Today's letters: Why can't the city clean up violent crime downtown?
Article content
My uncle, 80 years old, in good shape, just sometimes confused about days of the week, went downtown to celebrate Canada Day on July 3. He ended up in the hospital with bruises, a broken hip and a smashed-up face because he was violently attacked, beaten and kicked. He was also robbed.
Article content
Article content
I am wondering how in this day and age we can welcome visitors to the downtown core and trust that such violent acts won't happen to them. This government promised to look at crime but obviously it has seeped through the cracks again.
Article content
The City of Ottawa encourages people to visit the ByWard Market area to help businesses. No way would I do such a thing. I knew it was unsafe but not to this extent. How about possibly cleaning up the downtown core like you used to prior to COVID? This area has obviously turned into a crime show, between the drug addicts, the homeless and whatever else.
Article content
It seems that additional police services have been provided to the Market, but I wonder how much security is needed to make it safe for us and our visitors. It seems to be out of control.
Article content
When will the Doug Ford government think beyond quick base appeasement and actually study the possible outcomes of its populist decisions? Its ideologically driven choices have: favoured privatization of our health care, resulting in a battle for limited resources to the detriment of public medicine; a rush to sell alcohol on every corner, resulting in the loss hundreds of millions of dollars, and the loss of facilities to return recyclable empties; and now, the closing of safe injection sites that had been housed in well-resourced community health centres.
Article content
Article content
Article content
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Global News
9 hours ago
- Global News
Law experts, observers raise questions as Ontario adds virtual courtroom restrictions
Ontario's lower courts are introducing restrictions on who can attend proceedings virtually after what they describe as an escalation of interruptions, a move that law experts and observers say raises questions about transparency. The Ontario Court of Justice released a new policy last week that would stop observers from accessing court proceedings online unless they receive authorization from the judge or justice of peace overseeing the case. Those interested in attending court cases are encouraged to show up in person, the policy says. It does not apply to proceedings at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The lower court attributes the move to a rise in deliberate disruptions of court proceedings referred to as 'Zoom bombings,' which is when participants disturb a virtual call with inappropriate content or messages. 'These disruptions are an impermissible attack on the integrity of the justice system and the administration of justice,' an interim policy notice said, adding that they often cause delays and can have negative effects for participants, court staff and jurists. Story continues below advertisement Boris Bytensky, president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association, says changes to the observer policy were needed because of the 'despicable acts of disruption' caused by certain attendees in virtual courts. 'This is the only way to ensure that proceedings that are conducted by Zoom and bring the significant benefits to the system and to the parties that virtual proceedings offer are free from any unacceptable interference,' Bytensky said in an emailed statement. But some experts warn that the policy could be a step back when it comes to openness. Virtual court hearings on Zoom were first adopted in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic so court processes could continue amid government-mandated physical distancing rules. The continued use of videoconferencing technology in courtrooms since then has created a level of access people now expect, complicating the decision to change the policy, said Teresa Scassa, law professor at the University of Ottawa. Get breaking National news For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy 'At this point, the meaning of open courts or what is an open court has changed, and now you're taking away something that's there,' she said in an interview. While the new policy says physical attendance is still on the table, that is not an option for everyone, Scassa said. People with disabilities, those who don't drive and anyone who lives far away from courts do not always have the option to attend in person, she said. Story continues below advertisement 'I have some sympathy for the challenges the courts are dealing with. But I do have some questions about whether the route that they've chosen is really the route that best respects the open court principles,' said Scassa. A small number of court proceedings only take place virtually. To observe these cases, the court says people need to request permission by emailing the court's communications officer — the same contact that media use to request access to virtual proceedings. Scassa said she has questions about how judges will decide who should and shouldn't get access: 'Does everybody get permission? Who gets denied permission? Is there some hierarchy?' The Ontario Court of Justice did not respond to a request for more information about the authorization process before deadline. Avid court observer Jenny Pelland said the court's new policy isn't surprising, as they've witnessed Zoom bombings many times over the past few years, especially in high-profile cases. 