Northern Light
Superstar
Approximately 5B over 6 years for NORAD modernization being announced by Ottawa.
This is all because Ford wouldn't do a carbon tax and so the federal government had to bluntly impose one on Ontario which requires a rebate scheme to consumers. Same to Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. The other provinces do have a carbon tax, so they won't get payments tomorrow.
We normally sort Supreme Court cases for Canada into the federal political thread, so that's what I'll do with this one......
An interesting decision that I'm still mulling over this morning from the SCC in denying leave to appeal and ordering a new trial for a man charged with sexual assault.
The person in question had consensual sex with a partner, twice over the course of one evening.
The partner in the first instance, explicitly required condom-use.
And the accused complied.
In the second instance, there was, apparently, no additional spoken communication, and otherwise consensual sex occurred, except, the accused did not put on a condom.
The partner in this case, apparently presumed/understood that a condom was on, since it has been made clear earlier in the evening that that was a condition of the sex.
The accused, contended that at no time did he engage in fraud, or claim to be wearing a condom, and his partner clearly consented to the sex, only objecting after she realized he did not wear a condom.
The original trial judge dismissed the case based on an SCC precedent around condom use called R v. Hutchinson.
The Court of appeal disagreed and ordered a new trial; and the accused appealed that.
The SCC today, denied leave of appeal, thereby ordering a new trial.
The case in brief is here: https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/cb/2022/39287-eng.aspx
The full judgement is here: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/19458/index.do
All 9 judges agreed that a new trial was required, and I support that when you read up on the case.
But they split 5-4 on an important point of law, essentially whether 'fraud' in some form is a requirement of the case against the accused.
The majority deciding it was not a requirement, with the dissenters saying that it was, but that a new trail was required to ascertain the facts of the case.
I hope PP is just feeding the base some red meat and will moderate his positions when he is leader.
^ This probably explains this:
![]()
Sabrina Maddeaux: Pierre Poilievre is eating Jagmeet Singh's lunch
Younger Canadians stampede to the rightnationalpost.com
Poilievre may be a charlatan. But the LPC's almost pathological indifference to the economic plight of younger voters (particularly those who are out of poverty but still struggling) is going to bring about a reverse 2015, that makes Poilievre the next PM.
Childcare and lower cellphone bills are nice and all. But not going to do much if you takes you 27 years to save for a downpayment in the GTA (a real stat from a G&M podcast I listened to recently). Housing is literally the crisis of everything. It's a major contributor to inequality. It's a major contributor to lagging productivity. It's a major contributor to homelessness. It's the reason people are getting married later and having fewer kids. Etc.
![]()
The housing theory of everything - Works in Progress
Western housing shortages do not just prevent many from ever affording their own home. They also drive inequality, climate change, low productivity growth, obesity, and even falling fertility rates.www.worksinprogress.co
The token announcements they make of 100 affordable homes in Middle-Of-Nowhere, Atlantic Canada are starting to feel more like trolling than policy at this point. And I think young people feel this.
That will be a political challenge for any party.