A 3-year legal battle between St. John's and Urban Market is over
Ivy Hanley and her husband and business partner Greg Hanley were first taken to court in 2022. The city alleged the couple did not have a valid occupancy permit for their seasonal store, Christmas House — a separate building next to their Urban Market location.
That charge was dropped in provincial court in 2023 due to a lack of evidence. The city appealed, but on Friday the case was thrown out of Supreme Court.
Ivy Hanley said the building was approved for occupancy, and she overheard that point being made during a St. John's council meeting. However, a permit was never issued and the fee kept getting refunded.
"[They could] hand-write the occupancy permit," Ivy Hanely told CBC Radio's On The Go. "But instead of doing that, which would take maybe an hour of employee time, they decided to get their team of lawyers and criminally charge us for opening without occupancy."
A provincial court judge could not find the city bylaw that the Christmas House owners were alleged to have broken, said Ivy Hanley, and the city could not produce the bylaw either.
Ivy Hanley said the couple went to court at least six times during the trial because the city's lawyers "were showing up late" and "they weren't prepared."
The couple self-represented until the city of St. John's took the case to the Supreme Court for appeal.
Ivy Hanley says she is frustrated that so many hours and dollars were spent on the occupancy debacle.
"All of this is paid for by our tax dollars when they could have just simply wrote out a temporary permit," she said.
Despite the red tape from the city, Ivy Hanley said business is thriving at Urban Market 1919, which stocks a variety of food and other products made in Newfoundland and Labrador.
"For once, the little guys, they came out on top," she said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
a day ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Soccer players' union wants quick resolution of India's domestic league stalemate
Global soccer players' union FIFPRO has called for a swift resolution to the crisis that has gripped the domestic game in India. The 2025-26 India Super League (ISL) season was due to start in September, but the 14-team competition has been suspended due to uncertainty over the renewal of its organizing agreement between the Indian federation and its commercial partner, the Football Sports Development Ltd., pending a Supreme Court ruling. In early August, three ISL clubs, Bengaluru FC, Odisha FC and Chennaiyin FC, either suspended salaries or ceased soccer operations until a solution is found. 'The lack of clarity for players over the 2025-26 Indian Super League (ISL) season, arising from a dispute over the league's organization and governance that has led to its indefinite suspension, is having a significant impact on their livelihoods, careers, and well-being,' FIFPRO Asia/Oceania said in a statement released Tuesday. 'Players have been subjected to unilateral and unlawful suspensions of their employment contracts until further notice,' the statement added. 'These actions represent a direct breach of the players' labor rights and are causing significant distress.' Media reports in India said the Supreme Court's ruling was expected to be delivered on Friday. In early July, Manolo Márquez left his position by mutual consent as head coach of India's national team after just one win in eight games and less than a year in the job. On Aug. 1, after discarding hoax applications from Xavi and Pep Guardiola, the All India Football Federation hired Khalid Jamil as the new head coach. Thursdays Keep up to date on sports with Mike McIntyre's weekly newsletter. ___ AP soccer:
Global News
5 days ago
- Global News
Doug Ford hands cabinet ministers mandate letters months after winning snap election
Months after winning a third consecutive majority mandate under a promise to 'protect Ontario' from economic war with the United States, Ontario Premier Doug Ford has outlined how he expects his inner circle to deliver the pledge. Multiple sources confirmed to Global News that mandate letters were finally delivered to cabinet ministers this week, giving each member of Ford's top team specific instructions. The wait for mandate letters meant ministers did not have codified instructions during the first sitting of the new parliament, leaving some smaller departments struggling with a lack of legislative direction. Ford's cabinet was sworn in in mid-March and, several sources told Global News, had hoped to use the summer to create policy road maps based on the mandate letters, which did not arrive. Sources previously said a combination of the snap February election, the federal ballot and staffing changes in the premier's policy team had all delayed the letters. Story continues below advertisement A spokesperson for the premier's office said the ongoing trade war with the United States is at the centre of the latest mandate letters. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy 'As we navigate an economic crisis that threatens the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of workers, our mandate letters provide the roadmap for long-term implementation of our plan to protect Ontario,' they wrote in a statement. 'The people elected our government with a historic third majority, and we will be relentless in building critical infrastructure, keeping costs low, unlocking interprovincial free trade, supporting Ontario-made products, and cracking down on crime.' Previous mandate letters The mandate letters are a traditional moment in Canadian politics. Written by the head of a government to cabinet members, they lay out the aims and goals of their department. Until 2018, it was traditional for governments to use them as a public platform to signal intent. Story continues below advertisement When Ford took office, however, he opted not to make his mandate letters public. That resulted in a legal battle which went all the way to the Supreme Court, which last year sided with Ford and confirmed he could keep them secret. The 2018 letters, obtained exclusively by Global News, outlined the premier's vision for Ontario, how cabinet members were expected to conduct themselves, and specific policy measures ministries were expected to pursue. They offered a number of bullet-point policy items — some of which were outlined in the party's election platform, along with other policies never revealed to voters. Andrew Sidnell, who once served as Ford's deputy chief of staff and head of policy in the premier's office, told Ontario's Integrity Commissioner that not all the measures outlined in the mandate letter were acted on and that some could be dropped after internal negotiations. 'You go back and forth, and then some of those things eventually are either too ambitious or they get cut off the list for impracticality reasons. Or, they do move forward and the minister will come back with a plan to actually implement them,' Sidnell told the Integrity Commissioner. In 2022, for example, then-housing minister Steve Clark was instructed to look for 'swaps, expansions, contractions' in Ontario's Greenbelt — a directive that eventually led to a scandal for the government.
