog to the usual and customary rates rule?

Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 06, 2014, 12:10:05 PM
:huh: Here in the US, price-gouging by attorneys is a serious ethics no-no, so it's pretty easy to determine the usual and customary rates.  Do your rules of professional conduct not have an analog to the usual and customary rates rule?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2014, 12:46:03 PM
How does the concept of gouging apply to shysters?  A client always has alternatives.

Quote from: Barrister on November 06, 2014, 12:22:58 PM

Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 06, 2014, 12:10:05 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 06, 2014, 12:03:52 PM
Defence lawyers are pretty sensitive about mentioning what they charge, and it really isn't any of my business anyways.  So I don't quite know, other than to say "a lot".

:huh: Here in the US, price-gouging by attorneys is a serious ethics no-no, so it's pretty easy to determine the usual and customary rates.  Do your rules of professional conduct not have an analog to the usual and customary rates rule?

Never heard of such a thing.  It's a free market - charge what the market will bear.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 06, 2014, 01:07:04 PM
Contingency fees are even stricter- they have strict percentages and dollar caps they can charge.  If they get busted going above those caps, they can be sanctioned or disbarred.

Quote from: The Brain on November 06, 2014, 01:19:56 PM
What the market will bear is fair and reasonable.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 06, 2014, 01:30:52 PM

Quote from: The Brain on November 06, 2014, 01:19:56 PM
What the market will bear is fair and reasonable.

Thank you Ayn Rand

Quote from: The Brain on November 06, 2014, 01:32:09 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 06, 2014, 01:30:52 PM

Quote from: The Brain on November 06, 2014, 01:19:56 PM
What the market will bear is fair and reasonable.

Thank you Ayn Rand

*shrug* It is when I buy food, and I need food a lot more than I need a lawyer.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 06, 2014, 01:38:55 PM

Quote from: The Brain on November 06, 2014, 01:32:09 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 06, 2014, 01:30:52 PM

Quote from: The Brain on November 06, 2014, 01:19:56 PM
What the market will bear is fair and reasonable.

Thank you Ayn Rand

*shrug* It is when I buy food, and I need food a lot more than I need a lawyer.

Exactly, it is because you buy food regularly that you have a good idea what is a good price.  Because you need the services of a lawyer infrequently you likely have no idea.  The idea of a "market rate" works good in theory if there is information available as to what the "market" is.  If you find a comprehensive source of what lawyers are charging their clients let me know.  It would be very helpful to me.

Quote from: The Brain on November 06, 2014, 01:40:29 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 06, 2014, 01:38:55 PM

Quote from: The Brain on November 06, 2014, 01:32:09 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 06, 2014, 01:30:52 PM

Quote from: The Brain on November 06, 2014, 01:19:56 PM
What the market will bear is fair and reasonable.

Thank you Ayn Rand

*shrug* It is when I buy food, and I need food a lot more than I need a lawyer.

Exactly, it is because you buy food regularly that you have a good idea what is a good price.  Because you need the services of a lawyer infrequently you likely have no idea.  The idea of a "market rate" works good in theory if there is information available as to what the "market" is.  If you find a comprehensive source of what lawyers are charging their clients let me know.  It would be very helpful to me.

What are you talking about? You lost me.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 06, 2014, 01:50:03 PM

Quote from: The Brain on November 06, 2014, 01:40:29 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 06, 2014, 01:38:55 PM

Quote from: The Brain on November 06, 2014, 01:32:09 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 06, 2014, 01:30:52 PM

Quote from: The Brain on November 06, 2014, 01:19:56 PM
What the market will bear is fair and reasonable.

Thank you Ayn Rand

*shrug* It is when I buy food, and I need food a lot more than I need a lawyer.

Exactly, it is because you buy food regularly that you have a good idea what is a good price.  Because you need the services of a lawyer infrequently you likely have no idea.  The idea of a "market rate" works good in theory if there is information available as to what the "market" is.  If you find a comprehensive source of what lawyers are charging their clients let me know.  It would be very helpful to me.

What are you talking about? You lost me.

Thats why we need to be regulated - some of our clients aren't all that sophisticated ;)

Quote from: Josephus on November 25, 2014, 01:52:34 PM
Lawsuit dropped.

Ok, lawyers, dissect

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/11/25/ghomeshi_drops_55m_cbc_lawsuit.html

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 25, 2014, 04:49:09 PM
There could be criminal exposure here.  The civil suit was an albatross in more ways than one.

Quote from: Barrister on November 25, 2014, 04:57:16 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 25, 2014, 04:49:09 PM
There could be criminal exposure here.  The civil suit was an albatross in more ways than one.

I don't believe evidence arising from a civil trial can be used in a criminal proceeding.  Caselaw on the right against self-incrimination is completely different in Canada.  There is no such thing as "taking the fifth" in Canada - if you're under oath you're obliged to answer any relevant question.  The flip side however is that the state can not use such a "compelled statement" against you in a subsequent proceeding.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 25, 2014, 05:03:09 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 25, 2014, 04:57:16 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 25, 2014, 04:49:09 PM
There could be criminal exposure here.  The civil suit was an albatross in more ways than one.

I don't believe evidence arising from a civil trial can be used in a criminal proceeding.  Caselaw on the right against self-incrimination is completely different in Canada.  There is no such thing as "taking the fifth" in Canada - if you're under oath you're obliged to answer any relevant question.  The flip side however is that the state can not use such a "compelled statement" against you in a subsequent proceeding.

Interesting.
But if he put in an affidavit or voluntary testimony (to establish his case) would that be admissible?

Quote from: Barrister on November 25, 2014, 05:14:32 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 25, 2014, 05:03:09 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 25, 2014, 04:57:16 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 25, 2014, 04:49:09 PM
There could be criminal exposure here.  The civil suit was an albatross in more ways than one.

I don't believe evidence arising from a civil trial can be used in a criminal proceeding.  Caselaw on the right against self-incrimination is completely different in Canada.  There is no such thing as "taking the fifth" in Canada - if you're under oath you're obliged to answer any relevant question.  The flip side however is that the state can not use such a "compelled statement" against you in a subsequent proceeding.

Interesting.
But if he put in an affidavit or voluntary testimony (to establish his case) would that be admissible?

There is an implied undertaking that all material gathered through the discovery process shall not be used for a collateral purpose.  That includes both oral and written material.

I suppose you could argue that the contents of the Statement of Claim itself could be used in a prosecution, but I seem to recall there's a form of immunity for anything said in pleadings.  I know it is true that you can not attack pleadings outside of the court process itself (i.e. you can't sue someone for defamation citing that you were defamed in a Statement of Claim), but maybe you could try and use it in a criminal proceeding.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 25, 2014, 05:03:09 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 25, 2014, 04:57:16 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 25, 2014, 04:49:09 PM
There could be criminal exposure here.  The civil suit was an albatross in more ways than one.

I don't believe evidence arising from a civil trial can be used in a criminal proceeding.  Caselaw on the right against self-incrimination is completely different in Canada.  There is no such thing as "taking the fifth" in Canada - if you're under oath you're obliged to answer any relevant question.  The flip side however is that the state can not use such a "compelled statement" against you in a subsequent proceeding.

Interesting.
But if he put in an affidavit or voluntary testimony (to establish his case) would that be admissible?

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 25, 2014, 05:27:18 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 25, 2014, 05:14:32 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 25, 2014, 05:03:09 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 25, 2014, 04:57:16 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 25, 2014, 04:49:09 PM
There could be criminal exposure here.  The civil suit was an albatross in more ways than one.

I don't believe evidence arising from a civil trial can be used in a criminal proceeding.  Caselaw on the right against self-incrimination is completely different in Canada.  There is no such thing as "taking the fifth" in Canada - if you're under oath you're obliged to answer any relevant question.  The flip side however is that the state can not use such a "compelled statement" against you in a subsequent proceeding.

Interesting.
But if he put in an affidavit or voluntary testimony (to establish his case) would that be admissible?

There is an implied undertaking that all material gathered through the discovery process shall not be used for a collateral purpose.  That includes both oral and written material.

I suppose you could argue that the contents of the Statement of Claim itself could be used in a prosecution, but I seem to recall there's a form of immunity for anything said in pleadings.  I know it is true that you can not attack pleadings outside of the court process itself (i.e. you can't sue someone for defamation citing that you were defamed in a Statement of Claim), but maybe you could try and use it in a criminal proceeding.

But the implied undertaking doesnt apply here because it is not the opposing party to the litigation who is using any information from the litigation.  The Crown need not obtain any information provided to the CBC.  In any event I doubt any information was provided given the fact the litigation has ended on a preliminary application.  The information which could form part of the criminal charges comes from the information Ghomeshi voluntarily and publicly disclosed both on his facebook account and in his pleadings.

There is no blanket immunity for what a person says in pleadings except from a claim of defamation.  Pleadings are taken to be admissions of fact and people should therefore be careful what they plead for a whole number of reasons.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 25, 2014, 05:29:27 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 25, 2014, 05:03:09 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 25, 2014, 04:57:16 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 25, 2014, 04:49:09 PM
There could be criminal exposure here.  The civil suit was an albatross in more ways than one.

I don't believe evidence arising from a civil trial can be used in a criminal proceeding.  Caselaw on the right against self-incrimination is completely different in Canada.  There is no such thing as "taking the fifth" in Canada - if you're under oath you're obliged to answer any relevant question.  The flip side however is that the state can not use such a "compelled statement" against you in a subsequent proceeding.

Interesting.
But if he put in an affidavit or voluntary testimony (to establish his case) would that be admissible?

It didnt happen here but yes, affidavit evidence sworn in one proceeding can be used in another proceeding to impeach the witness.  I did that just last week.  :smarty:

Quote from: Barrister on November 25, 2014, 05:32:54 PM
The fact that it is the Crown, which is not a party to the litigation, which is seeking to use that material doesn't save us.  As I said we were explicitly warned not to accept such material even if offered (by counsel who is breaking their own implied undertaking).

Quote from: Barrister on November 25, 2014, 05:34:49 PM
It's going to depend on the particular circumstances of the affidavit, but remember you're not an agent of the state, and your actions don't have to comply with the Charter of Rights.  Mine do.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 25, 2014, 05:37:53 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 25, 2014, 05:32:54 PM
The fact that it is the Crown, which is not a party to the litigation, which is seeking to use that material doesn't save us.  As I said we were explicitly warned not to accept such material even if offered (by counsel who is breaking their own implied undertaking).

Sure, but go back and re-read what I said.

Quote from: crazy canuckBut the implied undertaking doesnt apply here because it is not the opposing party to the litigation who is using any information from the litigation.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 25, 2014, 05:41:18 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 25, 2014, 05:34:49 PM
It's going to depend on the particular circumstances of the affidavit, but remember you're not an agent of the state, and your actions don't have to comply with the Charter of Rights.  Mine do.

Are you telling me that if an accused takes the stand and gives evidence that is directly contradictory to evidence given in another proceeding you cant impeach him with that other evidence?  That just cant be right.

I can undstand why you cant introduce it as an admission if he doesnt give evidence but I dont know why you wouldn't be permitted to impeach his evidence once he gives testimony.  And btw BB, the Charter is used to interpret the common law rules of evidence.  ;)

Quote from: Barrister on November 25, 2014, 05:43:11 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 25, 2014, 05:37:53 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 25, 2014, 05:32:54 PM
The fact that it is the Crown, which is not a party to the litigation, which is seeking to use that material doesn't save us.  As I said we were explicitly warned not to accept such material even if offered (by counsel who is breaking their own implied undertaking).

Sure, but go back and re-read what I said.

Quote from: crazy canuckBut the implied undertaking doesnt apply here because it is not the opposing party to the litigation who is using any information from the litigation.

And I'm not exactly sure what use his Facebook page, or his Statement of Claim, would be useful for other than a general impeaching of his credibility.  He doesn't admit to doing anything specifically with anyone.

This all came out of a comment Joan threw out about how the ongoing civil suit may hurt any subsequent criminal trial.  For the reasons I've outlined, I don't think that was a major consideration.

Quote from: Barrister on November 25, 2014, 05:55:26 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 25, 2014, 05:41:18 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 25, 2014, 05:34:49 PM
It's going to depend on the particular circumstances of the affidavit, but remember you're not an agent of the state, and your actions don't have to comply with the Charter of Rights.  Mine do.

Are you telling me that if an accused takes the stand and gives evidence that is directly contradictory to evidence given in another proceeding you cant impeach him with that other evidence?  That just cant be right.

I can undstand why you cant introduce it as an admission if he doesnt give evidence but I dont know why you wouldn't be permitted to impeach his evidence once he gives testimony.  And btw BB, the Charter is used to interpret the common law rules of evidence.  ;)

Interesting - doing some research there is some very brief latitude about using a prior in-court statement to test for credibility, but not anything that might "incriminate" them:

Quote from: viper37 on November 26, 2014, 10:54:56 AM
He's been arrested, charged with 4 counts of sexual assault.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 26, 2014, 11:03:27 AM
So lets review:

1) The Star investigates allegations made against Ghomeshi

2) Ghomeshi vehemently denies the allegations and because the complainants wish to remain anonymous the Star decides not to publish

3) Ghomeshi reads something on social media indicating that the Star is going to publish something big.  Thinking (wrongly) the story is about him he goes nuclear, launches a law suit that has no merit and writes a facebook post saying that his accusers are lying.

4) The claim his accuser's are lying causes the Star to come to the conclusion they are now justified in going with their story.

5) All of this results in other women coming forward and a police investigation is started.

6) He will now make a first appearance in Court.

It reads like a Greek Tragedy warning against the consequences of hubris.

Quote from: Malthus on November 26, 2014, 10:59:39 AM

Quote from: viper37 on November 26, 2014, 10:54:56 AM
He's been arrested, charged with 4 counts of sexual assault.

The appropriate outcome.

Quote from: viper37 on November 26, 2014, 11:07:36 AM

Quote from: Malthus on November 26, 2014, 10:59:39 AM

Quote from: viper37 on November 26, 2014, 10:54:56 AM
He's been arrested, charged with 4 counts of sexual assault.

The appropriate outcome.

Not much details for now:
from CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/jian-ghomeshi-charged-in-sexual-assault-investigation-1.2850661)
One count of "overcome resistance - choking".
I was unaware we had such a thing in our criminal code.

Quote from: Barrister on November 25, 2014, 05:55:26 PM
Interesting - doing some research there is some very brief latitude about using a prior in-court statement to test for credibility, but not anything that might "incriminate" them:
. . .
There is, of course, also room to prosecute for perjury if you've made prior inconsistent statements under oath, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.

Quote from: Siege on November 26, 2014, 12:18:35 PM
This thread is worthless without pictures.

Quote from: Siege on November 26, 2014, 12:18:35 PM
This thread is worthless without pictures.

Quote from: Siege on November 26, 2014, 12:21:51 PM
I meant the chicks, damit.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 26, 2014, 12:15:00 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 25, 2014, 05:55:26 PM
Interesting - doing some research there is some very brief latitude about using a prior in-court statement to test for credibility, but not anything that might "incriminate" them:
. . .
There is, of course, also room to prosecute for perjury if you've made prior inconsistent statements under oath, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.

So a good deal less leeway than you would have in the States, but why take that chance?  It's not like the civil claim is worth a damn other than for vanity.

Quote from: Siege on November 26, 2014, 12:24:37 PM
Eff you all.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 26, 2014, 12:24:02 PM
It is not as limited as BB thinks.  A couple of years ago a person was convicted because the trial judge found as a fact that the Defendant's alibi was directly contradicted by materials the accused had provided to me (as opposing counsel) in another proceeding.  BB if you want I can try to dig up the cite for you and PM it.

That legal issue aside, your point is well made. It was very unwise for Ghomeshi to have started his law suit.  If he had just dealt with his termination through the usual union grievance procedure (which would have remained confidential) he would not be in this mess today. 

edit:  and just to clarify BB, Ghomeshi has already admited that violent sexual acts did occur.  His only defence is consent.

Quote from: Barrister on November 26, 2014, 12:36:40 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 26, 2014, 12:24:02 PM
It is not as limited as BB thinks.  A couple of years ago a person was convicted because the trial judge found as a fact that the Defendant's alibi was directly contradicted by materials the accused had provided to me (as opposing counsel) in another proceeding.  BB if you want I can try to dig up the cite for you and PM it.

