dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6
share rss forum feed


digitalfutur
Sees More Than Shown
Premium
join:2000-07-15
BurlingtonON
kudos:2
reply to I_H8_Spam

Re: Parental responsibility

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.


BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada
kudos:1
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.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
said by BonezX:

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.

You can call it an abuse of the system, but it's fair game. The criminal and civil systems are mutually exclusive in matters such as this. One can even be found not guilty criminally but still held liable civilly for the exact same thing. The burden of proof for civil matters if far lower than that for criminal charges.

To which, if the kid skipped school, Shoppers should be trying to shake down the school as they had the duty of supervision at the time this went down, not the parents. This is one situation where the parents should not be held responsible in any way, shape or form. Regardless, it's still a shakedown, and Shoppers or whoever has launched this effort will most likely walk away with a nothing but a lot of time wasted.


koira
Keep Fighting Michael
Premium
join:2004-02-16
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
said by Gone:

said by BonezX:

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.

You can call it an abuse of the system, but it's fair game. The criminal and civil systems are mutually exclusive in matters such as this. One can even be found not guilty criminally but still held liable civilly for the exact same thing. The burden of proof for civil matters if far lower than that for criminal charges.

To which, if the kid skipped school, Shoppers should be trying to shake down the school as they had the duty of supervision at the time this went down, not the parents. This is one situation where the parents should not be held responsible in any way, shape or form. Regardless, it's still a shakedown, and Shoppers or whoever has launched this effort will most likely walk away with a nothing but a lot of time wasted.

While its fair game , is this what the shareholders want ?
OK they have some effective overreactive loss control, seems like focus is misdirected pissing money away . Shoppers need to review their internal processes and priorities.


digitalfutur
Sees More Than Shown
Premium
join:2000-07-15
BurlingtonON
kudos:2
reply to Gone
Depends if the parents had signed a waiver allowing the student to leave school property without their consent, most high schools offer that now; and if so, whether the crime was committed when the student was not scheduled to be in class, i.e. lunch or spare.
--
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.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4

1 edit
said by digitalfutur:

Depends if the parents had signed a waiver allowing the student to leave school property without their consent, most high schools offer that now; and if so, whether the crime was committed when the student was not scheduled to be in class, i.e. lunch or spare.

"Skipping" would indicate that the student was scheduled to be in class, not on a spare or lunch. Even with a waiver, the school would still be responsible party as far as supervision goes, not the parents. A student is unable to sign themselves out of class until they're 16 (or did McGuinty ever get that changed to 18?). This student was 15.

Edit - this was Alberta. As far as I gather, they're 16 like Ontario used to be. Furthermore, they may not have the same codeified parental liability laws that we here have in Ontario.


koira
Keep Fighting Michael
Premium
join:2004-02-16
LOL If it was Ontario teachers were on strike that day


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
Not all teachers in Ontario were on strike yesterday. Hamilton was on strike on Monday, Niagara was on strike on Thursday last week and Ottawa was on strike on Monday or Tuesday last week I believe.

It is worthwhile to note that there is more to Ontario than just the GTA.


koira
Keep Fighting Michael
Premium
join:2004-02-16
Yup. My heros were off in Peel yesterday, halton today
Lots of shop lifting going on in them there places

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON
reply to BonezX
said by BonezX:

...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.

Think of OJ. Also in the criminal system there are stand alone restitution orders that have the same legal effect as a judgement in a civil case and allow you the victim to initiate your own enforcement actions such as garnishment of wages.


BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada
kudos:1
said by peterboro:

said by BonezX:

...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.

Think of OJ. Also in the criminal system there are stand alone restitution orders that have the same legal effect as a judgement in a civil case and allow you the victim to initiate your own enforcement actions such as garnishment of wages.

yes, but if you already have a settlement through a criminal case, it doesn't make sense that you can approach the civil court for a second settlement for the same thing. it would completely defeat the purpose of the criminal procedure giving restitution or applying fines in the first place.

either way, this is entirely a lawyer trying to pad his wallet at the expense of the company he is on retainer for.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
said by BonezX:

yes, but if you already have a settlement through a criminal case, it doesn't make sense that you can approach the civil court for a second settlement for the same thing. it would completely defeat the purpose of the criminal procedure giving restitution or applying fines in the first place.

It may not make sense to you, but that's just the way things are. Criminal liability and civil liability are not mutually exclusive.

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON
reply to BonezX
said by BonezX:

yes, but if you already have a settlement through a criminal case, it doesn't make sense that you can approach the civil court for a second settlement for the same thing. it would completely defeat the purpose of the criminal procedure giving restitution or applying fines in the first place.

What you have in a criminal case, if there is no restitution order, is a dispute between society and the perp. The courts main consideration is the imposition of sentence under the criminal code and not making the victim whole financially. Lets say some dude walks up and says, "heh there's that BonerX dude that lives in mommies basement jerking off all day lets put the smack down on him". And they do and you miss a week of work and the judge locks them up for a month. Then you go, "that sucks dude, I'm out $400.00 for a weeks pay.


BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada
kudos:1
said by peterboro:

said by BonezX:

yes, but if you already have a settlement through a criminal case, it doesn't make sense that you can approach the civil court for a second settlement for the same thing. it would completely defeat the purpose of the criminal procedure giving restitution or applying fines in the first place.

What you have in a criminal case, if there is no restitution order, is a dispute between society and the perp. The courts main consideration is the imposition of sentence under the criminal code and not making the victim whole financially. Lets say some dude walks up and says, "heh there's that BonerX dude that lives in mommies basement jerking off all day lets put the smack down on him". And they do and you miss a week of work and the judge locks them up for a month. Then you go, "that sucks dude, I'm out $400.00 for a weeks pay.

that's the thing though, if restitution is already handled by the criminal case(which we don't know if it is or not in this case) why should the party be able to get a second restitution is what my issue is.

if the kid has been charged for shoplifting (which means they were caught and the product returned to the store) fines have been levied and restitution has been set by the court (if they were caught and the goods returned it would make sense for it to be zero being there was no actual loss) what right does a party that already has restitution assigned by the court or the court has found no loss on their part as the victim (being stolen goods recovered in condition that allows for sale) have that allows them to literally circumvent the system and basically "double dip" any restitution payments that the criminal court has given, or get restitution where the criminal courts have proven that there is no loss.

in the case of assault, you are given restitution as part of the original case, if the court does not give you restitution where there has been loss, then there was a gross miscarriage of justice on the courts part.

get what I'm saying ?

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON
Restitution, and stand alone restitution orders are not that common and the victim has to press the Crown to argue for them. Often even with a restitution order the perps don't pay and you have to go to civil court.

But if there is a restitution order you won't prevail in civil court until the probation period is extinguished.