Legal in black crime

Just about Legal & Law Information

You are here: Home - Canada


Tag Archives: Canada

Are Royal Assent, Pardons And Prorogation Fact Or Legal Fiction

Elizabeth II is the Head of State of the United Kingdom and fifteen other member states of the Commonwealth of Nations. These countries are constitutional monarchies, meaning that they operate under an essentially democratic constitution, the Queens principal role being to represent the state. Very often, she is viewed as a symbolic and apolitical personage with no real power. But is this entirely true? Does the Queen really possess purely nominal authority, or can she in fact exercise her will in any public action? This is not an easy question to answer. I will attempt to do so by focusing mainly on one of her most important theoretical prerogatives: the right to grant or deny royal assent to laws passed by Parliament.

A difficulty in judging the extent of the authority presently held by the monarchy lies in the fact that the British constitution has not been codified into one single document and much of it remains unwritten. The extensive power that the monarch once indisputably possessed, including the right to administer justice, dissolve Parliament or pardon crimes, was largely a matter of common law and not statute. What laws were codified (the Bill of Rights of 1689 and the Act of Settlement of 1701 standing among the most important) served more to restrict the Monarchs power than to entrench it. Thus, the residual powers still reserved to the Queen continue to be more a matter of constitutional convention than of written rules. Formally, no Act of the British Parliament becomes a proper law until it is given assent by the Queen. Yet in practice, Elizabeth II assents to all bills, irrespective of her opinion on them. The last time a British monarch rejected a law was in 1708, when Queen Anne vetoed the Scottish Militia Bill, and even then, she did so at the request of her ministers. Since then, the right of royal assent has fallen into disuse, leading some constitutional theorists to claim that a new convention obligating the monarch to assent to all bills has arisen. This view was famously stressed by Walter Bagehot in his 1867 volume The English Constitution:

…the Queen has no such veto. She must sign her own death-warrant if the two Houses unanimously send it up to her. It is a fiction of the past to ascribe to her legislative power. She has long ceased to have any.

In earlier generations, such a bold assertion of the monarchs supposed lack of power would have been unpardonable. Even I see some flaws in this theory. For one thing, the only evidence on which it stands (besides Bagehots claim) is custom. Even if all the monarchs since Queen Anne have assented to all bills presented to them, there is no formal change in any official policy that would indicate that the practice will be followed for the next bill. Additionally, if the Queen decided to withhold assent to a bill, what legal mechanism could force her to do otherwise? It would seem to me that in such an event, the veto could only be effectively circumvented by some kind of revolutionary act – as a minimum, by the Government refusing to respect the veto, which would undoubtedly lead to a constitutional crisis.

The situation is more clear-cut in Canada, which, unlike the United Kingdom, has a constitution that is largely written. The Constitution Act, 1867 clearly delineates the powers of the Crown. According to Section 55 of the Act, when the Governor General (the Queens representative in Canada) is presented with a bill that has been passed by Parliament, he may declare that he assents to it in the Queens name, that he withholds his assent, or that he reserves the bill for the signification of the Queens pleasure (letting the Queen decide the matter; according to Section 57, she may do so within two years after the Governor General receives the bill). Furthermore, as per Section 56, the Queen in Council (the Queen acting on the advice of her Privy Council) may disallow a law assented to by the Governor General within two years after receiving a copy of the law. Therefore, the Queen, together with the Governor General, does have the formal authority to veto a law passed by the Canadian Parliament. Nevertheless, no Governor General has done this since Confederation in 1867, although some provincial Lieutenant Governors have vetoed provincial laws or reserved them to the pleasure of the Governor General (under the authority of Section 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867). This happened most recently in 1963 when Saskatchewans Lieutenant Governor Frank Bastedo reserved a bill.

On top of that, there are instances in recent Commonwealth history of other royal prerogatives being directly exercised by the Crown against a governments wishes. Depending on the country, the crown may have extensive official powers, including the appointment of ministers, granting of pardons for eliminating criminal records, or calling an early election, and some of these have been exercised in person, especially during unclear political situations. A classic example is Governor General Byngs 1926 refusal to call a very early election at the request of Canadian Liberal Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, who wished to remain in power despite the stronger footing of the Conservative party in Parliament. Byng refused to do so; King was incensed by this supposed infringement on democracy, but Byng stood his ground. Another famous example was the dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam by Australian Governor General John Kerr during the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. Whitlams controversial government did not have control of both houses of Parliament and he petitioned Kerr to call a half-senate election. Instead, Kerr dismissed him and appointed Malcolm Fraser, the leader of the Opposition, in his place.

