When Banks Are Our Friend...Sort Of

I have to admit that I sometimes find the invisible ability of banks (and credit card companies) to track our movements a little spooky. One time I used my "emergency" credit card to buy a pair of shoes, in my own city even. There was a message from the bank by the time I got home asking me to call and verify that the purchase was legit. Apparently even the bank's algorithms twigged to the fact that my need for pretty shoes does not, in fact, qualify as an emergency. Apparently it was in my best interest (and theirs) to ensure the safety of my credit.

AHC got a call this morning from our bank saying they suspected his debit card has been hacked and that his account was frozen. In a bizarre bit of luck, I happened to have made a number of large payments via online banking yesterday. One effect of this was that we inadvertently contravened a rule, imposed by the bank, about daily spending limits from the account which we share. AHC tried to make a purchase which failed to be authorized because we had exceeded the spending limit (unbeknownst to him), in spite of the fact that sufficient funds were there. (One can discuss the legitimacy of the banks controlling how much money I want to spend in a day via electronic regulation, but that's for another time.)

The other effect was, of course, saving us from having nearly $1,000 stolen from our account. The daily-limit rule prevented the PIN-thief from getting the money because the bank overruled the withdrawl in spite of the availability of the funds. And their magic algorithms alerted the bank to the unusual pattern of activity which resulted in the freeze on the account.

All that to say, I still have a love-have relationship with the bank. And I'm totallyawed by the computations that must be behind all of it.

"It's time for the news"

Pencil and 1.0mm Staedtler Fibre-tip pens.

I actually understood WTF they were talking about on CPAC when they referred to the extension of the the accelerated capital cost allowance write-off.

Woot.

"What I dream of is an art of balance"

I have a really great colouring book. I bought it for The Girl, but she insisted I bring it with me to Ottawa. I miss my creative self. Time to find her. This is part of enjoying life again. Anyway, each page has a theme or suggestion.

This page's was "Draw something heavy on each side". I felt it was an appropriate start because of the whole clichéd balance issue I'm dealing with (not that that has anything specific to do with what I drew).

The quote in the title is from Matisse. Also apropos.

O Blogging, Where Art Thou?

It's time for me to admit that I have a problem.

And that problem is school-related guilt.

It prevents me from doing things in my life that I enjoy. In fact, it prevents me from enjoying life, which has been a real problem over the past six months. I can't say that I've been enjoying law school much this year and it's had a rather poisonous effect throughout my existence. Life outside of my studies quite "got in the way" this 2L and that put me quite behind in the studies department. My twisted guilt-complex said something like: "you can blog when you're caught up."

So, since November 28, I have not blogged. This blog is not a celebratory post announcing that I am caught up! I am not caught up! Upon reflection, not blogging hasn't really helped my mood any. It hasn't particularly made me more productive either. Only more depressed in the absence of something that I actually like to do.

So that's it. No more torture. No more self-flagellation.

It's time to enjoy life again. Come to think of it, I'd rather like to enjoy law again too. I'm still working on a plan for that one, but I'm open to suggestion.

A video is worth a thousand words

This clip by Maria Bamford reflects so many of my fears about moving back to the small town of my youth. I should say that the anxiety is probably mostly unfounded. We don't even have Target in Canada!

Talis(wo)man(s)

I'm not exactly one of those people with a multitude of lucky trolls at a bingo game, but at times like these (uhm, 14 days until my major paper is due, quickly followed by two exams and another paper!) I start to draw strength from things that remind me of those dear to me. I have two lucky objets du jour: a necklace that Ilush gave me when she visited from Israel two years ago (she's a PhD, so I draw strength from her academic staying power and her absolute wit about the academic life) and a scarf that Merlot knit for my last birthday which she only recently finished (symbolizing both: someone loves me enough to knit me a scarf and the old adage "better late than never"). I love these women. Even from afar (Israel and the West-friggin-End), they carry me on.

First Snow

I was out for a walk to get air and buy exam supplies when it started to snow! First time it's happened to me this year. Turns out I had to buy a hat while I was getting notepads, post-it flags, a file organizer (I seem to have a lot of research materials these days) and some magnets (I don't know what it is about them, but I can't resist)--lest my ears freeze off on the way home. This marks the beginning of exams and intensive period of research. I have several interesting projects I'm working on, plus a couple of exams that I need to take care of.