Vancouver Sun
5 days ago
- Vancouver Sun
Proposed national class action filed against Amazon for breaching privacy of Alexa users
A proposed class action lawsuit has been filed in the B.C. Supreme Court against Amazon over its Alexa technology. The lawsuit, submitted by B.C. law firm Charney Lawyers , alleges that Alexa products have collected more personal data from Canadian users than Amazon has disclosed. It also alleges that the tech giant retained the information, even when users tried to delete it, using it for business purposes such as training artificial intelligence and developing targeted advertising. The class action was filed in B.C., on behalf of representative plaintiff, Joseph Stoney, but its aim is to be national in scope. If the class action is certified by the court, it would cover all Canadian residents who had an Amazon Alexa account between 2014 and July 19, 2023. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. 'Had they learned about this after signing up for Alexa, users would have discontinued their accounts,' the statement of claim asserts. The essence of the lawsuit is the allegation that Amazon failed to obtain meaningful, informed consent for retention and use of this data. As a result, the alleged data collection and use breached both privacy and consumer protection laws in Canada. 'In its terms of service Amazon made explicit commitments to Alexa users regarding their privacy. However, rather than protecting users privacy, Amazon: (1) kept the data it took from Alexa indefinitely; (2) used that data to train its algorithms, machine learning programs and AI; and (3) failed to fully delete the data when customers asked it to.' The suit sets out that since 2014, Amazon has been developing and selling Amazon 'Echo' devices, which are controlled by its cloud-based voice assistant, Alexa. Alexa can activate intentionally or accidentally, the claim says. Once Alexa begins streaming audio to the cloud, the audio interaction is transcribed to text, the lawsuit states. Then it is processed by an algorithm that instructs the Alexa how to respond to the user. If a request has been processed, a copy of the audio file, the transcription, the resulting instructions to Alexa, and any associated metadata is stored in an Amazon database, the claim alleges. Prior to 2020, users had no way to delete Alexa interaction-related data, and it was stored indefinitely, says the claim. And even though Amazon introduced a deletion function in 2020, it adds, Amazon only deleted the audio file, while retaining a transcription, the instructions, and associated metadata. 'When a user chose to delete the data on one or more of their interactions with Alexa, Amazon changed what was visible to the user so that it appeared that the interactions had been completely deleted even though Amazon was actually retaining everything except the audio file,' the claim says. Charney Lawyers also argues that some of this data may have been collected accidentally when Alexa mistook regular sounds for its 'wake word.' This means conversations users never intended for the device might have been picked up, transcribed and saved. The claim notes that in May 2023, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a complaint against Amazon, alleging the company falsely represented that Alexa app users could delete voice recordings, transcripts and metadata. And instead, Amazon allegedly only deleted voice recordings, keeping transcripts and associated metadata. In July 2023, Amazon agreed to pay a US$25-million fine and 'effectively admitted to a number of instances of unlawful data misuse.' The suit seeks damages, repayment of any profits Amazon gained from the use of the data, as well as repayment of the amount users paid for Alexa products and services. For potential participants in the suit, there is a registration page set up by Charney Lawyers for people who want updates or to potentially take part in the action. Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .
