News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 1K     5 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 781     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 1.4K     0 

Rob Ford's Toronto

Status
Not open for further replies.
dforthandbview said:
So if I make a video where I threaten to kill someone but I do it in the voice of Elvis Presley while shaking my hips, I'm fine and I can use it as my defense in court? Good to know.
Click to expand...

Just don't use their name and you're in the clear. Doesn't seem that crazy to me.

As an aside: DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY SCOOPS OR INSIDE KNOWLEDGE OF ANYTHING? I am suffering from RoFo Arrest Watch withdrawal.
 
dforthandbview said:
So if I make a video where I threaten to kill someone but I do it in the voice of Elvis Presley while shaking my hips, I'm fine and I can use it as my defense in court? Good to know.
Click to expand...

The defense is that the video was filmed long after Scott MacIntyre beating. The 'imitating a pro wrestler' thing is only relevant insofar as it situates the video in time around 2013.

From this angle, it's not nearly as bad a legal defense. I think he has a good chance of beating this so long as it's his word against MacIntyre's. The real damage to Ford might come from whatever dirty laundry gets dragged out in the process.
 
mdash said:
But wouldn't he be embarrassed having his name associated with the Hulk Hogan defense? Wouldn't he push Ford to come up with something better, or perhaps just forgo using an explanation of the circumstances under which the video was recorded? (It's likely obvious by now I have little experience with the law.)
Click to expand...

Who knows whether the lawyer pushed for for a more plausible defence but this was the best Ford could provide. As to whether the lawyer would be "embarrassed": no, but not in the same way that the Nayshun feels no shame about continuing to support Ford. Lawyers perceive themselves as standing apart from their clients' disputes (unless their client wins the dispute, in which case the lawyer sees the win as a reflection of the lawyer's skill).
 
jml said:
The 'imitating a pro wrestler' thing is only relevant insofar as it situates the video in time around 2013.
Click to expand...

But doesn't the claim still need to be credible? Won't it still be subjected to some kind of scrutiny to determine whether it is?

I'm imagining snorts, chuckles, and giggles when that gets trotted out.
 
And won't Ford's prior comments about the video be admissible? "I was wasted, I don't remember, I don't know who I was talking about?"
 
retailestate said:
And the crazy batsh1t continues - Ford voted to kill tree planting in the budget but goes on to tour the Guild and review the ice storm damage...
Click to expand...

You think maybe R&D Ford were bright enough to prepare themselves by persuing the documentation in GM28.10 Guild Inn-Revitalization and Development of Resaurant and Banquet Centre Facilities particularly the Confiential Attachment before rushing headlong and paraphasing "We'll play it by ear" until the summer"?

It might be interesting to hear what the Developer has to say, same with the local Councillor Paul Ainslie
 
retailestate said:
I sent a note to the Ministry as I'm pretty sure it is sitting too close to the 400's "right of way".

Shouldn't be too surpised - we all know from the last "sign" debacle that "Ferd Nayshun" can't "spell or read good at all..."
Click to expand...

Does that still apply if the sign is on private property? I'm fairly certain that this one is, but I couldn't say for certain.
 
James_D said:
There were other people present. Can they be called to testify or be required to make a statement?
Click to expand...

A subpoena (called a Summons to Witness) can be issued in an Ontario civil action to compel a person who is not a party to the action to attend at trial and testify (i.e., the plaintiff cannot subpoena the defendant or vice versa). It is possible to ask the court to order that a non-party be compelled to attend and answer questions under oath at the pre-trial discovery stage, but that is very rarely ordered (e.g., if the party who would be discovered is mentally incompetent, or if the non-party uniquely possesses some information that could be highly important to the case).
 
Last edited:
GavinTheAlmighty said:
Does that still apply if the sign is on private property? I'm fairly certain that this one is, but I couldn't say for certain.
Click to expand...

They measure the exclusion zone for all signs - permitted (approved) or not - from the edge of the roadway. Private property or not - doesn't matter. Only exception of any consequence are Realtor signs and they have strict size restrictions.
 
retailestate said:
They measure the exclusion zone for all signs - permitted (approved) or not - from the edge of the roadway. Private property or not - doesn't matter. Only exception of any consequence are Realtor signs and they have strict size restrictions.
Click to expand...

DSC said:
It needs permit whether on private or public land. The question is, Does it have one?
Click to expand...

Thanks kindly for the explanation!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top