Reviews:
 ·Start Communicat..
| Parental responsibility Shoppers Drug Mart lawyer threatening parents of shoplifting son.
»www.vancouversun.com/news/Shoppe···ory.html
"Days later, the woman received a letter from a Toronto lawyer saying the retailer held her personally responsible for the offence because she “as parent or guardian of the young person (failed) to provide reasonable supervision of the young person.”
The letter said she owes $500 by Dec. 24 or else the company could sue her and claim recovery costs of $900."
I'm a little torn on this, while Parenting can prevent petty crime by instilling morals. An action like this can lead to a slippery slope of an overtly litigious society like our cousins south of the 49th.
--
AFK: Attack, fight, kill!! The healer is telling you to go pull mobs.
WTF: Way to fight! The healer is applauding your tactical genius |
|
 donoreoPremium
join:2002-05-30
North York, ON | I say the parents should be held responsible. I would expect the same with my children. |
|
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
| If I'm at work, and my child skips school and does this action. How am I directly liable?
I can set rules, boundaries, morals; but my child is an individual.
--
AFK: Attack, fight, kill!! The healer is telling you to go pull mobs.
WTF: Way to fight! The healer is applauding your tactical genius |
|
|
|
 dirtyjefferAnons on ignore, but not due to fear.Premium
join:2002-02-21
London, ON | reply to I_H8_Spam
i think the child should be held responsible, however that may be...punishing the parent (perhaps in some extent) COULD be a possible option, but i think the punishment should be on the one who did the crime.
if an 8 year old is running around a store, runs into a display case and breaks a $50 vase, then yes, have the parents pay...a 15 year old steeling something is different though...the 15 year old should be punished...and no, not 10 years in jail or anything silly...it could be a small monetary penalty ($100?), but something likely "worse" than the $100, like 100 hours of community service...this way, the kid can't get $100 from his parents (or from stealing something else) and has no other option but to "pay for his actions".
--
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
- George Orwell |
|
| reply to donoreo
said by donoreo:I say the parents should be held responsible. I would expect the same with my children.
Agreed, although 500$ seems a bit steep for a 15$ pair of possibly plastic earrings. Also, this would be a perfect oppotunity to teach the kid a lesson too. Make him do some community service, possible work/help at the store to "pay off" the item.
This makes me think that this is how Voltage would want to proceed in their fillings! Send a threatning letter demanding money and hoping to scare people into paying, when bottom line is, they might not even sue anyone just based on simple math. cost vs reward not worth it.
EDIT: hmm one thing i noticed is the article doesnt mention the kids age. If he is 15 for example, this is the perfect time to nip any future criminal activity mind before he becomes an adult. Teach him that these actions are bad and they have consequences. |
|
donoreoPremium
join:2002-05-30
North York, ON | reply to dirtyjeffer
said by dirtyjeffer:i think the child should be held responsible, however that may be...punishing the parent (perhaps in some extent) COULD be a possible option, but i think the punishment should be on the one who did the crime.
if an 8 year old is running around a store, runs into a display case and breaks a $50 vase, then yes, have the parents pay...a 15 year old steeling something is different though...the 15 year old should be punished...and no, not 10 years in jail or anything silly...it could be a small monetary penalty ($100?), but something likely "worse" than the $100, like 100 hours of community service...this way, the kid can't get $100 from his parents (or from stealing something else) and has no other option but to "pay for his actions".
I agree. I had not read it to see it was a 15 year old. At that age, yes they should be responsible. In the other example, I would expect to be held responsible is my girls at their age did something like you mention.
--
The irony of common sense, it is not that common.
I cannot deny anything I did not say.
A kitten dies every time someone uses "then" and "than" incorrectly.
I mock people who give their children odd spelling of names. |
|
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
| reply to dirtyjeffer
said by dirtyjeffer:i think the child should be held responsible, however that may be...punishing the parent (perhaps in some extent) COULD be a possible option, but i think the punishment should be on the one who did the crime.
The son was charged, so the crown and the YOA will deal with the punishment. Most likely he will face a diversion program, community service and a fine. Thats the legal system to decide.
This is a lawyer trying to recoup for loss prevention's time, extra-judicial lawyermongering at it's finest. The article claims this isn't the first time, how many have paid to just keep it quiet?
--
AFK: Attack, fight, kill!! The healer is telling you to go pull mobs.