I remember the uncertainty last year of the first set of 1L exams. How little we seemed to know back then! Life is overwhelming for different reasons this semester, but this is probably as trying as it's going to get ever.

At least I started off this season of marathon studying in fine fashion with dinner at TF&C's. Everyone needs homemade tourtière, friends and good conversation for a couple hours before the mental onslaught and exhaustion of exam season.

That time of year

There's something that starts to happen about this time every semester. I start buying food that has expiry dates after my exams. When I go to the grocery store I'm going to have to start asking for paper bags so that I have something to hyperventilate into when I talk stock of how near I am to the end of the semester (and what feels like imminent doom, though I may be overstating that a little bit).

Everything is better with flannel jammies

The best time I ever had reading Civil Procedure was this morning at 7am when TBB padded quite sleepily down the stairs, crawled up and fell back to dreams on my lap. He was giggling in his sleep and carrying on a nonsensical conversation with me from the beyond.

And he was wearing flannel Spidey PJs.

Those were the best Civ Pro readings ever.

Lost in Translation

When I went to Norway for ISFiT 2005, I got kind of a head cold on my way home, probably from running around in the snow dressed inadequately. I bought this in the Schipol Airport in Amsterdam to dull the sinuses on the flight home.

I find this lost in translation to be exceedingly funny, though it's probably politically incorrect of me to do so. Still, if this did what it said it did in English, it would explain so much.

Apologies

Has is been since Sept 18 since I last posted? That is simply unacceptable, I agree. When you start law school, there's this saying that upper years pass along: in first year they scare you, in second year they kill you and in third year they bore you.

In the killing phase of law school, and it's living up to it's reputation. But it's not law school so much, it's really the fact that I'm hardly in Ottawa, I spend half my time commuting, I've got more than one job and I'm selling my house. I think in first year, you spend so much time trying to figure out law school stuff and then you hit a point where you kind of get it. Getting it gives you delusions of grandeur, which makes you think you can do things like having jobs and selling your house, in addition to law school. I will only know whether that is actually possible in December when I have two major papers and two 100% exams written.

Right now, all I can say is that I hope third year lives up to its reputation. And I rather hope I live to find out.

