From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca on behalf of Cdn-Firearms Digest [owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca] Sent: Wednesday, 18 April, 2001 08:31 To: cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #728 Cdn-Firearms Digest Wednesday, April 18 2001 Volume 03 : Number 728 In this issue: Breast cancer waits 'dangerous' Lawsuits against police rising Wild chase after McRobbery ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2001.04.17 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Breast cancer waits 'dangerous' - -------------------------------------------------------------------- - -------- - ---- Breast cancer waits 'dangerous': Median waiting time for surgery up 37%, study finds: 'We have slipped from having a good care system to having a mediocre system' - -------------------------------------------------------------------- - -------- - ---- Waiting times for breast surgery have jumped sharply over a seven-year period, a major new Canadian study concludes, prompting its researchers to warn of a "dangerous trend" across the country. In an examination of 28,000 women requiring the surgical procedure, researchers in Quebec concluded that the median waiting time -- the point at which 50% of women studied had undergone surgery -- increased more than 37%, from 29 days in 1992 to 42 days in 1998. The findings indicate 50% of women waited more than 42 days. The study's findings were deemed so important that its publication was "fast-tracked" by Canada's leading medical journal. "Our health care systems can not delay over ," lead author Dr. Nancy Mayo, an epidemiologist at McGill University Health Centre in Montreal, said in an interview. "These results point to a dangerous trend of time delays and it's happening across the country. There is a lot of emphasis on getting women in to be seen quickly for screening and I think it's important that follow-up treatment be just as quick." The number of diagnostic procedures needed before surgical treatment was the strongest factor contributing to lengthy waiting times, the study also found. The time increased from 24 days for one procedure, such as a mammogram or biopsy, to 72 days for four procedures. The percentage of women receiving three or more procedures before surgery increased steadily over the seven years, from 19.2% to 33%. The number of patients who waited longer than 90 days grew from 11% in 1992 to more than 17% in 1998. Dr. Mayo called this wait "a potential danger zone." "This research is more of the mountains of evidence that [indicate] we have slipped from having a good care system in Canada to having a really mediocre system," said Pat Kelly, chairwoman of the Advocacy Coalition of Canada. "It is somewhat reassuring to know that because breast for the most part is slow growing it probably won't kill you to be put on a waiting list. "But common sense tells you that that's not the care that we ought to be applying." The study, which examined all Quebec women who underwent invasive procedures for the diagnosis or treatment of breast between 1992 and 1998, is published in today's issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal. It is the first time new research has been fast-tracked by the publication. Editorial review of the article, including peer review, was sped up "so that important results [could] be reported more quickly," according to an accompanying editorial. Dr. Mayo suggested breast surgery rates and waiting list information about other Canadian provinces can be extrapolated from the Quebec data. "Most of our health care across Canada is pretty much the same. If you cut out services, in Alberta is the same as in Quebec." "And everyone cut services. Generally, these diseases do not behave differently from one provincial border to the next." Among the reasons cited for the increased waiting periods was the increase in the number of women being diagnosed with breast across the country, prompting greater demand for services. In Quebec, the number of women requiring surgery for breast climbed from 3,626 new cases in 1992 to 5,162 diagnosed in 1998. As well, researchers pointed to strapped provincial health care systems that cut resources -- closing hospitals, cutting staff, shutting down operating rooms and beds permanently taken off wards -- as well as changes in patterns of care. Delays also arose because some women are reluctant to seek medical follow-up for a suspicious breast lesion. "There is so much stress during the waiting period and we have no idea how stress and interact," Dr. Mayo said of the potential impact. "At one point, where do you say this is a danger zone? Where do you say, enough is enough? My surgical colleagues are very concerned about not being able to offer women treatment rapidly. "Now the question is whether it affects the health of the woman or whether it affects outcome or survival or mortality because that is not yet known. That will need to be the next step." In 1999, a prestigious medical journal in Great Britain published research that examined more than 100,000 patients and found that women who delayed seeking medical attention for three months or more had a 12% lower five-year survival rate than those who sought care more quickly. Great Britain now recommends that all patients with breast be seen within 14 days of a referral. In Canada, clinical practice guidelines for breast emphasize rapid treatment after diagnosis but offer no definition of reasonable waiting times. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 08:22:55 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Lawsuits against police rising * $500,000: Police searched a home and seized firearms in 1992. The plaintiff says he's a bona fide gun collector and police conducted their search without a warrant and without cause. PUBLICATION: The Hamilton Spectator DATE: 2001.04.18 SECTION: News PAGE: A08 SOURCE: The Hamilton Spectator BYLINE: Jocelyn Bell PHOTO: Photo: Paul Hourigan, the Hamilton Spectator ILLUSTRATION: Spectator photographer Paul Hourigan shot through the window of a CIBC bank branch two years ago to get this photo of police surrounding a man they thought was a bank robber. Police quickly learned it was a mistake. Robert Roy, the wrongly accused man, is suing the police for compensation as a result. - -------------------------------------------------------------------- - -------- - ---- Lawsuits against police rising - -------------------------------------------------------------------- - -------- - ---- SUE 'EM -- About 100 people are suing Hamilton police for a range of alleged wrongs. The number reflects legal and social changes over the past 20 years. Lawsuits are generally more common, but people also expect the police to be more accountable. And legal changes have broadened the definition of police negligence. Robert Roy was cashing a cheque at an east-end CIBC branch two years ago when police rushed up with guns drawn and ordered him to the floor. Police thought a robbery was in progress and cuffed the 36-year-old labourer. Roy was terrified, confused and certain his life would end. The misunderstanding was cleared up right away and police released Roy and helped him up. But the apology, glass of water and cigarette weren't enough for the innocent man. Roy sued the Hamilton police and the CIBC for $200,000 in damages. The case goes to court next month. Roy's statement of claim says he was arrested because police were negligent in their investigation. He says his mouth was injured in the arrest, his enjoyment of life has been diminished, and his ability to work has been permanently impaired. In their defence, the police and the CIBC each blame the other for what happened to Roy. The police say the CIBC told them a robbery was in progress. The CIBC says it only told police a suspect might be at the bank. Roy's case is just one of a growing number of lawsuits awaiting settlement or resolution with the Hamilton Police Service. A recent count turned up 99 cases with claims amounting to more than $170 million. Although claimants typically sue for millions, those who win their cases are usually awarded only a fraction of what they seek. That still leaves taxpayers on the hook for settlements, insurance and an enormous amount of time spent defending cases. City of Hamilton lawyer Paul Ryan, who handles the cases, didn't respond to repeated requests for information on how much it actually costs to defend the police. But there's no doubt that the cases - -- and the price tag that goes with them -- will continue to swell. Legal experts say the growth of civil litigation is the result of two North American trends: higher standards of accountability for public institutions and a growing trend to sue the pants off anyone who looks at you sideways. "People are looking to sue and the public purse has money in it," says Hamilton Police Chief Ken Robertson. "We're an easy target. If you don't cross your Ts and dot your Is, you're going to get sued." But as frustrated as Robertson gets by the lawsuits, he also recognizes that they've often shaped police policy for the better. "There are cases where we do screw up. We use excessive force, we don't use good judgment, we don't follow the guidelines and policies that are in place," he says. "People expect more and demand more -- and so they should." The past 20 years have seen a dramatic change in the legal landscape of policing in Canada. Before the 1980s, people mainly sued for obvious harms committed by front-line officer, such as injury caused by excessive use of force or privacy invaded in an illegal search. Most police services didn't need a full-time lawyer because legal work could easily be contracted out or handled by the municipality. Citizens were generally more forgiving and less litigious. They tended to believe that police who erred in the line of duty were "just trying to do their job." But in 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into effect, making people both more aware of their civil liberties and more willing to fight. And the Charter provided that anyone whose rights or freedoms were infringed or denied could seek compensation through the courts. Arnold Harper Crossman became the first Canadian to win damages from police under the Charter. In 1984, Crossman was arrested without warrant by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Whitehorse, Yukon. He was allowed to call his lawyer, but when his lawyer arrived at the station, he was denied access to Crossman for an hour. Meanwhile, police were extracting an incriminating statement from Crossman. He eventually pleaded guilty to the criminal charge, but was later awarded $500, plus costs, for having his right to counsel denied. The case was little noted by the national news media, but it came at a time when police were coming under close scrutiny and calls for accountability were growing louder. In the mid 1980s, police chiefs across the country undertook the painstaking process of coming up with a policy to regulate every police action. What is the policy for police pursuits? What is the policy for use of warning shots? Decisions were documented and civil suits greeted officers who failed to fall in line. As time went on, the questions became more complex. In the late 1980s, substantial damages were being paid by police services that didn't have a policy on such issues as the release of the name of a person with AIDS or the obligation police have toward people in their custody or the