Thursday, 22 August 2019

What does the NPCA stand for?

According to the NPCA the acronym stands for Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority.
.
'News Alert Niagara' believes the acronym does stand for The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority but with emphasis on Peninsula Conservation!
.
The acronym NPCA does NOT stand for Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority with exceptions!
.
For instance: the NPCA should not boldly claim to be the guardians of water resources with the exception of risk to our groundwater by Corporations; $Billionairs;  Developers; Political influence or those making generous $contributions to the NPCA!
.
The NPCA does not have the right to brag about their concern and effort to protect our water while making excuses for not making a lot of noise when it comes to any and all risks to our water.
.

Kim Gavine, General Manager, Conservation Ontario says he was taken by surprise that the Ontario government has starting to become aware of the specious and even criminal activities being perpetrated against innocent Citizens.
.
After decades of empire building and coning society of their great value at protecting our environment, we have spent $billions only to arrive at devastated families, polluted beaches, polluted great lakes, polluted rivers, polluted groundwater and leaching carcinogenic toxins; why, it's almost impossible to imagine how we ever got along without them!
.
With $Hundreds of Millions at stake, Citizens expect our government to better husband our resources both environmental as well as financial. 
.
The Citizen deserves more than excuses, doubletalk, and abuse from our supposed conservation authorities.
.
.Don't forget to tap the Blue Links to complete the story
.





Please consider supporting the Constitutional Challenge on Private Property Rights

Wednesday, 21 August 2019

Ontario Superior Court decision


The following Ontario Superior Court decision drives home the fact that our 'Small Claims Court' has been stolen from the Citizens of Ontario.
.
.Once we had a 'Small Claims Court System' that allowed Ontario Citizens the ability to sort out their differences without the undue burdens of legal incumbrances of expensive lawyers, Paralegals and clever legal wizardry. 
.
Following in the footsteps of former failed societies our 'would-be tyrants' design rules and regulations primarily to suit themselves; seldom for the Citizen!
The most ridiculous example is having a Prime Minister of Canada that can Lie, Cheat and break Ethical Rules at will, while his elitist ilk criminally destroys Canadian Citizens!
.
Disclosure obligations are not just evidentiary
 A recent Ontario Superior Court decision shows that If a lawyer fails to disclose, the client faces the consequences, says Daniel Waldman
Disclosure obligations are not just evidentiary
By Daniel Waldman
OPINION 12 Aug 2019



 There is no such thing as trial by ambush. There are no hidden, smoking guns or last-minute reveals. Both sides must show their whole hand and disclose all relevant evidence, whether it is helpful or harmful to their cases.

