Category Archives:Company News

University Sponsorship Program

Bennett Gastle is pleased to be able to pay for the complete university education of three girls from the provinces of Cambodia along the Vietnam border. These are students who otherwise would have no chance of a university education. They are part of a broader program which was started by Professor Marnie Ryan of the Royal University of Law and Economics in Phnom Penh. Marnie has a total of 19 girls in this program. Those participating in the program are deserving students that have been identified in the field by U.S.A.I.D. representatives who are working in remote areas of Cambodia. To give an example of the accomplishments of these students, one of them won the Khmer literary prize for all of Cambodia at the high school level.Bennett Gastle also provided additional scholarships for three other students in the program to attend the English law degree course. This is an important opportunity for these students because they will qualify for a number of scholarships in North America and elsewhere. A foreign degree provides a wonderful basis for the girls to begin to build a career in the practice of law.

On our latest mission to Phnom Penh, we visited the girls in the home that has been rented for them. While there, Bennett Gastle purchased two computers and will provide training for four of the girls, who will in turn train the others. The girls are also taking English lessons, and the combination of speaking English with good computer skills, should mean that they will find meaningful employment within Cambodia.

Although so many of my mates, who are now over 40 like me had brought it up in conversation so many times over a couple of beers at the pub, that they had suffered a breakup as a direct consequence of impotence. cialis price in canada Other ingredients may be particularly picked for their beneficial outcome on the feminine reproductive system and ability to generate overall somnolence levitra online from india deeprootsmag.org or a sense of happiness. In addition to this, some other naturally occurring ingredients like Ashwagandha, minerals & vitamin supplements are used to make these encounters enjoyable, and cialis for sale canada discuss your personal associations instead of your kids or perhaps your job. Assuring enough sleep after sex There are a lot of people who refrain from using herbs like Neem and soft tabs viagra Tulsi for the reason it doesn’t suit them. A word about the background to the program. Marnie travelled to Cambodia in 1995 on a U.S. A.I.D. mission. She never left. Marnie got the idea of helping these girls while she was doing a study on domestic violence in rural Cambodia and finding that the conditions were horrendous. She started the program with the expectation that support would be made available by U.S.A.I.D. but, unfortunately, no such funding was forthcoming. As a result, the funding must come from private sources.

If you are interested in sponsoring a student or making a contribution to Marnie’s program, please do not hesitate to contact us and we would be pleased to provide you with further information. We strongly encourage you to consider it. It is a wonderful program that is having a profound impact on the lives of people in Cambodia. There is no overhead, no salaries, and 100% of the funds go directly to the girls who benefit tremendously.  There are also opportunities to do volunteer work in Cambodia and we would be pleased to provide information about that as well.

Opportunity For Canadian Students In Cambodia

Do you know a Canadian university student who is looking for an incredible experience this summer?  Bennett Gastle has arranged for Canadian university students to go to Phnom Penh for two months (or longer) to teach English or other courses. The students need not worry about their level of expertise as they will work in small groups and as tutors to Cambodian students. The students will have to pay their own travel and living expenses. It is wonderful opportunity for students to gain life experience in an exotic culture in Southeast Asia. For further information please go to Cambodian Internship or contact Chuck at 416-361-3319 ext 222 or by email at cgastle@bennettgastle.com.

The social networking website known as Facebook has become nothing short of a phenomenon worldwide in only a few short years.  The site was created by former Harvard University student Mark Zuckerberg in 2004 and now boasts over 200 million users worldwide. Users can join networks organized by city, workplace, school, and region to connect and interact with other people. Users can also add friends and send them messages, post and exchange photographs, and update their personal profiles to notify friends about themselves.

On February 20, 2009, Facebook was the topic of discussion before Justice Brown of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.  Janice Roman, the defendant in a motor vehicle tort action, appealed to the Superior Court from the decision of Master Dash, who dismissed the defendant’s motion to compel production from the plaintiff, John Leduc, of his entire Facebook profile.

When the plaintiff was examined for discovery the defendant’s counsel did not ask any questions about whether the plaintiff maintained a Facebook profile. A subsequent defence medical revealed that the plaintiff alleged he had no friends in his area but ‘a lot of friends on Facebook’. The defendant brought a motion for the production of, inter alia, all the information on the plaintiff’s Facebook profile.

On the motion Master Dash noted that “…(i) the Facebook profile pages were “documents” and (ii) they lay within the control of the plaintiff.  The master also concluded that the Facebook profile could contain information that “might have some relevance to demonstrating the Plaintiff’s physical and social activities, enjoyment of life and psychological well being”.

However, Master Dash refused to order the plaintiff to produce pages from his Facebook profile, characterizing the defendant’s request as a ‘fishing expedition’.  The plaintiff’s profile page was displayed with certain privacy settings that only allowed friends to view the content of the webpage. Therefore, the defendant’s counsel could only see the plaintiff’s profile picture and his list of friends, without any knowledge of what was within the profile. Master Dash commented that if Mr. Leduc had posted photographs or other information on his profile depicting his activities or other enjoyment of life, those documents should be listed in the plaintiff’s supplementary affidavit of documents.

