 |
| Susan Heyes speaks with Shaw TV show host David Berner |
That victory forced the consortium of big businesses who ruined her small business and dozens of others through disruption of Cambie Street traffic for years to construct the Canada Line rapid transit project to Richmond and Vancouver International Airport.
Susan had the guts and determination to take on the Canada Line construction corporations in BC Supreme Court and won - a $600,000 settlement and an important precedent - that you can't ruin someone else's livelihood by claiming it's all for the "public good" - compensation had to be paid.
That decision was overturned by the BC Court of Appeal and now the Supreme Court of Canada has accepted it being thrown out.
The Supreme Court of Canada gives no reason for dismissing the application, as is its practice, but the reasons why this is terribly wrong are lengthy. Here's Susan's view.
From Susan Heyes:
Today, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed my application for leave to appeal.
This is a dark day for democracy in Canada. By refusing to hear this case, Canada’s highest court has decided that corporations have more rights than small businesses and citizens.
Small businesses are the economic backbone of our country and are the heart of our communities. The Supreme Court of Canada has decided that we don’t matter.
With this ruling, the Supreme Court has given corporations a blank cheque. It has ruled that corporations undertaking megaprojects in Canada are not legally compelled to tell the truth, even when the consequences for citizens and small businesses are as severe as they were with the Canada Line project.
This decision allows corporations to profit at the expense of citizens and small businesses.
The ruling calls into question the integrity of our judicial system including the ruling of the BC Appeals Court. Cut and cover construction for the Canada Line had been ruled out in the Cambie Village in all the materials made available to the public. Yet the case was overturned, with the project claiming that even though they caused a nuisance, they were authorized by statute to do so.
Under the law, this defence of Statutory Authority can only be used when no other less disruptive option is available, and cost cannot be a factor.
We all know that not only was there a less disruptive option, that of a bored underground tunnel, but it was the project, until the secret switch to cut and cover. A bored underground tunnel was the only option presented to the public for the Cambie Village area.
Corporations should be compelled to tell the whole truth, but the Supreme Court of Canada has determined that small businesses and citizens have no legal right to expect truthful information that would allow them to take measures to protect themselves from harm.
For 6 years, rectifying this colossal injustice has been my priority, in the public domain and through the courts.
The legal system has let us down. This is not the Canada I know and love.
This case personifies the worldwide outrage at corporate greed, and abuse of government power.
We as citizens, must continue to demand that our rights are upheld, against all odds.
Susan Heyes
46 comments:
Sweet. It's been a great day. Susan Heyes had no chance of winning. Majority of taxpayers are happy. Corporate greed on her part.
very disappointing...
Thank you for the fight Susan. It was not in vain. It shows everyone the state of democracy, our courts and corporate power.
Surprise, SURPRISE!
Peasants DO NOT count.
I was vaguely optimistic that the SCOC would do the RIGHT, APPROPRIATE, JUST thing. But, no.
Had she been a LAWYER, she may have gotten a favorable judgment. After all, Canada does NOT have a justice system, we have a LAWYER system - set up to benefit LAWYERS. Are any "judges" not lawyers?
.
Susan has done a heroic job of defending justice. That certainly doesn't mean that the rest of us should stop the daily battle.
Can't help remembering Jack Layton's final words ... how did he say it ... ?
"Don't ever let them tell you that something can't be done!"
Brava to Susan Heyes for an outstanding battle.
.
After reading the comments by Ms. Heyes, I must agree. Her rights and others have been denied by big Government and big business. In my opinion, the Supreme Court of Canada has a mandate to protect the right of individuals. This was certainly was not the case here.I await other comments on this subject.
What a waste of money. I favour the result. A poor business woman who wanted to scam the taxpayers. This is great news.
her lawyer cameron ward should give the money back too. losers should never profit. Well done Supreme Court of Canada. Finally some good news.
If Susan had represented big business the judgement might well have been different.IMHO
I read the case. Susan was wrong on all accounts. Really bad business woman. Someone who made bad decisions should profit from others.
A travesty of justice! I am sorry that small business have such little regard from the judiciary in this country.Because she was initially awarded a positive verdict;it seems wrong that Susan Heyes be shut down in this unjust manner.
Wrong,wrong,wrong. We are all crying for electric rapid transit south of the Fraser which would have cost so much less than digging underground in a prime target earthquake zone.Millions of tax paying citizens would have had transportation needs serviced more effectively without damning downtown small businesses.
The massive straws are piling up on this particular camel here.
Corporate Canada is on notice;you are killing off the middle class of this fair country.