A recent Superior Court decision has confirmed that our disclosure obligations are not just evidentiary. In Blake v. Blake, 2019 ONSC 4062 Justice Peter Daley held that lawyers are obligated to make the court aware of all legally relevant authorities, even if it undermines their client’s case. This rule holds true regardless of whether opposing counsel cites the authority or not. If a lawyer fails to meet this obligation, their client may face the consequences.
Blake was an estates matter, wherein an estate trustee brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss an application brought by his siblings. The motion was heard by Daley in September of 2018 and was reserved until March, 2019, when it was dismissed.
In his reasons, Daley cited the decision of Wall v. Shaw and he noted that it was “both unfortunate and troubling” that neither counsel brought this decision to his attention, as it completely sunk the moving party’s motion. Wall was decided by the Ontario Superior Court in March of 2018, six months before Blake was heard and it was upheld by the Court of Appeal in November of that year, while Blake was under reserve.
In his costs endorsement, Daley cited “serious concerns” with the moving party’s lawyer, both in terms of his duties as an officer of the court and his candour with opposing counsel. The concern stemmed from the fact that Wall was not brought to the court’s attention during oral submissions or while the decision was under reserve.
Daley stated that after the motion was argued he easily discovered Wall on his own while reviewing the applicable law. During his review, he also came across a blog post on Wall dated November 16, 2018. The post was written by a lawyer at the same firm as the lawyer for the moving party. Given that the firm is a small, specialized estates-litigation practice, Daley had “easily drawn the factual inference” that Wall was known by the lawyer when the post was published. He also came to the “very troubling conclusion” that the lawyer intentionally did not bring Wall to his attention.
Daley held that the lawyer’s actions amounted to a breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically, counsel has a positive duty to fully disclose all binding authorities that are relevant to a case, even if they are adverse and are not cited by opposing counsel. In such situations, lawyers must raise relevant cases and distinguish them. By failing to bring Wall to Daley’s attention, the lawyer was deemed to have breached his duty to the court.
As a consequence, substantial indemnity costs were awarded against his client. Interestingly, Daley made this order even though opposing counsel did not allege lawyer misconduct in his costs submissions.
Blake was thorough and well-reasoned, but it still raises questions about a lawyer’s disclosure obligations.
First, how can it be proven that a lawyer knew about a case and intentionally hid it from the court? In Blake, Daley’s inference was fair; the lawyer was a name partner at a small, specialized firm and the blog post was written by another name partner at the same firm. It was therefore reasonable to infer that he knew about the decision.
But what would happen in other circumstances? In Daley’s reasons, he stated that if a lawyer practices in a specialized area and the case is easy to find, the court may deem that the lawyer ought to have known about the decision and will therefore be under a duty to raise it. This finding creates some concern. Despite our best efforts, we all miss a case sometimes. After all, in Blake, opposing counsel has been practising for over 35 years and is experienced in estate litigation and he didn’t cite Wall either.
The next question is about how deep a lawyer’s obligation runs when it comes to disclosing adverse law. Again, Daley’s reasoning was fair in this regard; Wall completely tanked the motion, so perhaps the lawyer should have raised it in order to distinguish it.
But what if Wall carried less weight? Would the obligation be the same? Daley stated that cases that are “not binding but are persuasive need not necessarily be provided to the court, however counsel should nonetheless raise a case if it is on point and from the same jurisdiction.”
This reasoning makes sense, but it is difficult to delineate the meaning of a case being “on point” in different circumstances. What if the case is important but is not necessarily a deal-breaker? Would a lawyer be safe keeping the case out of his or her factum, or should they err on the side of caution and cite the case, even though it would hurt their client’s position? Those judgment calls are not always easy to make.
Lastly, perhaps the most concerning aspect of Blake was that Daley held that the lawyer should have brought Wall to his attention while his decision was reserved. Does this mean that we have to keep a close eye on the law while we are waiting for a decision to come out and send adverse cases to the judge? Waiting for a reserved decision is difficult enough, but adding that extra obligation may cause us to lose even more sleep.
Blake is currently being appealed. It will be interesting to see whether the Court of Appeal addresses the questions raised by Daley’s decision. If Daley’s reasoning is upheld, it may create difficult situations for us in balancing our duties to our clients and the court. If a case hurts our clients’ argument and we opt not to disclose it, we may be doing a good service to our clients. However, if we are deemed to have misled the court by failing to raise the decision, our clients may pay the price, both figuratively and literally.

Don't forget to support the Constitutional Challenge on Private Property Rights

Monday, 12 August 2019

'BANANA REPUBLIC'

Lawless Nations are Branded with a not-so-pleasant name of 'BANANA REPUBLIC'.
.
When does a nation that refuses to defend its 'laws of the land' start to take on the mantle of 'BANANA REPUBLIC'?
.
Canadian Society is facing an ever increasing assault on 'Rights and Freedoms'. 
.
We are fighting the government in all its corrupt forms
.
As an example, the attack on our property rights starts at the very top of government. If the government was upholding property rights or all 'laws of the land' we would NOT be in this fight. It is the responsibility of the government to fight for our 'Rights and Freedoms'! 
.
We have an agency called the 'Attorney General's Office' in place, supposedly to uphold our laws including property rights! 
.
However, it now appears that the Attorney General’s office is there to protect government; not to investigate criminal activity perpetrated by the government.
.
When we go into court to defend our property rights or any corruption of government including their empire building agencies the Attorney General's Office will be standing against us! 
.
The very fight for our rights is inherently political, and as has been said, everything is political and all politics is local. 
.
Our fight falls under our 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms', and those responsible to uphold our 'Rights and Freedoms' must be held politically responsible. 
.
.
Many of our efforts will likely end up in the supreme court where the decision will be above the provincial level. 
.
Necessity dictates that the fight is on two fronts; one is in the courts of law where very few will learn of the outcome and the other is in the court of public opinion where those shirking their duty must face a fully aware public.
.
It is not the job of the Citizen to fight for 'Rights and Freedoms. It is up to The Attorney General to uphold the law!
.
News Alert Niagara's only effort is to raise the alarm and that is exactly what we are doing.