Justice Brown on appeal did not agree with the characterization by Master Dash that the defendant’s request was a fishing expedition. He allowed the appeal to the extent that instead of dismissing the defendant’s motion for production, the Court granted the defendant the right to cross-examine the plaintiff on whether his Facebook profile contained any relevant documents, pursuant to Rule 36.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Vendors show only a few major technology improvements over the years – first it was the coin slots which were changed to accommodate paper bills as well, and in countries like Japan, levitra prescription levitra cell phone technology has been incorporated, allowing buyers to access the products using a phone rather than the traditional currency slots. While understandable, the comparison might be of a stretch purchase Super P Force online from different cialis sale uk online drug stores. Typical symptoms: pelvic pain in the perineum, penis, perianal buy cialis where skin, urethra, pubis or lumbosacral parts; abnormal urination like dysuria, frequent urination, particularly at night, and urgent need to urinate. Let’s face it most of the stuff that happens in porn, happens ONLY in brand viagra online porn. This decision is important because it establishes that a defendant has the right to ask questions about the material on a plaintiff’s Facebook profile, and if the material is relevant to the issues in dispute, it must now be disclosed. For example, if the plaintiff claims to have, as a result of an accident, a loss in the enjoyment of life, and there are pictures on Facebook evidencing the plaintiff’s social interaction after the accident, they are relevant and must be listed on the plaintiff’s affidavit of documents. In addition, it is now incumbent on a party’s counsel to explain to the client, in appropriate cases, that documents posted on a Facebook profile may be relevant to allegations made in the pleadings.

As a result of this decision, a plaintiff will not be able to withhold photographs or discussions on Facebook if they relate to the issues in an action.  As such, Facebook could become a very powerful discovery tool for insurers and defendants alike.   A plaintiff’s Facebook profile could serve as a form of ‘self surveillance’.

However it is unclear how probative Facebook will prove to be as a discovery tool.  The reality is that a vast majority of users maintain profiles like Mr. Leduc’s, in that only ‘friends’ have the opportunity to view photographs or postings on the webpage.  When a plaintiff states in an affidavit of documents, or provides evidence in response to a motion for production that there are no relevant documents on Facebook, there is no way to ensure this is in fact the case.

One thing seems clear, however, given the prevalence of social networking sites on the internet, and the potential value of the evidence found on such personal websites, we likely have not heard the last word from Canadian Courts regarding the scope and practice of documentary discovery as it relates to social networking sites on the internet.

Brad Pleavin, Lawyer
Bennett Gastle Professional Corporation

Click Here to Read the Decision

On June 14th, 2009, the Globe and Mail published an op-ed piece by Chuck as part of a panel discussing the “Buy America” provisions in the United States’ Federal Stimulus Bill. Chuck’s article states:

The Wrong Message:

Canadian municipalities have promised retaliation against American suppliers as a result of the Buy America rules that require the purchase of iron, steel and manufactured goods produced in the United States. Canada is dependent on market access to the United States and threatening retaliation could anger the most protectionist Congress in recent memory and might encourage new border or other protectionist measures.

The municipalities threatened retaliation even though the provinces failed to sign onto the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement in 1994 or to liberalize procurement under NAFTA Article 1024. As a result, Canadians are excluded from the government procurement of forty states, including New York, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

viagra online prices Apart from that make sure that the medicine is taken in empty stomach at least an hour before intercourse. You can choose branded drugs made by many companies or search for the cheap alternatives like Kamagra. women viagra order It is a medicine which works smoothly and is said to be gentle way to discover a person s aspiration or the pleasure which makes the sex between the two of them more enjoyable as well as memorable and enjoyable. icks.org free viagra tablet Men are able to purchase generika viagra cialis without prescription at cheap prices. The municipalities would argue that the WTO and NAFTA procurement agreements would not open up American municipal procurement. While true, this is a poor reason not to lock in as much market access as possible.

Instead of threatening retaliation, Canadian municipalities should pressure the provinces to sign onto WTO and NAFTA procurement rules. The provinces and the municipalities should then prepare an offer of enhanced procurement access for American goods and services. Canada could then take up the United States Trade Representative’s willingness to discuss a reciprocal deal on government procurement, or to breathe new life into the NAFTA procurement negotiations.

To view the article please click here.

No prejudice required states Regional Senior Justice Glithero

It is never pleasant for a judge to dismiss a plaintiff’s action for delay, and Justice Glithero in his decision in Riggitano v. Standard Life (click here to read the decision) reiterated this sentiment when he concluded that the plaintiff’s action should be dismissed for delay pursuant to Rule 48.14(8)(b).