1L This (Was) Your Life

The Charter, Dolphin Delivery, Suresh, Morgentaler, Gosselin, M. v. H., N.B. Broadcasting, Slaight, Eldridge, McCutcheon, Lavigne, Dagenais, McKinney, Douglas College, Stoffman, Vriend, Hunter v. Southam, Oakes, Irwin Toy, Keegstra, Keegstra, Thomson, Harper, RJR MacDonald, Lavigne, Ford, Oakes, Singh, Motor Vehicle Ref, G.J., B.R. v CAS, Rodiguez, Blencoe, Nova Scotia Pharmaceuticals, CFCYL, Keegstra, Butler, Law, Andrews, McKinney, NAPE, Turpin, Corbiere, Schachter, Auton, Miron v. Trudel, Egan, Therens, Big M Drugs, Edwards Books, Little Sisters, Phillips, Manitoba Language Reference, Canadian Dyers Association Ltd. v Burton, Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemists, Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co., Goldthorpe v Logal, Blair v Western Mutual Benefit, Williams v Carwardine, R (v) Clarke, Harvela Investments v Royal Trust, R v Ron Engineering, MJB Enterprises Ltd v Defencec Construction (1951) Ltd., Livingstone v Evans, Butler Machine Tool Co v Ex-cell-0 Corp., Tywood Industries Ltd v St. Anne-Nackawic Pulp & Paper, Ontario Law Reform Commission, ProCD v Zeidenberg, Kanitz v Rogers, Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl, Rudder v Microsoft Corp, Household Fire & Carriage, Burne v Van Tienhoven, Dickinson v Dodds, Errington V Errington and Woods, Barrick v Clark, Manchester Diocesan Council v Commercial and General Investments Ltd., Balfour v Balfour, Rose and Frank Co. v JR Crompton and Bros. Ltd., Toronto Dominion Bank v Leigh Instruments Ltd., The Governors of Dalhousie College at Halifax v The Estate of Arthur Boutillier, Wood v Lucy, Lady Duff v Gordon, Eastwood v Kenyon, Lampleigh v Braithwaite, Thomas v Thomas, B (DC) v Arkin, Pao On v Lau Yiu Long, Gilbert Steel Ldt. V University Const. Ltd, Williams v. Roffey Bros & Nicholas (Contractors) Ltd., Foakes v Beer, Re Selectmore, Foot v Rawlings, Judicature Act, Central London Property Trust Ltd. v High Trees House Ltd., John Burrows Ltd. v Subsurface Surveys, D & C Builders Ltd. v Rees, Saskatchewan Rivers Bungalows v Maritime Life Assurance, International Knitwear Architects v Kabob Investments Ltd., History of Doctrine of Privity, Provender v Wood, Tweddle v Atkinson, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v Selfridge & Co. Ltd., Vandepitte v Preferred Accident Insurance, McCannell v Mabee McLaren Motors Ltd., New Zealand Shipping Co. Ltd v AM Satterthwaite & Co. Ltd., London Drugs Ltd v Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd., Edgeworth Construction Ltd v ND Lea & Associates Ltd., Redgrave v. Hurd, Smith v. Land & House Property Corporation, Kupchak v. Dayson Holdings, Bank of B.C. v. Wren Developments, Redican v Nesbitt, Ontario Sale of Goods Act s.13-15, 27, Hong Kong Fir v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd., Krawchuk v. Ulrychova, Wickman v. Schuler, 968703 Ontario v. Vernon, Machtinger v. Hoj Industries Ltd., Parker v. South Eastern R.y. Co., Promech v. Bronco Rentals, Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking Ltd., Interfoto Picture Library v. Stiletto, McCutcheon v. David MacBrayene Ltd., British Crane v. Ipswich Plant Hire, Lestrange v. Gracoub, Tilden Rent-A-Car Co. v. Clendenning, Delaney v. Cascade River Holidays Ltd., Zhu v. Merrill Lynch HSBC, Solway v Davis Moving and Storage, Karsales v. Wallis, Photo Production v. Securicor Transport Ltd., Hunter Engineering v. Syncrude Canada Ltd., Roberts v. Gray, Ontario Law Reform Commission, Hart v. O’Connor, Dynamic Transport v. OK Detailing, Madison v. Alderson, Steadman v. Steadman, Degelman v. Guaranty Trust, Lensen v. Lensen, Pao On v. Lau Yiu Long, Gordon v. Roebuck, National Westminster Bank v. Morgan, Geffen v. Goodman Estate, Morrison v. Coast Finance Ltd., Marshall v. Can Permanent