protection that police services owe their members against the negligent acts of other members. Courts started awarding major damages to plaintiffs harmed by police. Today's police services operate very differently than they did two decades ago. Hamilton police have had a full-time lawyer on staff for about six years. Officers are issued thick binders filled with policies to guide their actions. For one week each year, officers have to go back to "school" to review those policies, a practice that started last year. And new and unprecedented cases continue to pour in. Inaction, rather than action, is what lands police services in hot water these days. The issue first came to a boil in 1997 when an Ottawa resident became the first in Canada to successfully sue for negligent investigation. Roxanne Beckstead won $20,000 from the Ottawa police after being charged with bank-card fraud relating to the use of an acquaintance's bank card. The court found the Ottawa police investigation negligent in several areas: The security photo of the suspect showed a person who didn't look like Beckstead; police didn't interview the card holder; and the officer who laid the charges against Beckstead did so even before he interviewed her. The decision to award money to Beckstead was significant and precedent-setting. It was the first time the courts decided police weren't immune from being sued for failing to do a proper and thorough investigation. Hamilton lawyer Gordon Gardner said when news of the Beckstead ruling landed on his desk, he realized that his client, Flamborough resident Lily Usik, suddenly had cause to file a claim against the Hamilton police. In the spring of 1996, Usik's husband told social workers that Usik had assaulted him and that he was afraid of her. Social workers called police and police went to the farm where the couple lived. Gardner says that police had no evidence of abuse, that they were on his client's property without permission, and that his client was arrested without an interview and without a judge's warrant. Usik is claiming several hundred thousand dollars in damages for negligent investigation and trespassing. The other group of people making negligent investigation claims are acquitted suspects. Once the court finds them not guilty of a crime, some former accused sue police for personal suffering and legal costs associated with being charged. Robertson says it happens because the courts have become more stringent and it's getting harder for police to get a conviction. "We're seeing more people beating charges on a technicality and then coming back and suing us on the original investigation," the chief says. "We never saw that in the old days." A lawyer for a Hamilton man acquitted of murder says it isn't courtroom technicalities but sloppy police work that prompts innocent people to sue police. In 1999, James Floyd and another man were charged with second-degree murder in the death of Curtis Crumb. Crumb plummeted from the 15th floor of a Hamilton apartment building in March 1999. Floyd spent more than five months in jail before the Crown withdrew the charges, deciding there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. Last February, Floyd filed a civil suit against Hamilton police for malicious and negligent prosecution, false imprisonment and breach of several other constitutional rights. "There was no reasonable basis for charging (Floyd), and there's a very open question about whether the person who died was even murdered," said Floyd's lawyer David Midanik. "Police didn't do their job. This is an outrage." Outrage over negligent investigations could soon be overtaken by the latest reason to go after police -- malicious prosecution. Although malicious prosecution cases are not new, a recent ruling by the Ontario Court of Appeal could make it much easier for claimants to win such cases. Michael Oniel's battle against the Toronto police began in 1985. Oniel was an upwardly mobile Bay Street brokerage firm manager with a fully owned home, a net worth of about $250,000 and a securities portfolio worth $100,000. Then a man he had never met before confronted him in a bookstore and accused him of stealing $40 and a watch three weeks earlier. Police arrested Oniel, interrogated him and charged him with robbery. The following year, a jury acquitted Oniel in less than 10 minutes after a three-day trial. Oniel sued, believing the investigating officers had been both negligent and malicious in their prosecution. The officers failed to interview the owner of the bookstore to see if a robbery had been reported. They didn't interview Oniel's barber to find out that he had never had a haircut like the one the man in the bookstore described. Police continued to pursue the case after discovering that the accuser had a criminal record under an alias, indicating that he had lied to police before. The prosecution continued even after police learned that the man had made robbery allegations against two other people. Finally, police didn't make notes during interviews with the accuser and they lost his written, signed statement. Oniel spent more than a decade trying to win damages through the civil courts. Last January, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the Toronto officers had been both negligent and malicious and Oniel was awarded $75,000. The Toronto police have appealed the case to the Supreme Court of Canada. What makes the case unusual is that Oniel never established malice, at least not in the traditional sense. For a malice claim to stick in the past, a claimant had to prove that police had an improper purpose or an ulterior motive. Classic examples of malicious prosecution include officers bulldozing through an investigation because they want a promotion