That legal issue aside, your point is well made. It was very unwise for Ghomeshi to have started his law suit.  If he had just dealt with his termination through the usual union grievance procedure (which would have remained confidential) he would not be in this mess today. 

edit:  and just to clarify BB, Ghomeshi has already admited that violent sexual acts did occur.  His only defence is consent.

Sure, I'd be interested in the link.

Ghomeshi's Facebook post was never specific.  He never said what kind of actions, or with whom.  If he so chooses he has lots of room to deny, and in fact he pretty much has to.  The accounts of, say, Lucy Decoutere (there you go Siegey, google her) leave no possible room for consent.

Quote from: Josephus on November 26, 2014, 12:30:44 PM
And a Toronto Star probe once again gets action.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 26, 2014, 01:08:15 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 26, 2014, 12:36:40 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 26, 2014, 12:24:02 PM
It is not as limited as BB thinks.  A couple of years ago a person was convicted because the trial judge found as a fact that the Defendant's alibi was directly contradicted by materials the accused had provided to me (as opposing counsel) in another proceeding.  BB if you want I can try to dig up the cite for you and PM it.

That legal issue aside, your point is well made. It was very unwise for Ghomeshi to have started his law suit.  If he had just dealt with his termination through the usual union grievance procedure (which would have remained confidential) he would not be in this mess today. 

edit:  and just to clarify BB, Ghomeshi has already admited that violent sexual acts did occur.  His only defence is consent.

Sure, I'd be interested in the link.

Ghomeshi's Facebook post was never specific.  He never said what kind of actions, or with whom.  If he so chooses he has lots of room to deny, and in fact he pretty much has to.  The accounts of, say, Lucy Decoutere (there you go Siegey, google her) leave no possible room for consent.

Go back and re-read his Statement of Claim.  He admits the following:

1) that he provided the CBC with information about his sexual activities (we know from other reports that this included a video depicting sexual violence);

2) he admits that he engaged in what he characterized as BDSM (and what others characterize as sexual violence)

3) his defence to all of this is that it was entirely consensual.


It is going to be very difficult for him to prove the alleged acts didnt occur.  His only real defence is one of consent.  That is the factual issue the Court is going to have to decide.

QuoteAbout two years ago I started seeing a woman in her late 20s. Our relationship was affectionate, casual and passionate. We saw each other on and off over the period of a year and began engaging in adventurous forms of sex that included role-play, dominance and submission. We discussed our interests at length before engaging in rough sex (forms of BDSM). We talked about using safe words and regularly checked in with each other about our comfort levels. She encouraged our role-play and often was the initiator. We joked about our relations being like a mild form of Fifty Shades of Grey or a story from Lynn Coady's Giller-Prize winning book last year. I don't wish to get into any more detail because it is truly not anyone's business what two consenting adults do. I have never discussed my private life before. Sexual preferences are a human right.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 26, 2014, 01:25:19 PM
But if he turned over a video . . .  :wacko:

Quote from: Barrister on November 26, 2014, 01:38:08 PM
Well yeah the video will speak for itself.

But we have no idea what's on that video (other than it caused the CBC to fire him).  We don't know if it involved any of the women he is now charged with assaulting.  If it doesn't involve the women in question the only way it gets into evidence is as "similar fact", which is notoriously hard to get in.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 26, 2014, 01:09:39 PM

Quote from: Josephus on November 26, 2014, 12:30:44 PM
And a Toronto Star probe once again gets action.

I already told you upstream that you were right.  Now you are just fishing for compliments. :P

Quote from: Josephus on November 26, 2014, 02:08:05 PM
Lawyers:

Consent, i guess, must be hard to prove, right, since it's He said, she said, with little evidence.

If two, three, four people, say the same thing, does that influence anything? In other words can 5 separate  cases of 1 V 1 have an effect on outcome, know what I'm asking?

Quote from: Josephus on November 26, 2014, 02:08:05 PM
Lawyers:

Consent, i guess, must be hard to prove, right, since it's He said, she said, with little evidence.

If two, three, four people, say the same thing, does that influence anything? In other words can 5 separate  cases of 1 V 1 have an effect on outcome, know what I'm asking?

Quote from: Josephus on November 26, 2014, 02:08:05 PM
Lawyers:

Consent, i guess, must be hard to prove, right, since it's He said, she said, with little evidence.

If two, three, four people, say the same thing, does that influence anything? In other words can 5 separate  cases of 1 V 1 have an effect on outcome, know what I'm asking?

Quote from: Malthus on November 26, 2014, 02:28:18 PM
So, basically what I said?  ;)

Quote from: Barrister on November 26, 2014, 02:33:02 PM

Quote from: Malthus on November 26, 2014, 02:28:18 PM
So, basically what I said?  ;)

Yes, but it's more complicated.  Similar fact only comes in when the Crown is alleging similar bad acts that he has not been charged with.  Here presumably everything is on one information.

Quote from: Malthus on November 26, 2014, 02:35:53 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 26, 2014, 02:33:02 PM

Quote from: Malthus on November 26, 2014, 02:28:18 PM
So, basically what I said?  ;)

Yes, but it's more complicated.  Similar fact only comes in when the Crown is alleging similar bad acts that he has not been charged with.  Here presumably everything is on one information.

I haven't seen the paperwork, but I suspect there are lots of complaints he wasn't charged with ...

Quote from: Jacob on November 27, 2014, 01:44:05 PM
Not sure about the skinny tie with the spread collar.