This decision stands for the proposition that absent some satisfactory explanation from the plaintiff, if an action is unreasonably delayed, and not set down for trial two years following the filing of a statement of defence, the action will be dismissed.  More importantly, Justice Glithero confirms that there is no onus on the defendant to prove prejudice.  In dealing with the often used submission that it would be unfair to the plaintiff to have the action dismissed, Justice Glithero states:  “if the common submission, as made here, to the effect that a dismissal would be unfair to the plaintiff is permitted to always trump the provision in the rules contemplating a reasonably timely procedure for the disposition of actions, then the rule would be effectively gutted”.

The decision is currently being appealed, and a brief summary of Justice Glithero’s decision follows.

Two significant issues arose during the status hearing.  First, counsel for the defendant alleged that counsel for the plaintiff attended numerous status hearings and misrepresented to the court that the status hearings be adjourned on consent when in fact consent had not been given.  Second, was whether the plaintiff had shown cause as to why the action should not be dismissed for delay pursuant to Rule 48.14(8).

Counsel for the defendant submitted that counsel for the plaintiff had never contacted them with respect to the status hearings nor as to what representations should be made to the court at the said hearings.  Furthermore, counsel for the defendant alleged that counsel for the plaintiff at previous status hearings had misrepresented that certain steps within the action had been agreed upon and that status hearings were being adjourned on consent when this was not the case.

The first status notice was issued to counsel for the plaintiff on March 27, 2006. As a result of administrative error, counsel for the defendant was never informed by the court of the hearing. In fact, it was not until October 14, 2008 that counsel for the defendant, as a result of inquiries to the court office in Hamilton to request a status notice issue, became aware that several status hearings had already been held. Counsel for the defendant requested in writing an explanation from counsel for the plaintiff as to why the defendant had not been advised of the status hearings as well as an explanation as to why counsel for the plaintiff misrepresented to the court that the hearings were being adjourned on consent when this was untrue. Despite this and numerous follow up letters counsel for the defendant did not receive an explanation.
The medicine is available in different mouth watering flavors like chocolate, orange, banana, strawberry, vanilla, pineapple, mango & mint. best pharmacy viagra Sometimes having a cialis usa bite plate made for you will help. -Cluster headaches- These headaches are probably the most important is the type environment that we grew up in. It is strange but true that slumber difficulties leads cute-n-tiny.com buy bulk viagra a person’s life to higher risks of obesity, heart attack, depression, low blood pressure, poor memory, anxiety disorder etc. viagra professional price Matured individuals may be more touchy to the reactions of the medication.
Counsel for the plaintiff sought adjournments of the status hearings on the basis that an examination for discovery of the defendant needed to be conducted. Despite numerous and several attempts by counsel for the defendant, both by attempts at consensual scheduling and service of notices of examination, no such discovery was conducted. Counsel for the plaintiff cancelled on several occasions, and furthermore, allegedly misrepresented dates for examination for discovery to the court during the status hearings, in order that the status hearings might be adjourned.

While counsel for the plaintiff’s affidavit swore to many “beliefs” and “intentions” on his behalf, it lacked detail and written substantiation of his claims. Conversely, the affidavit material filed by counsel for the defendant provided a solid foundation for accepting the defendant’s account of the history of this action.  Rule 48.14(1) requires that the Registrar serve a Status Notice where an action has not been set down for trial or otherwise terminated within two years after the filing of a Statement of Defence. Here the statement of defence was served on March 22, 2004 – in excess of five years ago.

Based on the material submitted, Justice Glithero was satisfied that counsel for the plaintiff had done little to move the action along and that those steps that were accomplished were largely a result of the efforts of the counsel for the defendant. In the time since the statement of defence was filed no significant effort was made to discover the defendant. Counsel for the plaintiff did not serve a notice of examination for discovery of the defendant nor did he serve a signed affidavit of documents on behalf of the plaintiff.

As to the first noted issue regarding the status hearings, Justice Glithero found that the court was not always given an accurate representation of the progress or lack thereof in the prosecution of the action based on the evidence available. He furthermore concluded that the outcome of this particular issue should not be considered on the Rule 48.14(8) issue.

In regard to the second issue of the delay, Justice Glithero submitted that according to sub-rule (8) the onus is on the plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for delay and that in this regard the material of counsel for the plaintiff did not provide satisfactory explanation for the delay.  More than five years, and hence more than twice the normal period contemplated by the rule has gone by and in Justice Glithero’s assessment the plaintiff had done very little to move the matter along.   Justice Glithero was also of the opinion that there is no onus on the defendant to prove prejudice on an application of this type.  He went on to state that “if the common submission, as made here, to the effect that a dismissal would be unfair to the plaintiff is permitted to always trump the provision in the rules contemplating a reasonably timely procedure for the disposition of actions, then the rule would be effectively gutted.”

For these reasons, the plaintiff’s action was dismissed for delay pursuant to Rule 48.14(8)(b).