Man cuts off his own finger…on purpose

In a fit of rage I can never image pursuing, a Portuguese man has cut off his own finger with a butchers knife.  In court.  On the defence table.

A judge refused his offer to settle a 170,000 euro debt and said part of his farm must be sold. 

The craziest part is that the man himself said that

“"My intention was to tear up all the case papers and splatter them with blood so I could prevent the expropriation order for my land,"”

I don’t really think that would have stopped anything, but it does go to show just how emotional and frustrated this man was. 

Without more details its hard to go into the legal specifics of this case, but I frankly can’t understand why a judge would refuse an offer to pay the debt directly and would order the sale of part of the property.  I can only assume that the Court had some information not provided in the news clip, but if they did not than this sounds a lot like it offends the principles of justice.

[Source: Reuters]

You can be drunk on the job in Peru

The Constitutional Tribunal of Peru (Peru’s top court) decided back in January of 2009 that workers cannot be fired for being drunk on the job.

It’s an extremely controversial decision and one, quite frankly, I do not support.

North American labour law would absolutely allow the firing of someone for being intoxicated at work.  There are, however, exceptions, where the company may be forced to send the employee into a rehabilitation program instead of merely dismissing them.

The reasoning of the court is interesting:

The firing was excessive because even though Cayo was drunk, he did not offend or hurt anybody, Fernando Calle, one of the justices, said on Wednesday.

I do understand why the court felt the need to help this man, but at the same time it is unacceptable to relax the workplace rules like this. 

Celso Becerra, the administrative chief of Chorrillos, a suburb of Lima, denounced the ruling.

"We've fired four workers for showing up drunk, and two of them were drivers," he said. "How can we allow a drunk to work who might run somebody over?"

[Source: Reuters]

Sorcery Murders in Papua New Guinea

Apparently murders based on accusations of sorcery have been a growing problem in Papua New Guinea.  So much so that the government had announced that they are planning to toughen laws to combat it.

In 2008, more than 50 people were murdered and the defendants were simply using claims that the victims were magic-makers as an excuse.

This is not okay.  Especially because the justice system couldn’t handle it.  The article says:

Prosecuting those who kill these so-called magic makers within tight-knit communities is problematic, they add, and rural courts often acquit those who are made to stand trial.

I completely understand the debate that goes on between the cultural traditions (in terms of the continuing old fears) and the newer secular laws.  But in the end, there needs to be laws in place that protect individuals. 

[Source: BBC]

Service dog scam

   This is a horrific story, but one that makes you think about the consequences of contract law and the law of sales.

The basic premise to this story is that a Mark Rinkel, who was 13 at the time, raised enough money to buy a service dog for his little brother James.  James suffers from Type 1 Diabetes, which is highly dangerous for children and can easily result in death.

This dog was designed to detect dangerous drops in James’ blood sugar levels  and was supposed to make some sort of commotion to alert others.

Mark had raised $17,000 for this dog.  He used $6,000 to buy the dog from a company called Heaven Scent Paws, and then donated the rest of the money to the company as a way to subsidize dogs for others.  So far, so good, right?

The issue arises because Mark and his family allege that the dog (Jedi) was not, in essence, fit for purpose.  Jedi did not detect the blood sugar drop and was frightened of strangers to the point of allegedly biting some.  This is a major issue for service dogs.  They are supposed to be trained to not get spooked easily and to deal well with others.  This is part of the reason they are allowed everywhere.   Apparently they are not the only ones who are unhappy with the company, as the Missouri Attorney General has filed a lawsuit following 28 complaints.

The company responds by saying

"A core group of about 10 families who are unhappy with Heaven Scent Paws never followed through on their contractual relationship with the company, including the follow-up care and training at home," Bandre said. "These are people who expected to get home with the dog who alerted 100 percent of the time right away, and frankly, that defies logic after a one-week class in Missouri."

The Rinkel family took this dog to seven experts who unanimously testified that the dog was unfit to be a service dog.

What appears to be at the core of this issue is a few issues.  One, whether this would qualify as the sale of goods or services.  For the most part, that distinction is irrelevant as there is still a certain amount of implied warranty in the sense that simply by selling something the vendor is warranting a certain level of fitness for purpose.  I believe this is where the case will turn.  The Company appears to be arguing that the onus is on the family to continue the training to eventually receive a proper service dog.  The family is stating that the company misrepresented themselves by suggesting their dogs were already ready.