Trust, Lloyd’s Bank v. Bundy, J.G. Collins Inc. Agencies Ltd v. Elsley, Sherk v. Horwitz, Assisted Human Reproduction Act, S.C. 2004, McRae v. Commonwealth Disposals Commission, Bowlay Logging Ltd. v. Domtar Ltd., Sunshine Vacation Villas Ltd. v. Hudson Bay Co., Hunt v. Silk, Chaplin v. Hinks, Groves v. John Wunder Co., Nu-West Homes v. Thunderbird Petroleums, Jarvis v. Swans Tours, Hodgkinson v Simms, Hadley v. Baxendale, Victoria Laundry v. Newman, Asamera Oil Corp v. Sea Oil & General Corp, White and Carter (Councils) v. MacGregor, Semelhago v. Paramadevan, John E. Dodge Holdings Ltd. v. 805062 Ontario Ltd., Warner Bros. v. Nelson (Bette Davis), Zipper Transportation v. Korstrom, R. v. Ssenyonga (1991 and 1993), R. v. Cuerrier(1998), Ontario (Attorney General) v. Ontario (Criminal Injuries Compensation Board), R. v. Moore, R. v. Proulx (2000 SCC), R. v. Hinch and Salinski (1968 SCC), R. v. Gladue (1996, then 1999 in SCC), R. v. Naquitarvik (1986 trial and appeal), R. v. Moses, R. v. Hamilton (2003, 2004), R. v. Latimer (2001 SCC), Sault Ste. Marie (1978 ONCA), BC Motor Vehicles Reference, R. v. Wholesale Travel, Canadian Dredge and Dock Co.(1985 SCC), R. v. Safety-Kleen, Bill C-45 (2003), R. v. Buzzanga and Durocher, R. v. Steane, Gaumont v. Henry, R. v. Jorgensen, Beaver v. The Queen (1957), R. v. Pappajohn, R. v. Vaillancourt (1987), R. v. Martineau (1990), R. v. DeSousa, R. v. Creighton (1993), R. v. Tutton, R. v. Creighton (1993), R. v. Ubhi (1994), R. v. Finlay (1993), Teaching Rape Law--Susan Estrich, Pappajohn (1980) SCC, R v. Sansregret (1985) SCC, Amendments to Rape Laws in Criminal Code: 1983 Amendments, 1992 Amendments, R v. Darrach (1998) Ont. C.A., R v. Park (1995) SCC, R. v. Ewanchuk (1999) SCC, DPP v. Beard (1920) HL, R v. George (1960) SCC, R v. Leary (1977) SCC, R v. Robinson (1996) SCC, R v. Bernard (1988) SCC, R v. Daviault (1994) SCC, R v. Daviault: A Principled Approach to Drunkenness or a Lapse of Common Sense--Martha Schaffer , R v. Abbey (1982) SCC, R v. Chaulk & Morrissette (1990) SCC, Rabey v. The Queen (1990) SCC, R v. Parks (1992) SCC, Winko v BC (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), R v. Stone (1999) SCC, R v. Luedecke, R v. Parks (1993) Ont. C.A., R v. Williams (1998) SCC, R v. Spence (2005) SCC, R v. RDS (1997) SCC, R v. Hill (1986) SCC, R v. Thibert (1996) SCC, R v. Ly (1987) BCCA, R v. Eyapaise (1993) Alta QB, R v. Mallott (1998) SCC, R v. Jacko, Paquette v. The Queen, Hibbert v. The Queen (1995) SCC, R v. Ruzic (2001) SCC, Yanner v Eaton, INS v AP, NBA v Motorola, Morris v PGA Tour, Victoria Park Racing, Moore v The Regents, Gould Estate v Stoddart, Jones v Los Angeles, R v Clarke, Mariner Real Estate v NS, Didow, Edwards v Sims, Robertson v Wallace, Koenig v Goebel, Blewman, R v Nikal, LaSalle, Diamond Neon, Glencore, Indian Oil, deMarchant, Cavalier Yachts, Gidney v Shank, Theberge v Gallerie, Monsanto v Schmeiser, Harvard Mouse, Mattel (Barbie), Sotelo v Direct Revenue, Intel v Hamidi, Hoffman v Monsanto, Popov v Hayashi, Pierson v Post, Doyle v Bartlett , Black v Molson, Carrozi v Guo, Keefer v Arillotta, Teis v Ancaster, Barberree v Bilo, O’Keefe v Snyder, Trachuk v Olinek, Baird v BC, Bird v Fort Frances, Millas v BC, Parker v British Airways Board, Charrier v Bell, Nolan v Nolan & Arnor, Re Bayoff Estate, Brown v Rotenburg, Pembery v Pembery, McDonald v McDonald, Watt v Watt, What is property? Right, Access Theory (Waldron), Doesn’t Exist (Grey), Purposive – Economists, Security (Reich), US Const. Expropriation, Right to Exclude, Right to Exclude – Consensus, Essentialism, Multiple-variable essentialism, Nominalism, Yanner v Eaton, Properties of Property, Burdens of Ownership, Systems of Property, Public, Common, Public & Common, Case for Private Property, Important Social