The fact that the royal prerogative is rarely exercised, if at all, by the Queen and her representatives, appears to be more the product of a conventional good will on their part than an actual legal requirement. I hope Bagehot would pardon me if I surmised that he overdid it when he claimed that the Queen must sign her own death-warrant; what he was speaking about was more a matter of everyday practice as he saw it than a real summary of the standing law. After all, the monarchy seeks to stay popular and in todays age of democracy, its very existence depends on public approval.

Prepaid Legal Service Scam-were We All Born Yesterday

A lot of people have expressed concern about the prepaid legal plans that have gained popularity and how they may be scams. These prepaid legal services scams have fell into the good graces of more than 1 and a half million families in Canada and the U.S. This scam has also allowed people that have taken advantage of prepaid legal services business plans to become quite wealthy too.

The scam that peddles a prepaid legal service got its start in America back in the decade of the 70’s and its founder said that it would help lawyers the same way medical insurance helped doctors. This scam wasn’t new to society though because a less sophisticated version, which was said to have influenced the latest one, was the rage as early as the 1930’s in Europe.

Let’s Breakdown the Prepaid Legal Scam Here

Prepaid Legal Consumer Scam -The organizations that offer prepaid legal plans have gotten people to pay upwards of $1.25 a day with a promise that they’ll receive legal protection for legal problems that may occur but haven’t occurred yet. So really, a person or their family may never have to use their prepaid legal plan.

Though it resembles the same business model and offers protection comparable to the protection that is equivalent to that of vehicle and residence insurance providers, it’s still is considered a scam by some. This is mainly becaue we place more value on things like vehicle and homes than we do on the legal rights of ourselves and our families. It’s just legal rights that prepaid legal providers agree to protect.

Prepaid Legal Lawyer Scam -This area of the scam is what usually gets people to be fooled by it. You see, prepaid legal companies have gotten reputable law firms from coast to coast to be complicit in this little prepaid legal services scam.

Being in on this prepaid legal service scam could cost these attorneys their licenses yet they still play along with it. They really ham it up by offering prepaid legal services members unlimited telephone consultations, document examinations, and may go to court with the scam clients. But prepaid legal services have gotten complaints because the five quarters a day that retain the law firms for the month doesn’t include representation in a murder trial- Bummer.

Prepaid Legal Services Stock Scam -The prepaid legal service scam has entered into the homes and investment portfolios of thousands of people too. A major prepaid legal provider managed to deceive the government to the point where they were given permission to sell stocks of their company to unsuspecting investors. They’re currently grinning down from the NYSE and spreading their scam across more lives.

The point that I’m trying to make here folks is that prepaid legal services are not scams. They offer protection for the legal rights of individuals and families. How many times have you cashed in your car or home insurance, not a lot I hope but you continue to pays the insurance companies every month? Why, because you want that peace of mind for yourself and your family. If the business models of prepaid legal, car, and home insurance companies are indicative of scams, then the only thing that is not a scam are life insurance companies-because we’re all going to pass away someday.

Tags: ,

Becoming a Legal Alien in Canada – How to Fit In

Often migration is forced upon groups of people when war breaks out. Many countries have been at war for several years and the unlucky citizens of these countries have been forced to migrate to other countries as immigrants for fear of their lives. At the same time there are many such immigrants left from previous wars in many countries, and many others who have in some cases crossed the borders illegally. All this means that many countries have been criticised by their own citizens because they allow too many immigrants into their country, and this has been the case in the UK and in the USA to name two of the biggest examples of this happening (this is one reason that you can benefit from the help of an immigration attorney if you are trying to apply for Canadian immigration or elsewhere).

Anyone that moves from one country to another can be classed as an immigrant. It is important for these people to use an immigration attorney however to ensure that they are legal immigrants. If this is done correctly then they should forget some of the negative connotations of being an immigrant and recognise it is actually a very bold and exciting step for a person to make, and in many cases immigrants are welcomed into their new country with open arms by the locals – if you do it right.

A visit to an immigration attorney should probably be the first thing on the checklist for any person considering the thought of immigration. An immigration attorney can provide you with individual, one on one advice tailored to your own application for immigration. If you were to apply for Canadian immigration or are trying to get hold of a Canadian Visa for example then you will probably be best off to ask for expert advice from an immigration attorney. Although you can get loads of advice regarding Canadian Visas and regarding the process of immigrating to Canada directly over the Internet or in books, you really cannot beat the individual advice that an expert immigration lawyer can give you. Immigration is different according to the individual person, and every person is different and will have different issues to resolve. For example, one person may have a criminal record which could create problems for a person trying to apply for Canadian immigration.

At the same time an immigration attorney can help ensure that when you are successful in your Canadian immigration that you then continue to live there legally and pass any checks or inspections. This will then help you to be the positive kind of immigrant in the eyes of the law.