I believe it is more complicated than that and that service dogs and health services should be held to a higher standard than other vendors.  Basically, since lives depend on these animals, there should be a higher guarantee of fitness for purpose.  Now we have to see if the courts agree.

[Source: Denver Post]

Ontario alcohol inspectors get lambasted

For those of you who have ever been to Ottawa, many of you will know of D’Arcy McGees.  It’s a pretty popular little pub in a very busy area of downtown.

This article, despite it being mainly a rant by a journalist against the liquor inspectors, does provide for some useful discussion.

Ontario’s system of liquor inspectors is run through the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO), which reviews ‘incidents’ in an administrative tribunal setting.

When an inspector has an issue, he or she makes a report to the AGCO and a panel of two board members hears the complaint.  The issue with administrative tribunals, especially those who feed themselves by actively seeking complaints, is one of self-interest.  Unlike many other tribunals which respond to complaints issued by the public, the AGCO sends its inspectors to various locations and provides them with significant amounts of discretion.

The article does make a strange quote:

“It gets worse -- unlike a criminal court, where the prosecution has to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, to a high evidentiary standard, at an AGCO hearing, the burden of proof is much lower -- on the balance of probability -- as is an evidentiary standard that allows the use of hearsay.”

Now, perhaps my understanding of the law of evidence is not absolute, but I do not believe that the use of hearsay is always allowed in cases where a balance of probability is used as the standard of proof.  It is, however, generally allowed in most (if not all) administrative tribunal proceedings.  This is not unusual, yet in a case where the offence hinges on the inspector’s assessment of whether or not a bar patron is intoxicated, this could easily be problematic.

According to the AGCO, an inspector is to look for a patron who is talking too loudly, slurring, sweating and is off balance.  It’s a bit subjective, because I do know several people who are like that on a daily basis.

The reporter also harangues the government for, essentially, eavesdropping.  The liquor inspector is able to use his or her overhearing of your conversation as evidence against you.  The report states that “Much worse that government is encroaching on the rights of the individual to the extent that a supposedly private conversation becomes a matter of public record. The Ministry of Truth would have approved.”  Hyperbolic, sure, but no less alarming.  With the allowance of hearsay evidence, the inspector can freely supply whatever snippets of conversation he or she believed he overheard, all of which can be used as evidence against the bar in question.

There’s not a lot more to this story except for the apparent rise of incidents coming before the AGCO in the last 10 years.  The reporter states that it is a rise of nearly 60%.  That is significant, but without context it is difficult to know if this is partially due to the growth of bars in Ontario or some other factor. 

Still, I believe the issue to take away from this story is merely that the structure of the AGCO seems to seem support overzealous liquor inspectors.  The AGCO is dependent on its inspectors to, in a sense, drum up ‘business’ in order to justify its existence and the current level of staffing.  Now, to a certain extent, they are clearly doing a necessary job.  However, it’s alarming that there does not appear to be the transparency and accountability expected of publicly funded tribunals.

[Source: National Post]

Defense of Marriage Act

This is fundamentally one of the worst pieces of legislation that has ever been crafted by human hands.  So bad, that even the man who originally wrote the DOMA is in favour of having it rescinded.

For those who are unaware, Bob Barr is the man who is responsible for one of the most reprehensible things to come through Congress.  The DOMA, enacted in 1996, federally recognizes only heterosexual marriages.

As of today, Bob Barr has officially introduced legislation designed to repeal the DOMA, and sadly the Obama administration is in trying its best to protect it.  It’s a tough position, because while they are defending the technical merits of the legislation, they still are taking pains to state that they still oppose it.  The Obama administration has admitted in court that they want it repealed and that it is discriminatory.

“Consistent with the rule of law, however, the Department of Justice has long followed the practice of defending federal statutes as long as reasonable arguments can be made in support of their constitutionality, even if the department disagrees with a particular statute as a policy matter, as it does here,’’ the attorneys said.”

This really, truly, illustrates the interesting position that government lawyers are in.  I truly believe that, more so than in private practice, government tests a lawyers ethics.  In many situations, government lawyers must defend policies that they truly disagree with.  In private practice, there is usually a situation where you have to defend a client you don’t like or that you believe is guilty of something.  But the implications of that case are rarely as far reaching as a government policy.