Ottowa Loses Yet Another Mad Cow Battle
Court Alerts
The federal government has lost yet another legal battle against a class-action lawsuit that accuses it of gross negligence in the mad cow crisis.
The statement of claim asserts, among other things, that Ottawa introduced a regulation in 1990 that specifically allowed the feeding of cattle parts to other cattle - the method through which bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, is transmitted.
It was only in 1997 that Canada banned the feeding of cattle to other cattle.
On Friday, the Ontario Court of Appeal refused to strike down two negligence claims brought against Ottawa by lead plaintiff Bill Sauer, a cattle producer near Niagara Falls, Ont.
The court upheld a lower court decision which found that more evidence was necessary before such a move could be justified.
The decision also dismissed Winnipeg-based cattle-feed company Ridley Canada’s attempt to have an allegation against it stricken from the suit, as well as an appeal from Sauer in which he attempted to have yet another allegation against Ridley reinstated.
The suit, launched in April 2005, represents cattle farmers from several provinces.
In May 2003, the discovery of an infected cow in Alberta prompted the United States to close its borders to Canadian cattle and precipitated the crisis.
It was estimated at the time that the industry suffered losses of some $7 billion.
Related listings
-
High court: Guidelines presumed reasonable
Court Alerts 06/22/2007[##_1L|1276653988.jpg|width="130" height="98" alt=""|_##]The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that criminal sentences within guidelines set by a federal commission were generally entitled to be upheld on appeal, a decision that limits legal options for ...
-
Justices make it harder to get lower sentences
Court Alerts 06/21/2007[##_1L|1295974256.jpg|width="180" height="122" alt=""|_##]The Supreme Court on Thursday made it harder for convicted criminals to argue on appeal that they should have received a lighter prison sentence than recommended by federal guidelines. By an 8...
-
Motorcyclist Pleads Guilty to Homicide by Vehicle
Court Alerts 06/20/2007Police say a motorcyclist and the woman riding with him were going more than 70 miles an hour -- and neither was wearing a helmet -- when the bike hit street sign and a concrete staircase in York County. Thirty-four-year-old George Sparks Junior of W...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.