Values, Economic Arguments, Law & Economics – Efficiency, Exclusive, Transferable, Tragedy of the Commons, Justification for Private Property, Utilitarianism, Tragedy of the Commons, Natural Rights, Personhood Claims, Labour & Desert, Promotion of Freedom, Aboriginal Title, Recognition of Aboriginal Title, Other Rts, Loss or Alteration, INS v AP, NBA v Motorola, Morris v PGA, Victoria Park Racing, Amistad, Gould v Stoddart, Scott, “Poverty in Canada”, Waldron, “Homelessness & Freedom”, Jones v LA, R v Clarke, “No Place Called Home”, Magna Carta, Declaration of Rights of Man, US Constitution, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, European Convention on Human Rights, Canadian Bill of Rights, NA Free Trade Agreement, Canadian Charter, Mariner Real Estate, Didow, Cujust est solem, Edwards v Sims, Coase Theorem, Transaction Costs, Holdouts, Monopolies, Endowment, Robertson, Koenig, Border Trees, Blewman, R v Nikal, LaSalle, Diamond Neon, Dunsmore v. Deshield [1977] Sask, Neighbour Principle, Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932], Anns v. Merton London Borough Council [1977] HL, Cooper v. Hobart [2000], Moule v. N.B. Elec. Power Comm. [1960] SCC, Amos v. N.B. Elec. Power Comm. [1976] SCC, Palsgraf v. Long Island Ry. Co. [1928] NY, Osterlind v. Hill [1928] MASS, Matthews v. MacLaren; Horsley v. MacLaren [1969] ONT, Crocker v. Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd. [1988] SCC, Jordan House v. Menow [1973] SCC, Stewart v. Pettie [1995] SCC, Childs v. Desormeaux [2002] ON, Jane Doe v. Metropolitan Toronto Commissioners of Police [1998] ON, Thorne v. Deas [1809] NY, Smith v. Rae [1919] Ont CA, Zelenko v. Gimbel Bros Inc. [1936] N.Y.S. SC, Soulsby v. Toronto [1907] Ont, Morash v. Lockhart & Ritchie Ltd. [1978] NB CA, Corothers v. Slobian [1975] SCC, Urbanski v. Patel [1978] Man, Horsley v. MacLaren [1972] SCC, Videan v. British Transport Comm [1993] England, Saccone v. Fandrakis [2002] BC, DUTIES OWED TO UNBORN, Pre-Conception Wrongs, Risk to the Fetus, Wrongful Birth and Wrongful Life, Arndt v. Smith (1994) BCSC, H.(R.) v. Hunter [1996] Ont, Wrongful Pregnancy, McFarlane v. Tayside Health Board (Scotland) [2000] UK HL, Rees v. Darlington Memorial Hospital [2002], Pre-Natal Injuries, Dobson (Litigation Guardian of) v. Dobson [1999] SCC, Maternal Tort Liability Act (Alberta), R. v. Sullivan [1991], Becker v. Schwartz (1978) N.Y. C.A, Winnipeg Child and Family Services (Northwest Area) v. D.F.G [1997] SCC, B.R. v. L.R. 2004 Alberta Q.B, Krangle (Guardian ad Litem of) v. Brisco [1997] BC, Bourhill v. Young [1943] England, Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1991] UK HL, Rhodes v. Canadian National Railway Co [1990] BC CA, Haughian v. Paine [1987] Sask CA, Health Care Consent Act, 1996, Risks to be Disclosed, Manufacturer’s and Supplier’s Duty to Warn, Hollis v. Dow Corning Corp [1995] SCC, Beshada v. Johns-Manville Products Corp. [1982] NJ, Lem v. Borotto Sports Ltd., Lapierre v. A.G. Que [1985] SCC, Good-wear Treaders v. D&B Holdings Ltd. [1978] NS CA, Reasonable Person, Arland v. Taylor [1955] Ont CA, Bolton v. Stone [1951] HL, Miller v. Jackson [1977] Eng CA, Paris v. Stephen Borough Council [1951] HL, Vaughan v. Halifax-Dartmouth Bridge Comm. [1961] NS SC, Watt v. Hertfordshire County Council [1954] CA, Priestman v. Colangelo [1959] SCC, The Cause-In-Fact, The But-For Test, Barnett v. Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] HL, Qualcast v. Haynes [1959] UK, Richard v. C.N.R. [1970] PEI SC, Kauffman v. Toronto Transit Commission [1959], Material Contribution Test, Walker Estate v. York-Finch General Hospital [2001] SCC, Arndt v. Smith [1997] SCC, Materially Increased Risk – Inference of Causation, McGhee v. National Coal Board [1972] UK HL, Snell v. Farrell [1990] SCC, Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories [1980] Cal SC, B.M. v. British Columbia, Athey v. Leonati [1966] SCC, Nowlan v. Brunswick Const. Lee [1972] SCC, Penner v. Mitchell [1978] AB CA, Dillon v. Twin State Gas and Elec Co. [1932] US, Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. [1921], Wagon Mound No. 1 Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd. v. Morts Dock [1961] AC, Hughes v. Lord Advocate [1963] HL, Thin-Skulled Plaintiff Rule, Smith v. Leech Brain & Co. [1962], Marconato v. Franklin [1974] BC SC (Egg shell personality application), Wagon Mound (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. Pty [1967], Assiniboine South School Division v. Greater Winnipeg Gas Co. [1973] SCC, Bradford v. Kanellos [1973] SCC, Oke v. Weide Tpt. Ltd. [1963] Man CA, Jolley v. Sutton London B.C. [1998] BC CA, Price v. Milawski [1977] Ont. C.A., Hewson v. Red Deer [1976] AB, Tong v. Bedwell [2002] AB, Robitaille v. Vancouver Hockey Club [1979], Kraft v. Oshawa General Hospital [1985], Janiak v. Ippolito [1985] SCC, Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alta. Ltd. [1978] SCC, Krangle v. Brisco [1997] SCC, Death of a Dependent Family, Bianco v. Fromow, Dredger v. S.S. Edison, Ratych v. Bloomer, Cunningham v. Wheeler, The Doctrine of Subrogation, R in Right of Can. v. Sask. Wheat Pool [1983] SCC, Walls v. Mussens Ltd. (1969) (N.B. C.A.), Negligence Act, [1990], PURE ECONOMIC LOSS, NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION, TORT LIABILITY OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES, Just v. British Columbia (1989) SCC, Contributory Negligence, Walls v. Mussens Ltd. (1969) NB CA, Gagnon v. Beaulieu [1977] BC, Madge v. Meyer [2002] AB CA, Ottoson v. Kasper (1986), Mortimer v. Cameron (1994) ON CA, Voluntary Assumption of Risk, Dube v. Labar (1986) SCC, Participation in Criminal or Immoral Act, Ex Turpi Causa, Hall v. Hebert [1993] SCC, John Bead Corporation v. Soni [2002] ONT, Norberg v. Wynrib [1992] SCR, Inevitable Accident, Rintoul v. X-Ray And Radium Indust. Ltd. [1956] SCC, Basra v. Gill [1995] BC CA, Cook v Lewis, Smith v Stone, Gilbert v Stone, Miska v Sivec, Hodgkinson v Martin, Ranson v Kitner, The Mediana,Livingston v Rawyards, Hawkins v McGee, B (P) v B (W), Penarth Dock v Pounds, Bettel v Yim, Non-Marine Underwriters v Scalera,Larin v Goshen, Dalhberg v Nayduik, Stewart v Stonehouse, Morgan v Layacomo, McDonald v Sebastian, MK v MH, Bruce v Dyer, Holcombe v Whitaker, Police v Greaves, Bird v Jones, Campbell v Kresge, Robertson,Herd v Weardale, Thomas v Norris, Nelles v ON, Proulx v Quebec,Stoffman v OVC, Wilkinson v Downton, Purdy v Woznesensky, Radovskis v Tomm, Samms v Eccles, Clark v Canada, Cant v Cant, Motherwell v Motherwell, Hollinsworth v BCTV, Cadbury v Schweppes, Szarfer v Chodos,Argyl v Argyll, Sonmar v McDonald’s Restau, Bhadauria v Seneca College, Fouldes v Willoughby, Boma Manufacturing, McKenzie v Scotia Lumber,Aitken v Gardner, Gen & Finance Facilities, Entick v Carrington, Turner v Thorne, Harrison v Carswell, Trespass to Property Act, Hudson’s Bay v White, Kerr v Revelstoke, Bernstein v Skyviews, Boehringer, Edwards v Sims, Ont. Ltd. v Huron Steel, Hollywood Silver v Emmett, Christie v Davey, Tock v St. John’s, AG Ont v Orange Productions, Hickey, Rylands v Fletcher, Read v Lyons, Gertsen v Metro Toronto, Defences to Rylands rule, TG Bright Co v Kerr, BPA v Curry, Salmond principle, 671122 Ontario Ltd v Sagaz, Wright v McLean, Agar v Canning, Williams, Papadimitropoulos, Toews v Weisner, Latter v Braddell, Lane v Holloway, R v Jobidon, MM vKK, Nelitz v Dyck, Norberg v Wynrib, Marshall v Curry, Malette v Shulman, Brushett v Cowan, C v Wren, Consent and culture, Thomas v Norris, Wackett v Calder, Gambriel v Caparelli, R v Duffy, McDonald v Hees, Bird v Holbrook.