Quote from: Jacob on November 27, 2014, 01:44:05 PM
This is, apparently, a picture of Ghomeshi's legal team:

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 27, 2014, 01:50:58 PM
I think I would rather quit the profession then have to be posed like that.

Quote from: Barrister on November 27, 2014, 03:14:52 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 27, 2014, 01:50:58 PM
I think I would rather quit the profession then have to be posed like that.

I don't think you'd enjoy life as a criminal defence lawyer.  There is no more eccentric section of the bar.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 27, 2014, 03:17:54 PM
Curly haired guy is either a damn good lawyer or the founder's son.

Quote from: viper37 on November 27, 2014, 03:53:16 PM
The French speaking girl is damn hot!

Quote from: Barrister on November 27, 2014, 03:13:53 PM

Quote from: Jacob on November 27, 2014, 01:44:05 PM
This is, apparently, a picture of Ghomeshi's legal team:

Not sure why you'd stick the "apparently" in there.

The image is right their on the law firm web page:

http://www.hhllp.ca/

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 27, 2014, 04:05:10 PM
Scroll right you moran.  :lol:

Ethnic chick is nice too.

Quote from: PRC on November 27, 2014, 04:19:49 PM
From that National Post article and the law firm's site: "Henein Hutchison LLP is one of Canada's top litigation boutique law firms."  I know what a "boutique hotel" is... but a "boutique law firm"!?

Quote from: PRC on November 27, 2014, 04:19:49 PM
From that National Post article and the law firm's site: "Henein Hutchison LLP is one of Canada's top litigation boutique law firms."  I know what a "boutique hotel" is... but a "boutique law firm"!?

Quote from: PRC on November 27, 2014, 04:19:49 PM
From that National Post article and the law firm's site: "Henein Hutchison LLP is one of Canada's top litigation boutique law firms."  I know what a "boutique hotel" is... but a "boutique law firm"!?

Quote from: Barrister on November 27, 2014, 04:10:55 PM
The one on the right is cute, but not french as far as I can tell.  It's the chick in glasses who is from Quebec.

Quote from: Barrister on November 27, 2014, 04:24:36 PM
Jacob - not quite - you can have a small to medium sized firm that is still full service.  The law firm I worked for in northern Alberta was like that - one stop legal shopping for all your small town legal needs.

Quote from: Jacob on November 27, 2014, 04:31:54 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 27, 2014, 04:24:36 PM
Jacob - not quite - you can have a small to medium sized firm that is still full service.  The law firm I worked for in northern Alberta was like that - one stop legal shopping for all your small town legal needs.

Ah, I see. It's about the area of practice, not the size of the firm. Thanks for the correction.

Quote from: Barrister on November 27, 2014, 03:14:52 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 27, 2014, 01:50:58 PM
I think I would rather quit the profession then have to be posed like that.

I don't think you'd enjoy life as a criminal defence lawyer.  There is no more eccentric section of the bar.

Quote from: Barrister on November 27, 2014, 04:04:08 PM

Quote from: viper37 on November 27, 2014, 03:53:16 PM
The French speaking girl is damn hot!

The one in glasses?

Umm, she's fine, and I don't subscribe to "internet standards", but "damn hot" isn't the phrase I would have chosen...

Quote from: Barrister on November 27, 2014, 04:10:55 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 27, 2014, 04:05:10 PM
Scroll right you moran.  :lol:

Ethnic chick is nice too.

I can't believe I've spent so much time looking at the web page for some Ontario defence firm. :frusty:

The one on the right is cute, but not french as far as I can tell.  It's the chick in glasses who is from Quebec.

Quote from: Malthus on November 28, 2014, 09:59:46 AM
Article on the similar fact evidence issue.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ghomeshi-charges-bring-similar-fact-argument-to-fore/article21823990/

Quote from: Josephus on November 28, 2014, 05:39:30 PM

Quote from: Malthus on November 28, 2014, 09:59:46 AM
Article on the similar fact evidence issue.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ghomeshi-charges-bring-similar-fact-argument-to-fore/article21823990/

I could have written that and you guys could have been my 'legal sources'.

Quote from: Malthus on November 28, 2014, 05:43:44 PM

Quote from: Josephus on November 28, 2014, 05:39:30 PM

Quote from: Malthus on November 28, 2014, 09:59:46 AM
Article on the similar fact evidence issue.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ghomeshi-charges-bring-similar-fact-argument-to-fore/article21823990/

I could have written that and you guys could have been my 'legal sources'.

Your article would have been better.  :D

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2014, 02:53:27 AM
So which chick were you talking up Veep?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 31, 2016, 10:06:42 AM
Trial is set to begin. These things take way to long today. <_<

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/31/jian-ghomeshi-cbc-radio-host-sexual-assault-trial-toronto-canada

Quote from: Josephus on February 03, 2016, 01:21:00 PM
Pays to get a good defence attorney. Trial not going so well for the crown so far after first accuser/witness more or less discredited.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 03, 2016, 02:01:07 PM
I've decided this case is below the importance threshold required for Languish threads.

Quote from: Josephus on February 03, 2016, 01:21:00 PM
Trial not going so well for the crown so far after first accuser/witness more or less discredited.

Quote from: Josephus on February 04, 2016, 10:20:46 AM
I'll bow down to the wisdom of you lawyers....but, media think otherwise.

In fact they're saying things like:

Her credibility had been demolished beyond repair. Her evidence of such jaw-dropping self-immolating proportions that it verged on farce.

Quote from: Josephus on February 04, 2016, 10:20:46 AM
I'll bow down to the wisdom of you lawyers....but, media think otherwise.

In fact they're saying things like:

Her credibility had been demolished beyond repair. Her evidence of such jaw-dropping self-immolating proportions that it verged on farce.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 03, 2016, 02:01:07 PM
I've decided this case is below the importance threshold required for Languish threads.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 03, 2016, 02:01:07 PM
I've decided this case is below the importance threshold required for Languish threads.

Quote from: Josephus on February 04, 2016, 10:43:04 AM
Christ...all I said was it didn't go so well for the prosecution so far. Not looking for legal advice....but generally speaking I wouldn't go to a lawyer to gauge public opinion.

Quote from: Josephus on February 05, 2016, 11:36:31 AM
"forgot"..lol. If I sent a pic of myself in a bikini to Ghameshi, I wouldn't forget...and neither would he.

Quote from: Josephus on February 05, 2016, 01:40:04 PM
Word around the office after today's testimony is another discredited witness ^*. Ghomeshi's gonna walk free ^**

* Not based on legal advice, and is purely water cooler gossip by people who are not in any way connected to the trial.

** This is not an actual verdict, but merely supposition.

Quote from: Barrister on March 24, 2016, 11:11:41 AM
Said it before, and I'll say it again - not guilty <> innocent.

Quote[139] The harsh reality is that once a witness has been shown to be deceptive and manipulative in giving their evidence, that witness cannot longer expect the Court to consider  them to  be a  trusted  source  of  the  truth. I  am  forced  to conclude that it is impossible for the Court to have sufficient faith in the reliability or sincerity of these complainants. Put simply, the volume of serious deficiencies in the evidence leaves the Court with a reasonable doubt.

Quote from: Drakken on March 24, 2016, 03:45:54 PM

Quote from: Barrister on March 24, 2016, 11:11:41 AM
Said it before, and I'll say it again - not guilty <> innocent.

You've got to be kidding, BB.

Because if not I would not want to be a defender against you, if you believe that being brought to trial automatically means a defender you find abhorrent must be guilty; that if said abhorrent defender is declared not guilty it is because his story was merely better than the Prosecutor's; that such abhorrent defender must still be declared guilty when the whole body of evidence beyond every possible doubt, comes from accusers with a vested interest of personal revenge who act extremely shady with authorities and nigh-on perjure themselves on the stand.

By this verdict, the judge has pretty much put into jurisprudence that spurned former dates do not have the right to abuse the time, resource, and energy of both the Canadian courts and public prosecutors such as yourself to destroy the life and blacken the reputation of a former paramour. It should be instead used to provide justice to real victims of sexual assault; people who need to be reassured that they will be taken seriously by authorities with all help and support to feel they deserve from the system.

Whether you don't like Gomeshi as a human being, and I agree with you the guy is a major creep, it would be intellectually dishonest to call this verdict a defeat for the Canadian justice system. On the contrary, it is a victory for Canadian justice as a whole. It means there is still presumption of innocence even when it involves highly public accusations of sexual assault, and it will help clarify what should be the threshold of evidence beyond the mere word and presumed good faith of an accuser against a presumed abuser.

Quote from: Malthus on March 24, 2016, 03:51:35 PM
Yes, it all boiled down to the credibility of the witnesses. They were found by the judge to be not credible, so the case against G. collapsed.

This sort of thing is very hard to appeal. The findings of credibility on the stand, an appellate court will be very reluctant to touch, as the trier of fact has actually seen the witnesses.

Quote from: Barrister on March 24, 2016, 03:54:38 PM

Quote from: Malthus on March 24, 2016, 03:51:35 PM
Yes, it all boiled down to the credibility of the witnesses. They were found by the judge to be not credible, so the case against G. collapsed.

This sort of thing is very hard to appeal. The findings of credibility on the stand, an appellate court will be very reluctant to touch, as the trier of fact has actually seen the witnesses.

There's no appeal here from what I can see.

Quote from: Barrister on March 24, 2016, 04:00:41 PM
What there is, however, is another set of charges still coming up for trial. :shifty:

Quote from: Barrister on March 24, 2016, 03:49:30 PM
Huh?

All I am saying is that this finding by this judge does not, and should not, be taken as an exoneration of Ghomeshi.  The Crown has a high burden to meet to establish a conviction, and the judge found that it wasn't met here. 

QuoteIt's very much the "OJ" type of verdict.

Quote from: garbon on March 24, 2016, 04:40:52 PM
So is Gomeshi part of the seduction community?

Quote from: Drakken on March 24, 2016, 04:28:01 PM
It is also extremely uncomfortable that the accusers did everything in their control to attempt to hide the simple fact... that they liked it after the fact. There, I said it. They contacted the defender afterwards because they were aroused by it and wanted more.

Quote from: Malthus on March 24, 2016, 04:02:40 PM

Quote from: Barrister on March 24, 2016, 04:00:41 PM
What there is, however, is another set of charges still coming up for trial. :shifty:

:D

That I did not know.

Quote from: Drakken on March 24, 2016, 03:45:54 PM
You've got to be kidding, BB.

Because if not I would not want to be a defender against you, if you believe that being brought to trial automatically means a defender you find abhorrent must be guilty; that if said abhorrent defender is declared not guilty it is because his story was merely better than the Prosecutor's; that such abhorrent defender must still be declared guilty when the whole body of evidence beyond every possible doubt, comes from accusers with a vested interest of personal revenge who act extremely shady with authorities and nigh-on perjure themselves on the stand.