Elites win nearly 100% of court battles. Why? Nearly 100% of judicial appointments are either Crown prosecutors or attornies. Members of the Defence Bar rarely get appointments. Even when they are - Peter Leask and Dave St Pierre - they are subject to harsh scrutiny.
McLachlin (chief malfeasant, supreme court parasites) wasn't chosen on merit. Both her academic and legal careers were mediocre. She was chosen because she shilled for harsh case-to-meet criteria. Once she was in charge of the BC high court, she did nothing about colleague John Bouck's brazen rail-roading of Ivan Henry, while she dictated Legislator script of the notorious Rule 18, which has allowed Holocaust legalization where persons have attempted to sue malfeasant government employees.
Forget occupation, the 99.7% of Canadians who are not court-officers need to coerce Parliament into declaring that the Justice System is operated in a state of Insurrection, and apprehend it. Any court officer who ever fixed a case should be stripped of office and handed a bill for every penny they ever took from the Public to whom they refused to serve.
Heyes can't push back alone. Tieleman-VanderZ have show what referendum power can do.
BTW: McLachlin-gang refusal to hear connotes acceptance of appeals court findings. Forget logic; it is all about elite-status-defence. And they are 3 out of every 1000 people. We can and should crush those usurpatious animals like the blood-sucking bugs that they are.
After reading the comments by Ms. Heyes, I must agree. Her rights and others have been denied by big Government and big business
How so? She had the rights of appeal which she went through.
Care to cite explicitly as to how precisely her rights have been denied Ken? Cite specific verifiable aspects that explicitly say that she cannot have her day at the Supreme Court as originating from government and business.
Go:..
John:
Get the facts. Specific Promise engaged when the government made statements - later proven to be falsified - as to the economic disruption that would result from the project.
If the legal-factual grounds of our Constituted Justice System had not been overthrown by Seditious forces with their occupational-cultural imperatives put above Liberty and Democracy, the court-gang would have recognized Heyes' claims under Economic Loss tort-feasance. McLachlin has now legalized Malfeasance, as has she legalized cop Assault (False Arrest), in Ward atrocity, Assault by Prosecutorial derogation of Procedural and Substantive Rights, as in the Miazga atrocity, Assault by Prosecution against Free Speech as in the Lucas atrocity, Seditious legalization of Breach of Trust in the Belanger atrocity, ad nauseum.
Admit that our Justice System operates in a State of Insurrection As Yet Unapprehended.
most of you are so lame. Conspiracy theories. blah blah blah. At the end, Supreme Court of Canada has the last say and not some ginger who tried to steal $600,000 from the public. I fully expect interest to be tacked on to what she owes. If you clowns care so much, why don't you help her pay.... exactly. None of you will including Tieleman. Again, all talk, no action. No wonder the majority are against you.
Once again the PAB comments here illustrate the BC Liberal mindset.
Their comments should be published before elections.
Bill;
I did some research for Susan for her lawsuit against TransLink and the one astonishing thing I found, is that the Canada Line was unique in North America and Europe in not having a compensation package for merchants affected by subway construction. In fact, I could not find an example of just compensation not being paid to merchants who were adversely affected by such construction.
It was not just cut-and-cover subway construction but light rail construction as well.
In Nottingham (UK) compensation was available to storefront merchants whose business was interfered with by track laying for a period of two weeks or more.
A transit specialist in the UK told me that compensation packages both protected merchants from undue hardship from construction and compelled contractors to quickly do the job or be penalized.
The reason of course why compensation was not offered by TransLink was that the cost of the Canada line spiraled from $1.3 billion to over $2.5 billion and there was simply no money put aside for compensation.
That the supreme court refused to hear the case, unfortunately makes me suspect that they were told to dismiss the case out of hand, lest they rule in Ms. Heyes favour.
As an aside, transit experts who reside out of the Vancouver area think the Canada line is bit of a white elephant; far too expensive for what it does and far too expensive to extend it so it can be useful.
The reason of course why compensation was not offered by TransLink was that the cost of the Canada line spiraled from $1.3 billion to over $2.5 billion and there was simply no money put aside for compensation.
There was no compensation for businesses affected by the construction of the M-Line.
Was there any compensation for construction of the M-Line in Portland Oregon? Was there compensation made during the construction of the rapid transit line in Seattle (Sound Transit LRT)?
In regards to the M-Line, there were many businesses affected by construction particularly in the Brentwood area, and they were not compensated.