'I've seen some where it's been very graphic,' Pelland said in an interview, adding that the disruptions often display violent or pornographic content. Since the observer policy was announced, Pelland said courts have already been applying the rules differently, with some posting notices in the Zoom waiting room that public access is banned and others allowing access but requiring attendees to provide their full legal name or have their camera turned off. Story continues below advertisement Such differences are not novel, with Pelland saying they've noticed limitations on access even in cases when they reached out to a judge or court clerk for permission in advance. 'For some courts in Ottawa, it's been almost impossible to log in for the past few months,' Pelland said. 'Some judges don't allow observers at all and it's not something new.' Alyssa King, associate professor of law at Queen's University, said understaffing is already a concern in Ontario courts, and adding more administrative burden for judges will cause inconsistencies in the way policies are applied across the province. 'It's not because anybody is acting in bad faith or trying to prevent the public from accessing the court,' she said. 'But they are people with a big workload and sometimes very high stress decisions that they need to make quickly … so any time you add to what they have to do administratively, that's tough.' A different process is still followed to allow access to virtual courts for victims and complainants. The court says they should get in touch with their local Crown attorney's office or victim witness assistance program. Jasminder Sekhon, director of community engagement, EDI and policy at Victim Services Toronto, said the court should consider updating its policies on that process to make sure it is more accessible and survivor-informed. Story continues below advertisement 'Not just the victims should be able to apply, but also people should be able to apply on their behalf,' Sekhon said, adding that people who support survivors should also be considered to receive virtual access. For Linda McCurdy, a criminal defence lawyer based in Windsor, Ont., adding an extra step to prevent disruptions is a good way to preserve the integrity of the courts. 'I barely notice people in the court, but you really notice people on Zoom when they're doing stuff,' said McCurdy, adding that people tend to forget about formalities when calling in from their own homes. 'If you want to come and watch the proceedings, come to the court, come sit in the court. That's the way it's always been.'
Winnipeg Free Press
9 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Law experts, observers raise questions as Ontario adds virtual courtroom restrictions
Ontario's lower courts are introducing restrictions on who can attend proceedings virtually after what they describe as an escalation of interruptions, a move that law experts and observers say raises questions about transparency. The Ontario Court of Justice released a new policy last week that would stop observers from accessing court proceedings online unless they receive authorization from the judge or justice of peace overseeing the case. Those interested in attending court cases are encouraged to show up in person, the policy says. It does not apply to proceedings at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The lower court attributes the move to a rise in deliberate disruptions of court proceedings referred to as 'Zoom bombings,' which is when participants disturb a virtual call with inappropriate content or messages. 'These disruptions are an impermissible attack on the integrity of the justice system and the administration of justice,' an interim policy notice said, adding that they often cause delays and can have negative effects for participants, court staff and jurists. Boris Bytensky, president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association, says changes to the observer policy were needed because of the 'despicable acts of disruption' caused by certain attendees in virtual courts. 'This is the only way to ensure that proceedings that are conducted by Zoom and bring the significant benefits to the system and to the parties that virtual proceedings offer are free from any unacceptable interference,' Bytensky said in an emailed statement. But some experts warn that the policy could be a step back when it comes to openness. Virtual court hearings on Zoom were first adopted in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic so court processes could continue amid government-mandated physical distancing rules. The continued use of videoconferencing technology in courtrooms since then has created a level of access people now expect, complicating the decision to change the policy, said Teresa Scassa, law professor at the University of Ottawa. 