By this verdict, the judge has pretty much put into jurisprudence that spurned former dates do not have the right to abuse the time, resource, and energy of both the Canadian courts and public prosecutors such as yourself to destroy the life and blacken the reputation of a former paramour. It should be instead used to provide justice to real victims of sexual assault; people who need to be reassured that they will be taken seriously by authorities with all help and support to feel they deserve from the system.

Whether you don't like Gomeshi as a human being, and I agree with you the guy is a major creep, it would be intellectually dishonest to call this verdict a defeat for the Canadian justice system. On the contrary, it is a victory for Canadian justice as a whole. It means there is still presumption of innocence even when it involves highly public accusations of sexual assault, and it will help clarify what should be the threshold of evidence beyond the mere word and presumed good faith of an accuser against a presumed abuser.

Quote from: garbon on March 24, 2016, 04:46:39 PM
It wasn't so much of a tease, more of a, why the fuck is Drakken so worked up on this subject?

Besides, tainted behavior stays with you for life. -_-

Quote from: Drakken on March 25, 2016, 12:11:27 PM

Quote from: garbon on March 24, 2016, 04:46:39 PM
It wasn't so much of a tease, more of a, why the fuck is Drakken so worked up on this subject?

Besides, tainted behavior stays with you for life. -_-

As your modus operandi is one of a once small time high-school bully who attempts the same tease in a high school reunion ten years later, your own tainted behavior stays with you as well. Tu quoques.

Quote
... Each charge presented against Mr. Ghomeshi is based entirely on the evidence of the complainant. Given the nature of the allegations this is not unusual or surprising; however it is significant because, as a result, the judgment of this Court depends entirely on an assessment of the credibility and the reliability of each complainant as a witness...

...In a case which turns entirely on the reliability of the evidence of the complainant, this otherwise, perhaps, innocuous error takes on greater significance. This was a central feature of her assessment of Mr. Ghomeshi as a "nice guy" and a safe date. Her description of his car was an important feature of her recollection of the first date. And yet we know that this memory is simply wrong. The impossibility of this memory makes one seriously question, what else might be honestly remembered by her and yet actually be equally wrong? This demonstrably false memory weighs in the balance against the general reliability of L.R.'s evidence as a whole...

...L.R.'s evidence in-chief seemed rational and balanced. Under cross-examination, the value of her evidence suffered irreparable damage. Defence counsel's questioning revealed inconsistencies, and incongruous and deceptive conduct. L.R. has been exposed as a witness willing to withhold relevant information from the police, from the Crown and from the Court. It is clear that she deliberately breached her oath to tell the truth. Her value as a reliable witness is diminished accordingly...

...Ms. DeCoutere repeatedly stated that Mr. Ghomeshi's suggestion about lying down together and listening to music was creepy, cheesy or otherwise unappealing. It made her instantly uncomfortable. However, five days later, when she penned him a "love letter", she wrote, "What on earth could be better than lying with you, listening to music and having peace?

...When a witness is comfortable with giving differing versions of the same event, it suggests a degree of carelessness with the truth that diminishes the general reliability of the witness...

...Lucy DeCoutere swore to the police that after the alleged assault in 2003 she only saw Mr. Ghomeshi "in passing". She was polite to him, only because she did not want to jeopardize her future professional prospects. She "didn't pursue any kind of relationship" with him. Ms. DeCoutere was asked directly by the police interviewers to tell them everything about her relationship with Mr. Ghomeshi, before and after the alleged assault. It became clear at trial that Ms. DeCoutere very deliberately chose not to be completely honest with the police. Her statement to the police was what initiated these proceedings. This statement was subject to a formal caution concerning the potential criminal consequences of making a false statement. It was given under oath, an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, not a selective version of the truth. Despite this formal caution and oath, Ms. DeCoutere proceeded to consciously suppress relevant and material information. This reflects very negatively on her general reliability and credibility as a witness. It indicates a failure to take the oath seriously and a wilful carelessness with the truth...

...I do not accept that Ms. DeCoutere could have sincerely thought that all this was inconsequential and of no interest to the prosecution. She may have been afraid to disclose this information. She may have been embarrassed to disclose this information. These would not be unreasonable feelings; but to say that she decided not to disclose this information because she thought it was of no importance is just not credible. To make matters worse, when given this last minute opportunity to make full disclosure, she still failed to do so...

...Ms. DeCoutere said her plan was to disclose all of these things [various friendly contacts with Ghomeshi] once the trial began. She said that she had always intended to reveal this information but thought that the trial would be her first chance to do so. With respect, that explanation seems unreasonable to me. Ms. DeCoutere had literally dozens of pre-trial opportunities to provide the full picture to the authorities. I suspect the truth is she simply thought that she might get away with not mentioning it...

...On July 5th 2003, within twenty-four hours of the alleged choking incident, Ms. DeCoutere emailed Mr. Ghomeshi with the message:

"Getting to know you is literally changing my mind, in a good way. You challenge me and point to stuff that has not been pulled out in a very long time. I can tell you about that sometime and everything about our friendship so far will make sense. You kicked my ass last night and that makes me want to fuck your brains out, tonight." There is not a trace of animosity, regret or offence taken, in that message.

...All of the extreme animosity expressed since going public with her complaint in 2014 stands in stark contrast to the flirtatious correspondence and interactions of 2003 and 2004, words and actions that are preserved in the emails and photographs she says she forgot about.

Let me emphasize strongly, it is the suppression of evidence and the deceptions maintained under oath that drive my concerns with the reliability of this witness, not necessarily her undetermined motivations for doing so. It is difficult to have trust in a witness who engages in the selective withholding relevant information...

