This is interesting. What harm is sited in the class action suit? Isn't the plaintiff in this type of contest required to prove damages? It appears to me that this young lady based her suit on the media reports circulating that first week which have been refuted.
Paragraph 73 of the ruling: "As mentioned, the damage claims advanced by all three proposed Classes are partially based on the tort of public nuisance. The respondents allege the truckers blocked several downtown Ottawa public streets rendering them impassable, unreasonably honked their air and train horns while parked on those streets, and emitted diesel fumes as their parked trucks idled."
The blocked intersection at Rideau & Sussex was the exception proving the rule that streets were not blocked by the truckers. Rather, one lane was typically kept open for emergency vehicles. Dozens of intersections in downtown were, however, barricaded by the police.
The horn honking was aggressive for the first few days only. Afterward, and well before the February 7th court injunction, the truckers voluntarily ceased honking for an extended period from early evening until morning.
The diesel fumes emitted by idling trucks were unfortunate. But the alternative to those diesel fumes was that the occupants of the trucks freeze to death in subzero weather.
Thanks Donna. That appears to me a list of extremely difficult damages to prove let alone quantify but I am obviously biased. I truly hope they get a reasonable judge.
I don't think it was about any "inconvenience" at all, although that was the excuse. A 21 year old saw the millions given by donors that were piling up and figured it was an easy way to make herself a millionaire, given the mood of her fellows. Greed and entitlement met opportunity.
Our judicial system is just as effed as our political system.
Lots of reasons to think so :-(
This is interesting. What harm is sited in the class action suit? Isn't the plaintiff in this type of contest required to prove damages? It appears to me that this young lady based her suit on the media reports circulating that first week which have been refuted.
Paragraph 73 of the ruling: "As mentioned, the damage claims advanced by all three proposed Classes are partially based on the tort of public nuisance. The respondents allege the truckers blocked several downtown Ottawa public streets rendering them impassable, unreasonably honked their air and train horns while parked on those streets, and emitted diesel fumes as their parked trucks idled."
The blocked intersection at Rideau & Sussex was the exception proving the rule that streets were not blocked by the truckers. Rather, one lane was typically kept open for emergency vehicles. Dozens of intersections in downtown were, however, barricaded by the police.
The horn honking was aggressive for the first few days only. Afterward, and well before the February 7th court injunction, the truckers voluntarily ceased honking for an extended period from early evening until morning.
The diesel fumes emitted by idling trucks were unfortunate. But the alternative to those diesel fumes was that the occupants of the trucks freeze to death in subzero weather.
Thanks Donna. That appears to me a list of extremely difficult damages to prove let alone quantify but I am obviously biased. I truly hope they get a reasonable judge.
I don't think it was about any "inconvenience" at all, although that was the excuse. A 21 year old saw the millions given by donors that were piling up and figured it was an easy way to make herself a millionaire, given the mood of her fellows. Greed and entitlement met opportunity.
Entirely plausible. Interesting what ordinary people see vs what judges see :-)
I'd be surprised if the federal government isn't helping finance the suit.