 Don't forget to support the Constitutional Challenge on Private Property Rights


Friday, 9 August 2019

Dear Regional Council,



On December 7, 2017 someone among to Niagara Regional Council committed criminal mischief (430) by deliberately painting me as a undesirable person who would attempt to surreptitiously record a closed session of council.
.
I asked to speak to then Chair Caslin. I asked to present to council. I asked for the return of my recorder. Even regime chair Bradley refuses to talk to me.
.
I'm continually blocked from presenting to council based of the stated excuse that my concerns are not on the 'agenda'.
.
Your regime says to get my recorder from the NRP. 
.
The NRP says to give me back my recorder the regime demands that my recording on my recorder must be redacted. There are multiple recordings on my recorder that are my property that the Ontario Ombudsman says have been unlawfully denied me.
.
All evidence clearly shows what happened after I left the chamber to use the bathroom facilities.
.
Since no one of your regime wants to mitigate my embarrassment and the harm your regime has caused to my good name then you can explain to your constituents why you have forced me to take legal action.
.
Preston Haskell
Editor, News Alert Niagara





Wednesday, 7 August 2019

The Color of Black


Why would an NPCA official say that ‘the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing’?
.

Would it be because there are too many cooks in the kitchen; too many impoverating authorities, agencies, committees, ministries, municipalities, Auditor Generals, Attorney Generals, Sales Tax, Revenue Agency, Ministry of the Environment, Lands and forests, Department of Mines and Fisheries,  Border Security, Police Departments, Humane societies by the dozens, not to mention corrupt CA’s by the multi-dozens just to mention a few. 
.
According to Government Documents the list of Canadian federal departments, agencies, crown corporations, special operating agencies and various affiliated organizations is too large and changes too frequently to list them all here. Then of course we start again with the impoverating provincial mother lode of corrupt empire builders trying to justify their existence, not to mention 6 million laws. Apologies for those we have missed.
.
So, what do we have? After all the deceptions related to pollutions, contaminates, toxins and other illness-causing poisons being deliberately dumped where they should never be dumped, we are faced with every
excuse known to man and for what? For money, for profit, for the benefit of people who would sell the health of innocent Citizens in their quest to put pocket above all!
.
Who can the Citizen turn too with their reasonable concerns?
.
You run to your municipal authorities who display an attitude of impotence.
.
You contact the agencies that profess to be the protectors of the environment only to hear professional reasons why the so-called protectors can’t do a damned thing about the job they were mandated or at least expected to do.
.
.
Case in point; a stone quarry dug meters below the water table; the water table providing the safewater for thousands of Citizens and under threat by a corporation wanting to fill the quarry with what our local newspaper calls ‘non-hazardous soil from construction projects’.
.
Question: Just what Non-Hazardous soil comes from Construction Projects in the color of Black?
.
That is the deceptive language the Media used to help squalid authorities to hide the internationally infamous ‘Love Canal’; it is now the deceptive media language to cover-up the black poison of Mount Carcinogen in Welland, Ontario, Canada and it is the same deceptive language being spewed to persuade alarmed Citizens that their clean water aquifer is not in jeopardy!
.
. And just what is the excuse that the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) uses to duck out of their responsibility? The NPCA points to ‘the Water Act’ as the reason their hands are tied. Interesting that the ‘Water Act’ didn’t stop the NPCA from using the same ‘Water Act’ aquifer to criminally destroy the Barnfield Family!
.
It's astonishing that anyone, least of all a 'Conservation Authority', would cite 'The Water act' , which was born of ignorance and arrogance for allowing a water well to be drilled downhill from a manure yard as an excuse to risk the filling of a below-water-table stone quarry without assurance!
If there is a conflict in the rules and regulations, then it is up to the 'authority in question' to say so, to do something about the conflict, to not just collect wages in ignorant silence!
.
Since the NPCA found it reasonable to offer a half-hearted apology to a former board member who was abused for his honest candor, wouldn’t it be equally appropriate to ask the Attorney General to investigate the horrendous crimes against innocent Niagara Citizens perpetrated by the past NPCA officials?
.
When the Citizen asks anything of the 600 Lawyer Attorney General’s Office the ready reply is ‘go get a Lawyer!’
.
So, now it appears that the Attorney General’s office is there to protect government; not to investigate criminal activity perpetrated by the government.
.
What was that line; ‘the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing’?
.
Just in case the Attorney General is unaware of the situations taking place in our provincial courts please allow this writer to apprise the AG on only one day of sitting through several cases, while waiting for the case of my interest to come forward. First up was a case of a man who held a knife to the throat of a convenience clerk. However, the accused was in drug rehab and penniless. $100.00 fine and a few hours community service. Second case: a man convicted of stealing $17K power equipment from a construction trailer; in drug rehab, penniless and yes, you guessed it, this thief received a $10. fine and a few hours community service.
.
The case of interest to me came forward regarding a man accused of an environmental infraction (not for damaging the environment) but for supposedly contravening the NPCA rules! Fined $thousands plus victim impact fees, an all court costs on top of his own defense costs.
.
No wonder our courts are not televised!
.
However, people are becoming aware of the hypocrisy, the bovine waste coming at them by the bucket full and they don’t like it. People are reacting and voting out incumbents on a grand scale as evidenced in the electoral massacre of 2018 Niagara.
.
News Alert Niagara is on record exposing the corruption inherent in our system. 
.
Cunning deceitful practices, duplicitous double dealing by any government and/or government agency will no longer go unnoticed.