...The team bond between Ms. DeCoutere and S.D. was strong. They discussed witnesses, court dates and meetings with the prosecution. They described their partnership as being "insta sisters". They shared a publicist. They initially shared the same lawyer. They spoke of together building a "Jenga Tower" against Mr. Ghomeshi. They expressed their top priority in the crude vernacular that they sometimes employed, to "sink the prick,... 'cause he's a fucking piece of shit."

...It is now apparent that in her initial interviews, S.D was putting forward her non-association with Mr. Ghomeshi after the assault, as evidence that she had reason to fear him. She said that she "always kept her distance" from Mr. Ghomeshi. She felt unsafe around Mr. Ghomeshi. In her statement to the police she acknowledged that she went out a couple of times with Mr. Ghomeshi after the alleged assault but underscored that it was always in public. She told the police that "the extent of it is, we're going to be in public." They went to a bar and they had a dinner date.

At trial, a very different truth was revealed. After meeting with Mr. Ghomeshi at a bar, in public, she took him back to her home and, to use her words, they "messed around". She gave him a "hand job". He slept there for a while then went home. This of course was dramatically contrary to her earlier statement that she "tried to stay in public with him" and keep her distance. S.D. acknowledged that her earlier comments were a deliberate lie and an intentional misrepresentation of her brief relationship with Mr. Ghomeshi.

S.D.'s decision to supress this information until the last minute, prior to trial, greatly undermines the Court's confidence in her evidence. In assessing the credibility of a witness, the active suppression of the truth will be as damaging to their reliability as a direct lie under oath...

Quote from: The Brain on March 25, 2016, 03:13:41 AM
Yeah. Those movies still get made.

Quote from: Drakken on March 24, 2016, 03:48:55 PM

Quote[139] The harsh reality is that once a witness has been shown to be deceptive and manipulative in giving their evidence, that witness cannot longer expect the Court to consider  them to  be a  trusted  source  of  the  truth. I  am  forced  to conclude that it is impossible for the Court to have sufficient faith in the reliability or sincerity of these complainants. Put simply, the volume of serious deficiencies in the evidence leaves the Court with a reasonable doubt.

That sums it all up.

Quote from: Barrister on February 04, 2016, 10:25:10 AM

Quote from: Josephus on February 04, 2016, 10:20:46 AM
I'll bow down to the wisdom of you lawyers....but, media think otherwise.

In fact they're saying things like:

Her credibility had been demolished beyond repair. Her evidence of such jaw-dropping self-immolating proportions that it verged on farce.

Don't take legal advice from the media.

Quote from: katmai on March 28, 2016, 08:40:20 PM
Beeb's not a real lawyer, i mean he doesn't even had a JD

Quote from: Josephus on March 28, 2016, 08:30:38 PM

Quote from: Barrister on February 04, 2016, 10:25:10 AM

Quote from: Josephus on February 04, 2016, 10:20:46 AM
I'll bow down to the wisdom of you lawyers....but, media think otherwise.

In fact they're saying things like:

Her credibility had been demolished beyond repair. Her evidence of such jaw-dropping self-immolating proportions that it verged on farce.

Don't take legal advice from the media.

Just saying. Media 1 Lawyers 0

QuoteI'll wait to the end of the trial to assess the evidence, but I will say this - don't ever think one can outsmart a good cross-examiner. If it didn't work for Oscar Wilde, it won't work for you. 

Quote from: Malthus on March 29, 2016, 09:27:28 AM

Quote from: Josephus on March 28, 2016, 08:30:38 PM

Quote from: Barrister on February 04, 2016, 10:25:10 AM

Quote from: Josephus on February 04, 2016, 10:20:46 AM
I'll bow down to the wisdom of you lawyers....but, media think otherwise.

In fact they're saying things like:

Her credibility had been demolished beyond repair. Her evidence of such jaw-dropping self-immolating proportions that it verged on farce.

Don't take legal advice from the media.

Just saying. Media 1 Lawyers 0

Hey, I hope you aren't including me in that score - I called it.  ;)

QuoteI'll wait to the end of the trial to assess the evidence, but I will say this - don't ever think one can outsmart a good cross-examiner. If it didn't work for Oscar Wilde, it won't work for you. 

Quote from: Drakken on May 10, 2016, 08:33:47 AM
Prosecution is due to drop the last charges remaining on Ghomeshi today, in exchange of him signing a peace bond not to breach peace by contacting the last complainant for a year.

Quote
I hope the CBC lawyers are ready... I expect him to sue their ass off for litigious termination.

Quote from: Drakken on May 10, 2016, 08:33:47 AM
I hope the CBC lawyers are ready... I expect him to sue their ass off for litigious termination.

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 10, 2016, 06:40:43 PM

Quote from: Drakken on May 10, 2016, 08:33:47 AM
I hope the CBC lawyers are ready... I expect him to sue their ass off for litigious termination.

He already tried that well before the criminal proceedings.  His claim was thrown out and costs were awarded to the CBC.

Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2016, 09:23:43 AM
I hate plea "deals" like this.  Don't get me wrong - peace bonds have their time and place, but this was a historical assault where they haven't been in touch for years.  If the Crown thinks their case stinks, they should just pull it.

Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2016, 08:53:57 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 10, 2016, 06:40:43 PM

Quote from: Drakken on May 10, 2016, 08:33:47 AM
I hope the CBC lawyers are ready... I expect him to sue their ass off for litigious termination.

He already tried that well before the criminal proceedings.  His claim was thrown out and costs were awarded to the CBC.

IIRC he withdrew the lawsuit, presumably without prejudice.