Compensation of Heyes would set a precedent that would add hugely to project costs. If it were my decision to do so, I wouldn't vote for it.
Compensation for losses for a project exist, but those are mostly for at market compensation for expropiated land. Such was the case for the expansion of the Upper Levels in the mid 1970's by the NDP (Taylor way to Horseshoe Bay).
That the supreme court refused to hear the case, unfortunately makes me suspect that they were told to dismiss the case out of hand, lest they rule in Ms. Heyes favour.
How so? Where exactly would this come from. What exactly are the identifiable suspicions based on precedence in this instance?? Exactly who? More of political speculation than anything specific.
As an aside, transit experts who reside out of the Vancouver area think the Canada line is bit of a white elephant; far too expensive for what it does and far too expensive to extend it so it can be useful.
It actually has been profitable. It can be easily extended south through Richmond. It was not as a rule designed as to be expanded, but rather as a higher capacity line than the Expo/ M-Line.
Since the Canada in Richmond is elevated, yes it can easily be extended. By the same premise that The Tube in London and the Subway in New York has been extended, construction wise so can the Canada Line, let's say from Olympic Village Station west to Granville and out to UBC, but the congestion on Broadway does not warrant the larger cost of doing so.
PAB wrote that :
"It [the C-line] actually has been profitable"
It might be worth mentioning the cost of those profits and at whose expense. All busses that were once bound for Vancouver now drop their passengers off at the Richmond terminus. The Granville B-Line was cut and the remainder of the N and S bound busses were slashed.
The private partners of the C-line project are reaping profits from the standing room only cars - but it is at the riders expense and does not contribute to the public purse.
Longer commute times and unnecessarily uncomfortable conditions.
How can one be surprised after, Campbell's theft and corrupt sale of the BCR trial? What a farce that was. You talk about a load of the tax payers dollars being wasted, look no further than that. The sleaziest crime in Canadian history. When it got too hot for Campbell, the trial was shut down, REAL FAST.
Susan Heyes worked hard to make her business succeed, well beyond 9 to 5 hours per day. That Susan lost her Civil Rights and Liberties in the BC courts, is of no surprise to me.
In BC justice is won for, "who" you are. Justice in BC is for those who can afford to fight and win, with tax payers money.
For politicians and the elite, a special prosecutor is only a phone call away, to get them off their criminal charges.
BC judges have the gall to demand more money. For what? We can carry on with a far less number of them. Politicians and the elite, automatically get off their guilty criminal charges. No point in wasting tax payers money going to court. The everyday BC people, do not get away with a DUI, or any other crime. They automatically get sentenced.
We BC citizens know the outcome of a trial, before it even begins.
Susan Heyes did not deserve to, lose her right to appeal. She committed no crime. What was done "TO" Susan, is the true typical crime, of the corrupt BC courts.
Campbell forced his vile corruption, throughout the entire establishments of this province.
Nothing has changed with the Campbell/Clark BC Liberals. It is carry on as usual, with Campbell's corruption legacy.
This is why the "Occupy Vancouver" protest is so important. It is time for this corporate greed to stop and the courts must be fair.
I apologize for accidentally deleting an Anon posting - it has been reposted.
The Seattle LRT line had a $50 million compensation package for merchants affected by LRT construction. Portland also offer compensation for shop owners, but in Portland shop owners welcome light rail as business increases about 10% along new LRT/streetcar lines!
Business owners in the Lougheed Mall area of the Millennium Line were compensated, but those who were had close connections with Victoria.
The Canada Line is not profitable, but is subsidized by the taxpayer, for if it were profitable, you would have a rush of transit planners from around the world come to Vancouver to see the miracle!
No rush - no miracle.
Sorry, it is just more TransLink BS, that we have all become accustomed to.
As for the Canada Line being extended, it is not cost effective to do so at about $100 million or more per km. to build. You can extand any transit system you want if you throw enough money at it.
Take away the bus riders (35,000) and the YVR workers who drive and park on Sea Island and travel free (The Canada Line is free on Sea Island) from Templeton Station to YVR for free (15,000) and multiple trips by U-Pass holding students, the Canada Line has attracted relatively few new passengers.
Please remember most passengers board the Canada Line twice, so those traveling for free or forced to transfer from buses account for about 100,000 boarding or more!
This has not gone unnoticed by transit experts abroad.
As it stands Susan Heyes was screwed royally by a dishonest and devious government, through their agents TransLink and SNC Lavalin; and would not been allowed to happen in most democratic countries.
Anonmmous 12:00pdt. Your a sick puppy. I hope one day your rights are smashed and see how you feel. By the way, I think you not need come here for sympathy.
