<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Astonishing upset in Warman v Lemire</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.barrelstrength.com/2009/09/02/astonishing-upset-in-warman-v-lemire/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.barrelstrength.com/2009/09/02/astonishing-upset-in-warman-v-lemire/</link>
	<description>Over Proof Opinion, Smoothly Aged Insight</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:46:46 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Today&#8217;s Lynch List &#171; The Lynch Mob</title>
		<link>http://www.barrelstrength.com/2009/09/02/astonishing-upset-in-warman-v-lemire/comment-page-1/#comment-2145</link>
		<dc:creator>Today&#8217;s Lynch List &#171; The Lynch Mob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2009 03:21:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.barrelstrength.com/?p=1768#comment-2145</guid>
		<description>[...] Barrel Strength: Astonishing upset in Warman v Lemire [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Barrel Strength: Astonishing upset in Warman v Lemire [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jay Currie</title>
		<link>http://www.barrelstrength.com/2009/09/02/astonishing-upset-in-warman-v-lemire/comment-page-1/#comment-2141</link>
		<dc:creator>Jay Currie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 05:18:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.barrelstrength.com/?p=1768#comment-2141</guid>
		<description>Great analysis. My sense is that Hadjis wrote an opinion which was designed to give the SCC - when this gets there - a road map to distinguish &lt;i&gt;Taylor&lt;/i&gt;.

He realizes that the conduct of the CHRC and its chief complainant has become adversarial rather than &quot;The provision can no longer be considered exclusively remedial, preventative and conciliatory in nature, which was at the core of the Court’s finding in &lt;i&gt;Taylor&lt;/i&gt;.

The new penalty is part of it; but the egregious conduct of the Commission over a decade and a half is a huge factor.

S. 13 is dead...The CPC should do the right thing and bury it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great analysis. My sense is that Hadjis wrote an opinion which was designed to give the SCC &#8211; when this gets there &#8211; a road map to distinguish <i>Taylor</i>.</p>
<p>He realizes that the conduct of the CHRC and its chief complainant has become adversarial rather than &#8220;The provision can no longer be considered exclusively remedial, preventative and conciliatory in nature, which was at the core of the Court’s finding in <i>Taylor</i>.</p>
<p>The new penalty is part of it; but the egregious conduct of the Commission over a decade and a half is a huge factor.</p>
<p>S. 13 is dead&#8230;The CPC should do the right thing and bury it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