Gone but not forgotten...

xoxo,

TCO

Green with envy

AHC's brother is a fancy copy writer in advertising and got tickets for the Coen bros. release at TIFF, No Country for Old Men. He generously asked AHC to go with him to the show, at the Elgin Theatre. Apparently they had great seats.

Now, I'm not much of a fanatic when it comes to stars. But there are a couple of leading men that I am particularly fond of. Clive Owen and Viggo. I loved Clive before anyone knew who he was. Admittedly, the role of Aragorn brought Viggo to my beloved attention.

After the show, the boys were filing out and a volunteer asked them to wait a moment so that a group of starts could pass by, including Woody Harrelson, Kelly Macdonald, Eddie Vedder.

AND CLIVE OWEN! Apparently he's as tall, dark and handsome in person as in fantasy land. AHC said, "Hey, Clive Owen!" And Clive turned and looked at him and kind of acknowledged the fact that he was, indeed, Clive Owen. ACH thinks I would have peed my pants if I'd been there, and even I can admit there's some chance of that.

Like I said, normally I'm not that starry-eyed over stars, but you can't deny that Clive Owen is pretty dreamy.

I really need to start volunteering at TIFF. Think of all that I've been missing out.

Happy New Year

As ever, the summer has disintegrated into thin air. In some ways I lament its passing, but somewhere around August I start to feel the pull of academic life. Even for the few years that I was out of school between high school and university, September, and not January, signaled the new year for me.

The Girl started grade one today. First time in full day school, though she started full time daycare when she was a year old, so being out of the house all day is nothing new for her. Different, however, is all the talk of responsibility, even on the first day. The demands on we parents shall grow ever steeper, I get the distinct impression already. Though she/we have a reprieve from homework for the first week, I have a sheaf of papers that I must dutifully fill out (emergency contact, pick up release form, optional phone and email request, immediate community walking excursion permission form, lunch information form, and a media release--which I have decided not to sign).

Also receive were the instructions of Mme G, our new teacher--and I mean "our." Instructions on: indoor shoes; bathroom procedures and expectations (I'm not kidding, there are bathroom expectations now); classroom recess toys routine ("to ensure that toys are returned and to promote students' responsibility"); attendance expectations; school year supplies (including these specific essentials: "2 storing pockets for communication and homework, must be CLEAR PLASTIC (NO COLOR[sic] VELCRO TAB OPENING, 3-HOLED"); pocket information (which will come in the aforementioned clear, velcroed storing pockets); the home binder with clear instructions on inserting tabs and labeling them in the appropriate order (in case you're wondering, the appropriate order is Room 4, School, Old Monthly Behaviour Charts, Songs' Repertoire, Vocabulary Sheets/Spelling, Sounds/Phonetic, Reading, Writing, Math Sheets, "..."); Behaviour Schoool Tracking & Home Follow-up (including a list of suggestions for a reward/consequence system); and finally the weekly schedule.

HOLY SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT!

In rereading the package (I want to call it The Brick, after listening to Naomi Klein's interview on The Current this morning) I notice that the way that one of the headings is laid out on the page makes it read like "Room 4 Parents Behaviour School Tracking and Home Follow-up." Which is appropriate, since I have the distinct impression that my behaviour as a parent will be tracked and followed from now on. I've got a bit of a love-hate relationship with the school system. I have an instinct to fight some of this rule-boundedness, but then I don't want to screw my kids, do I? It's a conundrum.

Anyway, the good thing about this type of school model is that it's bound to dull some of the sharpness of their clever little minds. After school TG proudly presented me with a book she'd drawn for me today with all of my favourite things: herself, AHC, Big Boy, a castle cake, Harry Potter and my laptop. Jesus Christ. "HA! She's got you pegged," said AHC.

Bring on the rules. She needs to be a little less clever...

If my career in law fails, I'll be a homemaker

It occurred to me suddenly today that no fewer than THREE of my favourite people have the initials MM. Is this statistically unusual? I don't know. If there is a statistician out there who can answer that question for me, I'd be interested in knowing the answer.

The one male MM of the group came over for lunch today. Threatened with the prospect of having to live up to AHC's standard, I made peach crisp for dessert. Luckily MM is a recovering country boy from Out East, and lived a childhood replete with every variety of crisp baked by his mother. I'm sure he was saying it just to quell my insecurity, but he said mine was better than his mother's.

Take that, AHC!


(Sadly, this picture would be so much better if I had my dad's Nikon. Will somebody please buy me a digital SLR and put me out of my misery??)

Attack!

On the long weekend, the fam and I went to O-town to move some of my stuff. Within five minutes of arriving at CFO's house, the kids managed to break a lamp (that's one in 100% of the places I've lived in Ottawa). After moving, we hit the Children's Museum, the Dinosaur show at the Imax, a Tex-Mex resto with TF&C and Partner, and, on Sunday, a friend's cottage near Arnprior. We had a great time. AHC actually picked mussels out of the Ottawa River and cooked them up just to try. I think we all only had one, so probably not enough to kill us with whatever pollution or toxins lay within.