"Longer commute times and unnecessarily uncomfortable conditions."
Are you aware of how ridiculously slow - and uncomfortable - the Granville B-Line was during peak times?
Look at who appoints these judges. Surely no one is surprised at the outcome?
cherylb
Where was Bill when the Millenium Line was being built? Why wasn't he screaming for compensation to be paid to disrupted businesspeople then? Oh right, it's because it was being built by his buddy Glen Clark.
Carry on folks, nothing to see here...
Anon 1:26 p.m. - actually, I was a consultant on the Millenium Line and also worked with BC Transit on several projects in the late 1990s.
I believe anyone significantly disrupted by public construction projects deserves compensation.
But I am unaware of any lawsuits launched during that period that got to the court stage. Susan Heyes has shown dogged determination and had she succeeded, would have set a legal precedent for Canada on compensation. Hopefully someday governments and contractors will realize that ruining someone's business is inexcusable and should not be permitted.
"I believe anyone significantly disrupted by public construction projects deserves compensation.
But I am unaware of any lawsuits launched during that period that got to the court stage."
So if no lawsuits are launched, all is fine and dandy. If it works for China...
"Anon 1:26 p.m. - actually, I was a consultant on the Millenium Line and also worked with BC Transit on several projects in the late 1990s."
NDP patronage no doubt (BC Transit was set by the NDP and the M-Line was an NDP project despite Glen Clark initially not wanting Skytrain and wanted to start an LRT line down Broadway instead.
"But I am unaware of any lawsuits launched during that period that got to the court stage. "
There was quite simply, none filed.
Susan Heyes has shown dogged determination and had she succeeded, would have set a legal precedent for Canada on compensation.
That's the problem. Eaxcly how much compensation does there need to be. RAV erred by switching construction methodology after it was determined a tunnel underground was the way to go, but was found to be expensive.
Heyes had the right to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in the aspect of rights to file her case, but the SCC does turn away cases on its merits. So she did undertake the right of seeking appeal.
Hopefully someday governments and contractors will realize that ruining someone's business is inexcusable and should not be permitted.
Might want to be careful there. If the NDP goes ahead with a large project and does NOT provide compensation for affected businesses , then what would you do Bill?
When you look back at Harper's political past, in 1989...No wonder Canadians are losing all their rights. No wonder we are losing our democracy. That the media are muzzled, and other offenses of Harper's dictatorship. The dots are now easy to connect.
The unjust ruling against Susan Heyes, shows just how corrupt the BC judicial system is. We also saw their corruption, regarding Campbell's theft and sale of the BCR trial.
I am not going to list all of the judicials corrupt rulings. I would be sitting here all day.
Even a grade seven student, can see through the corruption in this province.
"When you look back at Harper's political past, in 1989...No wonder Canadians are losing all their rights. No wonder we are losing our democracy. That the media are muzzled, and other offenses of Harper's dictatorship. The dots are now easy to connect."
Harper's political past as an MP does not include 1989. The federal Liberals got in 1993-2004, so funny how no mention of them.
"The unjust ruling against Susan Heyes, shows just how corrupt the BC judicial system is."
She went through the process, and actually won, until Translink won on appeal. Learn how the system works.
"I am not going to list all of the judicials corrupt rulings. I would be sitting here all day."
Good.
Even a grade seven student, can see through the corruption in this province.
Let us know when you pass Grade 6 and enter Grade 7 next year if you learned exactly how things in government and the judiciary work.
.
Jeez, Bill, we pay a heavy price for free speech.
I can't help wondering why people (usually Anonymous) rush forward with such cruel, throat-slitting assaults. Miserable creatures. If they are only trying to hurt, why do you put up with it?
You run a good, important blog. Most of us know that this requires lots of smarts, lots of experience, and a tonne of good faith. Gentle soul that I am, I would enjoy seeing you smack down somebody with nothing better to do with his life than write Comment #1 ... Oct. 20 comment at 6:12.
Differing points of view are one thing. But sheer nastiness drags us all down.
Just askin' ... would you consider deleting comments which add nothing constructive to the discussions?
.
BTW- I still have a tremendous respect for the work BC Mary does, but I'm just aghast at censoring because of a man's name. Seemed silly at the time and still seems silly. Kudos to Mr Teileman for NOT censoring.
Heyes was wronged. And Charter Nullifiers wronged her, and it is Seditious to nullify the CCRF. The 99.7% who pay for garbage delivered by court-officers, need to hand those parasites a dose of referendum power. Ask Tieleman-Van Derzam, if you think that won't drive fear into elite spines.