One piece of advice an immigration attorney will give for your Canadian immigration is to ensure that you have work lined up (particularly in the IT industry). This will help your application, but it will furthermore mean that you are having more of a positive effect on the country once you have moved there – able to help the economy rather than drain it. If you are seen to be hard working and to be aiding the economy, then most people will be pleased to have you on board.

The rest then is up to you and it is important that you do your best to fit in and to learn the local languages and customs of your new chosen home. If you do this, and are seen to embrace your new country, then you will find fitting in to be no problem at all.

When considering immigration to Canada, think of how you can immigrate legally and in such a way that you please the locals. The most important thing though is to use immigration lawyers to ensure your immigration is legal. Follow the links for more.

Can I Legally Watch Hulu In Canada

Due to the growing popularity of entertainment streaming websites like Hulu more and more people in the UK and Canada are looking for easy and cost effective ways in which they can legally access these websites. The problem is that websites like Hulu and Netflix restrict their services to specific locations. However, with the use of a Hulu VPN in UK anyone can very easily gain legal access to these websites and can begin enjoying all the streaming entertainment they want to take advantage of. This is by and far the easiest way that you can go about watching Hulu in Canada or Netflix in the UK.

In order to acquire a Hulu VPN in UK the first thing you will need to do is run a quick online search for service providers. When you do this you will be surprised to discover that there are literally hundreds of such providers. At this point you will need to take a little time to begin comparing these services providers. Always be certain to fully investigate each and every VPN service that you are considering making use of. You want to do this to ensure that you are finding a company that has unlimited bandwidth and that guarantees high speed streaming.

When it comes to watching Hulu in Canada you should keep the following information in mind. This information has assisted hundreds of individuals in the UK and in Canada in choosing the very best VPN service provider available to them.

The first thing you should be aware of is the type of devices that you will be using to access Netflix and Hulu. Many people just want to use a PC or MAC to access these websites while others want to use their mobile phones or gaming systems. You should be aware that many VPN services available are limited to PC or MAC use only. Therefore, if you do want to use other electronic devices you will need to make use of a VPN that permits this and is capable of this.

Many VPNs limit the amount of bandwidth that you are capable of using each month with their service. This is one of the most important things that you will want to look into. If you desire to watch a high volume of movies and television shows using one of these services then you will most likely want to only consider those services that do in fact offer unlimited bandwidth.

You will also want to consider speed. Many VPN services reroute their services so much that their speed rates are really low. If you desire to experience high streaming quality then you should only rely on those service providers that guarantee high speeds and that dont over-route their services.

One of the very best service providers that you can choose to subscribe to is UnoTelly. They are a top rated VPN service that specializes in providing individuals in the UK and in Canada with access to the very best US based streaming entertainment websites like Netflix and Hulu. They offer fast speeds, unlimited bandwidth and very competitive pricing.

Tags: , , ,

Meritorious Claims How an Ottawa Injury Lawyer Proves Legal Claims

Every health professional is required to follow specific standards when treating illnesses. Doctors check-up their patient’s health condition before giving prescriptions, and surgeons conduct an intensive assessment before letting their patients go under the knife. They scan their patient’s body, create impressions and cast images, and finalize medical procedures for surgery. Consultation and preparation are essential in carrying out medical operations.

Nevertheless, there are instances when mistakes and negligence comes into the fore. Physicians give overdose prescription to patients, surgeons inject unsterilized needle on the patient, causing viral infection, and Anesthesiologists miscalculate anesthesia mixture, leading to hypoxia. There are many medical malpractice cases in the United States and Canada every year. In most cases, doctors are robbed off their license to practice medicine. Others, however, are able to surpass the legal test and retain their license.

In Ottawa, personal injury lawyers prove a medical malpractice claim in four grounds. These are duty of care, breach of duty, patient injury, and causation. Lawyers must be able to prove an existing relationship between the patient and doctor; this will prove that the patient has given the doctor the right to administer a medical treatment. In cosmetic surgery cases, the patient must have requested the doctor to make some changes to the original body contour or facial structure. A positive patient-doctor relationship must exist between the plaintiff and defendant.

After this, Ottawa personal injury lawyers must prove that physicians have defied the standards of care in performing medical procedures because of carelessness, lack of focus, or fatigue. In legal terms, this is called breach of duty. Any deviant act during the entire medical procedure can be also be considered as breach of duty. This is one of the most difficult grounds to establish in personal injury cases.

Moreover, Ottawa personal injury lawyers must prove that the breach of duty has caused injury to the patient. For instance, a lawyer must be able to verify that the wrong anesthesia mixture caused the hypoxia of the patient. Otherwise, the legal claim is null and void.

The burden of proving medical negligence lies solely on the personal injury lawyer Ottawa. Similarly, one’s client must be able to present the damage in court. This way, the court can consider the claim as meritorious.