The Big Boy got out of the River with a little friend attached to his little toe for lunch. Now, I sort of regret not taking a picture of it while it was still attached. After all, I don't think leeches are life threatening. My mothering instinct was more intent on getting it off. Which is why I would have failed as a papparazzo. I did take a pic afterwards now, with the wound. And you can't even really see the yucky bruise! Eek!

Why are women always looking like idiots?

I'm not the first person to notice this, but I'm having a surge of "pissed off" about it right now:

Why is it that commercials always make women look like dumb freaks on any kind of cleaning product ad? Seriously. I just watched two Febreeze ads. One of them actually had a female psychiatrist lying on the patient couch sniffing like a fool. The patient says "Doctor, shouldn't I be on the couch?" and she snaps back, "No!" So, presumably a woman who has spent thousands of dollars and years on her education lacks the capacity to maintain professional behaviour faced with a sweet smelling cleaning product.

This is but one example of any number. It disgusts me. I'm going to start buying lemons and vinegar to do my cleaning because I'm offended by it.

And yet in December 2006 , our friends in Canada's New Government thought it was a good idea to remove equality from the mandate at Status of Women, close SoW offices and cut funding to advocacy programs.

Don't think these are unrelated in the grand scheme of things.

Eat Your Greens

Just a quick note to point out that AHC has started posting on his recipe blog again after a bit of a hiatus (could it be that he was a single dad with two kids for eight months? I'm not going to hold it against him...too much). His recent post on cooking vegetables reminded me of the fact that when he started studying culinary, he hated vegetables. I always bugged him that it was not going to be acceptable for a chef to not eat vegetables. After a short time at cooking school, he realized that, in fact, he did NOT hate vegetables, just that his mother had been overcooking them for his entire life.

(It also amuses me that she likes to take credit for his cooking ability: "I taught you everything you know!" whenever he has suggestion (like, for example, the right way to cook veg). It's like that scene in Dirty Dancing where Baby's mother says something like "I think she gets it from me." On the bright side, she's really good at refried beans and other southern fare of her youth.)

Being that I am the beneficiary of pretty much every recipe on the blog, I can certify that it's all pretty damn good. I highly recommend reading and cooking from it.

The Facebook Dilemma

PRIVACY: I've spent considerable time this year studying privacy at school, for my research job and for my own personal interest. I've spent the past several weeks reading numerous SCC judgments on the "reasonable expectation of privacy," a standard (if you can call it that) underlining a person's s. 8 Charter rights. I worked lengthy hours on a report about digital rights management technologies and the privacy concerns surrounding them. I've got a continuing project about health records and privacy. I'm all over privacy.

Which is why I have a Facebook dilemma. I've resisted thus far. I do not have an account, though I will admit to hypocrisy: When I came back from school, I logged on to AHC's account (with his permission) and nosed around. Found some people, sent a couple of messages and even re-connected with a couple of people from the past. Otherwise, it seems kind of freaky to post stuff for the world to see. I know you can fix your privacy settings, but I have concerns that there's insidiousness just below the surface and I don't want to get sucked into it.

This is mostly a problem right now because I am in Toronto and many of my friends are not. But many of them have FB accounts. It seems like one way to keep in touch. Scanning someone's FB page seems kind of like passing them in the hall, or chatting for a minute by the lockers after class.

In truth, I'm one of those people who thinks you can't really replace face time with a person. I'm against living online. It would drive me crazy in class that people would be posting on people's walls in the middle of class to people who were three rows away. Seriously, wait until after class and talk to the person! It's a whole confluence of elements in our culture, I think: our sharing culture (guilty! I have a blog!) and our soundbite culture (not exactly guilty, but I do have a past in journalism, contributing to the phenom), to name but two. Oh, and I should add our simulacrum culture, just to shout out to Killingsworth. [On a weird note, I just pulled out my Canadian Oxford to check the spelling of "simulacrum" and I opened it on exactly the right page.]

What to do?!

US Supreme Court

The Sunday New York Times (from July 1) had an interesting article on the session of the US Supreme Court that just closed. By the way, why is there only one woman (and only one visible minority) on the US Supreme Court? Not that Canada is the shining paragon of equality, but at least we've got four women sitting in our highest court. Though we're a little slim on the minorities ourselves. Unless you count the French.