05.05.2011 02:49 PM

Ouch

Advisory:Kill SCOC elections story; there was no ruling in this case; item is erroneous (Tories-In-Out)
Source: The Canadian Press
May 5, 2011 10:56


OTTAWA – EDITORS: KILL Ottawa-placelined Tories-In-Out moved at 09:54 with writethru at 10:05 ET. Story is erroneous. There was no decision in this matter. There will be a substitute story with different content on another court case.

INDEX: NATIONAL JUSTICE POLITICS

 

5 Comments

  1. Harvey Martin says:

    The Supreme Court of Canada website says this:

    “Conservative Fund Canada v. Chief Electoral Officer of Canada (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave) (34097)

    (The motion to expedite the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs. /

    La requête visant le traitement accéléré de la demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée. La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens.)

    Coram: Binnie / Fish / Rothstein”

    Doesn’t this mean that the Conservatives’ motion to expedite it’s application for leave to appeal was granted, but that the application for leave to appeal was ultimately dismissed? If that’s the case, wouldn’t that appear, on its face, to be newsworthy? Or am I missing something?

  2. Justin says:

    It is not the In and Out appeal. It was their appeal of the Ontario Court of Appeal’s ruling about GST rebates. That was the leave to appeal that was denied and it looks like Canadian Press jumped the gun.

    • Neither Fish Nor Foul says:

      But it does relate to it… it was one of the areas they were appealing to try to save their hide on whether they in fact cheated on the election by overspending at the national level (the denied GST rebate would affect the net total of what they actually wound up spending).

      This was touched on at end of the Hill Times article linked at the end of the Perdu / missing candidate thread.

      • JenS says:

        Yes. It sounds like a reporter at the courthouse heard part of a proceeding, put two plus two together and got five (which could happen as the two cases are somewhat linked), and ran with it … which is why reporters should ALWAYS try to talk to Crown counsel before filing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*