or officers prosecuting the wrong person to settle a personal vendetta. In Oniel's case, Mr. Justice Stephen Borins said the evidence showed that the officers "proceeded with reckless indifference" to Oniel's guilt or innocence. There was no improper purpose. Indifference itself was enough to establish malice. Police and their lawyers say the threshold for such cases has been lowered. They fear that if the Supreme Court doesn't overturn the appeal court's decision, anyone who thinks police didn't turn over every last stone can sue for malice. Oniel could start the ball rolling for malice in the way that Beckstead did for negligence. And that means more cases, more time and more money. "We're really worried that it's going to open the flood gates," Robertson says. "You think it's bad now. If this Oniel case comes to fruition, it's going to be even worse." You can contact Jocelyn Bell by e-mail at in 1992. The plaintiff says he's a bona fide gun collector and police conducted their search without a warrant and without cause. * $1 million: A company was hired to move fitness equipment at the police station in 1998. An officer helped to move a large pop machine. During the move, the machine fell on the legs of the plaintiff. The plaintiff refused an ambulance and left the work area walking with a slight limp. He is suing for his injuries. * $1,600: Officers went to a business to arrest a man in October 1998. The man hid in a warehouse while employees tried to mislead police. Someone let loose two Rottweilers that charged at police. One of the officers shot and killed one of the dogs. The man is suing for trespassing and the killing of his dog. * $3 million: A woman was sexually assaulted in May 1997. She says police knew of similar crimes in the area and should have warned women. * $2.5 million: The family of an Ancaster teen killed in 1999 alleges that an undercover officer who drove up to the girl and four of her friends frightened them, causing them to speed off in their car and drive into a hydro pole. The family is suing for the loss of their daughter. * $2.9 million: A man charged with stalking and threatening his former wife in June 1995 is suing because the night he spent in a ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 08:23:01 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Wild chase after McRobbery PUBLICATION: The Province DATE: 2001.04.18 EDITION: FINAL C SECTION: News PAGE: A4 BYLINE: Gordon Clark SOURCE: The Province - -------------------------------------------------------------------- - -------- - ---- Wild chase after McRobbery - -------------------------------------------------------------------- - -------- - ---- A Surrey man was in custody and another two suspects were at large after an armed robbery of a McDonald's, shots fired from a getaway vehicle and a car crash. Police said a man and woman entered the restaurant in the 12900-block of 96th Avenue at 8 p.m. on Monday. The man pulled a and demanded money, then the pair fled. A 28-year-old Surrey woman driver spotted the crooks jumping into a pickup truck that was waiting with a getaway driver. The witness followed the pick-up until one of the robbers fired a couple shots at her. The truck was later involved in an accident at 100th Avenue and 125th Street with a car carrying two women, who were uninjured. The robbers fled on foot as a neighbour gave chase before flagging down a passing police car. Police pursued the suspects and arrested a 30-year-old man. Anyone with information call 669-TIPS. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #728 ********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:acardin33@home.com List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca FAQ list: http://www.magma.ca/~asd/cfd-faq1.html and http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/homepage.html FTP Site: ftp://teapot.usask.ca/pub/cdn-firearms/ CFDigest Archives: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/~ab133/ or put the next command in an e-mail message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca get cdn-firearms-digest v03.n198 end (198 is the digest issue number and 03 is the volume) To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next five lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-alert unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".) If you find this service valuable, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to the freenet we use: Saskatoon Free-Net Assoc., 1702 20th St. West, Saskatoon SK S7M OZ9 Phone: (306) 382-7070 modem lines: (306) 956-3700 and (306) 956-3701 Home page: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/ National Firearms Association (N.F.A.) Box 4384, Station C Calgary AB T2T 5N2 ph.: (403) 640-1110 fax: (403) 640-1144 mailto:nfainfo@nfa.ca Web site: http://www.nfa.ca/ DONATIONS GRATEFULLY ACCEPTED! Automatic, monthly donations may be made to the N.F.A. by sending postdated cheques, or your Visa/MasterCard number and expiry date, to the Membership address above, along with the amount you would like to donate: $5, $10, or another amount. Automatic donations may be cancelled at any time. N.F.A. memberships: families: $40; seniors: $25; individuals: $30; businesses: $50. Included are regular issues of the N.F.A. newsletter Point Blank, as well as magazines like "Canadian Sportsman". Add just $4.75 per person for $5,000,000 insurance! Clubs: get associate memberships for just $3 per member ($45 minimum) and members will be still eligible for $5,000,000 liability insurance for just $4.75 each! These e-mail digests are free to everyone, and are made possible by the efforts of countless volunteers. Permission is granted to copy and distribute this digest as long as it not altered in any way.