'News Alert Niagara' provides a comment section below which is an excellent place for those we have elected and/or hired to explain how hazardous materials, raw sewage and industrial waste is allowed to pollute our lakes and rivers and poison our life-giving drinking water, while destroying the lives of Citizens on trumped up and specious minor infractions.

.







Thursday, 1 August 2019

The Chicken Thief

There once was a man standing trial accused of stealing chickens when in conclusion the judge told him that due to the lack of evidence the man was aquitted.

The bewildered accused replied: "Does that mean I have to give them back?" 
.
Question: Does that mean the acquitted chicken thief would be required to give the chickens back?
.
Well now we finally have a definitive 'Supreme Court' decision stating that the imposition of a 'Victim Surcharge' is 'UNCONSTITUTIONAL' under our 'Charter of Rights'.
.
Does this definitive 'Supreme Court' decision mean that the moneys 'stolen' will have to be given Back?
.
For those that follow such things the Case #37782; 37783; 37774; 37427 between 

PS: It appears that with so many Citizens challenging the 'Chicken Thieves' 
one might conclude that the 'Chickens are coming home to roost'
.

Click HERE to protect your private property from predatory Bureaucrats



Monday, 29 July 2019

Niagara Regime's Solution to Homelessness


The Niagara Regime Authority's solution to homelessness is to divest themselves of the problem; to wash their hands of responsibility for the homeless; to spend more of the taxpayer's hard earned money to pay someone else to take the blame for the Regime's failure. 

.
Government in the Niagara Region is classic example of the cost of over-governance being the prime cause of homelessness.
.
News Alert Niagara is stating its belief that the Region is headed in the wrong direction. 
.
Continually adding new costly committees, agencies, or government entities of any name is the mantra of every failed society throughout history. 
.
It's in the governments inimical style to just form another committee, agency or ministry to do the job that we have hired or elected them to do.
.
Our Canadian government is responsible for the fastest growing poverty rate anywhere in the world and the government in Niagara is no exception. In fact Niagara with a population of approximately 450K is the most over-governed area in the country! Government is the primary cause of homelessness predicated on the exponential expansion of government causing the rising cost of home ownership

Logistics tells us that it is a mathematical certainty that the current trajectory of our Canadian Governments (Niagara included) will lead to societal collapse! 
.
So, after decades of feckless rhetoric what is the Niagara Regime's answer to the problem of homelessness? 
.
Contrive ANOTHER BUREAUCRACY to drive up the cost of home ownership! 
.
.
.

Click HERE to protect your private property from predatory Bureaucrats