WTF: Way to fight! The healer is applauding your tactical genius |
|
dirtyjefferAnons on ignore, but not due to fear.Premium
join:2002-02-21
London, ON | that lawyer should piss off...if he wants restitution, he can ask for it as part of the charges laid against the 15 year old...provided it was reasonable, it would likely be granted as well. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Cogeco Cable
| reply to donoreo
said by donoreo:I say the parents should be held responsible. I would expect the same with my children.
I'd say under 16 years of age, the parent is responsible. |
|
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
| I would say 12, before which the YOA doesn't apply so the responsibility should fall to the Guardian. Over 12 then you have the YOA and Crown to deal with.
--
AFK: Attack, fight, kill!! The healer is telling you to go pull mobs.
WTF: Way to fight! The healer is applauding your tactical genius |
|
donoreoPremium
join:2002-05-30
North York, ON | said by I_H8_Spam:I would say 12, before which the YOA doesn't apply so the responsibility should fall to the Guardian. Over 12 then you have the YOA and Crown to deal with.
That seems reasonable.
Of course many parents would not go for that. |
|
bt
join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1 | reply to I_H8_Spam
The kid was supposed to be in school at the time... wouldn't that count as "reasonable supervision"? |
|
peterboroAvatars are for posersPremium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON
1 edit | reply to I_H8_Spam
Factoid:
The legislative authority for these suits was initiated by Harris.
I was going to use this legislation myself about 11 years ago but demonstrating the causal connection to the parents negligence and more specifically that they failed to "exercise reasonable supervision over their child" would be to difficult to establish.
Edit: Just realized it wasn't in the center of the universe Ontario. |
|
| reply to I_H8_Spam
The kid was on school time so seems to me the school failed and should pony up.
Seems the lawyer has been watching Voltage too much. Oh lets send an extortion letter to the parents. |
|
 digitalfuturSees More Than ShownPremium
join:2000-07-15
BurlingtonON
kudos:2 | reply to I_H8_Spam
One can argue about the amount asked for recovery, but the law allows for it, so I have problem with it. However, if they go to the trouble of sending letters, Shoppers should follow though, else it's an empty threat.
The bar for "reasonable doubt" is much lower in civil matters, and the forfmer YOA (now the Youth Criminal Justice Act) does not apply to civil lawsuits. There's also no prohibition on suing someone in civil court regardless of any parallel criminal process.
I bet most parents would settle out of civil court to avoid the embarassment.
--
Logic requires one to deal with decisions that one's ego will not permit.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke. |
|
 BonezXBasement DwellerPremium
join:2004-04-13
Canada | said by digitalfutur:One can argue about the amount asked for recovery, but the law allows for it, so I have problem with it. However, if they go to the trouble of sending letters, Shoppers should follow though, else it's an empty threat.
The bar for "reasonable doubt" is much lower in civil matters, and the forfmer YOA (now the Youth Criminal Justice Act) does not apply to civil lawsuits. There's also no prohibition on suing someone in civil court regardless of any parallel criminal process.
I bet most parents would settle out of civil court to avoid the embarassment.
except that if you paid out for a crime through the legal system, they can't come after you a second time through the civil system and have you pay them a second time, that would be an absolute abuse of the system. |
|
| reply to I_H8_Spam
Seems to me this drug store (and/or lawyer) is trying to set a minimum fine regardless of what any juvi court would say. Even then, I never heard of court being involved when a kid lifted something like this. Cops take name and address, kid banned from a store etc... but I never saw this before.
Will be interesting to see how this one plays out. |
|
 elwoodbluesElwood BluesPremium
join:2006-08-30
HarperLand
·Cybersurf Intern..
| reply to I_H8_Spam
These is a page right out of the various media lobbying outfits.
Ask for 100 Billion dollars for "sharing' a few songs.
Settle for a couple of thousand.
In this case there was ZERO lost to SDM, they didn't lose the earrings or a sale, it's a shakedown plain and simple.
--
No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake....... |
|
 JuggernautIrreverent or irrelevant?Premium
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC
kudos:2 | Well gee, they have to prop up those shares somehow. [/sarcasm] |
|
1 edit | reply to I_H8_Spam
Yeah, its extortion. This is quite petty, they over reacted, no lawyer required on the plaintiff side.
Smells like Voltage Productions here.
Store should have called the police and let them deal with it.
Isn't that what why we have police and a legal system 
Haul the kid away in a cop car and write him up at the station. |
|