BTW: City Caucus blog reports on Gregor's use of cops for political purpose. You judge.
http://www.citycaucus.com/
Jeez, Bill, we pay a heavy price for free speech.
Well, that is the way it is. Free speech is just that, free speech.
"I can't help wondering why people (usually Anonymous) rush forward with such cruel, throat-slitting assaults. Miserable creatures. If they are only trying to hurt, why do you put up with it?"
Because he is smart and knows what free speech is all about.
You run a good, important blog. Most of us know that this requires lots of smarts, lots of experience, and a tonne of good faith. Gentle soul that I am, I would enjoy seeing you smack down somebody with nothing better to do with his life than write Comment #1 ... Oct. 20 comment at 6:12.
What would be the purpose? If Bill's blog is a conveyor of free speech, why the nastiness from you BC Mary?
Just askin' ... would you consider deleting comments which add nothing constructive to the discussions?
That would be censorship. You can do that on your own blog.
Or what is supposedly a blog, and not much more than mainstream media news snips.
In my opinion, this act is just
Morally wrong and should be repealed.
Going a bit further and suggesting
Any remunerations for the overly
Yelping BC government is just inane.
Thanks again for comments - but I am still not posting some that are obvious a single person or group trying to trash Susan Heyes, not debating the issue.
Fair enough to agree with the Supreme Court of Canada but making specious claims about Susan's motivation, personal finances or other allegations is not going to get published here.
BC Mary - I always appreciate your posts and yes, we do pay a high price for freedom of speech at times - and as you can see, some of the anonymous sluggos have it in for you as well.
My position is clear - this is a miscarriage of justice and the Supreme Court of Canada should have heard the appeal. Anytime a BC Supreme Court justice agrees with a small business fighting a huge international conglomerate, it's worth the top court hearing arguments and making its decision.
Obviously, by siding with the Appeal Court of BC, the Supreme Court has effectively ruled against Susan Heyes.
That means the only way change will happen for compensation of those affected by pubic projects is through provincial or federal legislation.
That's a tough road to hoe but it must eventually be done.
My position is clear - this is a miscarriage of justice and the "Supreme Court of Canada should have heard the appeal. Anytime a BC Supreme Court justice agrees with a small business fighting a huge international conglomerate, it's worth the top court hearing arguments and making its decision."
The Court decides on the merits of the appeal, not politics. The premise of this discussion is obviously a political one, rather than one solely based on legal aspects and merits.
Obviously, by siding with the Appeal Court of BC, the Supreme Court has effectively ruled against Susan Heyes.
Not so. That opinion is a simplistic default. Heyes initially won her case. but was overturned by the Court of Appeal. She did not accept that decision and decided to go ahead to file with the Supreme Court of Canada.
What if she lost her petition to the Supreme Court after the case was heard?
Most likely words of "injustice" would be pixelled into this blog.
This blog commentary has nothing to do with legal aspects, but more of the same "Big Bad Liberals" mantra.
Supposed this chain of events happened when the M-Line was being built?
I have removed some more comments previously posted. I am not interested in individuals carrying on their personal battles with others here - battles that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Stick to the content here, don't belittle people for no reason but personal spite and don't waste readers' time - there are big issues at stake - please focus.
If those whose posts were deleted want to contact me, my email is on my profile or send a comment starting with NOT FOR PUBLICATION and it will not be posted.
I am amazed and sickened that some posters here condemn Heyes efforts. This indicates two things to my mind : many people have been thoroughly brainwashed by the Corporate agenda; and many people have no respect or understanding of the importance of small business to the economy. I wonder how many people are aware of the simple fact that it is SMALL and MEDIUM size businesses that create the most jobs and generate the most economic activity. Also for those complaining about Heyes being after "our taxes", have you ever considered how much in public taxes go towards corporate bailouts? Here's a hint : it's in the billions ... For my part this re-enforces my resolve to boycott big business at every opportunity on the one hand, and to take governments to task for their injustices in every way possible. The lies must stop ! -chuckles
In answer to a question privately sent, a lawsuit by other Cambie Street merchants separate from Susan Heyes' initial action continues to the best of my knowledge. This decision may have a negative effect on that lawsuit.
After reviewing comments in this article,I note the following. A certain mining company received $30million for lost of their rights and profits. Their case was tried in private by the liberals. Ms. Heyes was denied justice and taxpayer were denied justice in the mining company case.
Post a Comment