'At this point, the meaning of open courts or what is an open court has changed, and now you're taking away something that's there,' she said in an interview. While the new policy says physical attendance is still on the table, that is not an option for everyone, Scassa said. People with disabilities, those who don't drive and anyone who lives far away from courts do not always have the option to attend in person, she said. 'I have some sympathy for the challenges the courts are dealing with. But I do have some questions about whether the route that they've chosen is really the route that best respects the open court principles,' said Scassa. A small number of court proceedings only take place virtually. To observe these cases, the court says people need to request permission by emailing the court's communications officer — the same contact that media use to request access to virtual proceedings. Scassa said she has questions about how judges will decide who should and shouldn't get access: 'Does everybody get permission? Who gets denied permission? Is there some hierarchy?' The Ontario Court of Justice did not respond to a request for more information about the authorization process before deadline. Avid court observer Jenny Pelland said the court's new policy isn't surprising, as they've witnessed Zoom bombings many times over the past few years, especially in high-profile cases. 'I've seen some where it's been very graphic,' Pelland said in an interview, adding that the disruptions often display violent or pornographic content. Since the observer policy was announced, Pelland said courts have already been applying the rules differently, with some posting notices in the Zoom waiting room that public access is banned and others allowing access but requiring attendees to provide their full legal name or have their camera turned off. Such differences are not novel, with Pelland saying they've noticed limitations on access even in cases when they reached out to a judge or court clerk for permission in advance. 'For some courts in Ottawa, it's been almost impossible to log in for the past few months,' Pelland said. 'Some judges don't allow observers at all and it's not something new.' Alyssa King, associate professor of law at Queen's University, said understaffing is already a concern in Ontario courts, and adding more administrative burden for judges will cause inconsistencies in the way policies are applied across the province. 'It's not because anybody is acting in bad faith or trying to prevent the public from accessing the court,' she said. 'But they are people with a big workload and sometimes very high stress decisions that they need to make quickly … so any time you add to what they have to do administratively, that's tough.' A different process is still followed to allow access to virtual courts for victims and complainants. The court says they should get in touch with their local Crown attorney's office or victim witness assistance program. Jasminder Sekhon, director of community engagement, EDI and policy at Victim Services Toronto, said the court should consider updating its policies on that process to make sure it is more accessible and survivor-informed. 'Not just the victims should be able to apply, but also people should be able to apply on their behalf,' Sekhon said, adding that people who support survivors should also be considered to receive virtual access. For Linda McCurdy, a criminal defence lawyer based in Windsor, Ont., adding an extra step to prevent disruptions is a good way to preserve the integrity of the courts. 'I barely notice people in the court, but you really notice people on Zoom when they're doing stuff,' said McCurdy, adding that people tend to forget about formalities when calling in from their own homes. 'If you want to come and watch the proceedings, come to the court, come sit in the court. That's the way it's always been.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 25, 2025.
CTV News
a day ago
- CTV News
Sentencing for ‘Freedom Convoy' leaders Lich, Barber scheduled for Oct. 7
Freedom Convoy organizer Tamara Lich is seen outside the courthouse in Ottawa on Wednesday, July 23, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld OTTAWA — Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, two leaders of the 'Freedom Convoy' protest, are scheduled to be sentenced for mischief on Oct. 7 in an Ottawa courtroom. In addition to lengthy prison sentences, the Crown wants to seize Barber's truck, which was used in the protest. A forfeiture hearing on that matter is scheduled for Sept. 12. Ontario Court Justice Heather Perkins-McVey said Thursday she wants to rule on the mischief sentence and truck forfeiture at the same time so that she does not deliver 'piecemeal' decisions. Lich and Barber were both found guilty of mischief in April for their roles in the convoy protest, which saw activists fill much of downtown Ottawa for three weeks beginning in late January 2022 to protest vaccine mandates and other pandemic measures. The Crown is seeking a prison sentence of seven years for Lich and eight years for Barber, who was also found guilty of counselling others to disobey a court order. The lawyers for both Lich and Barber are seeking absolute discharges for their clients, which would mean neither receives a criminal record. On Thursday, Lich's lawyer Lawrence Greenspon told the court that Lich has already spent 49 days in jail and has been under strict bail conditions for the last three-and-a-half years. Greenspon argued that his client and Barber took 'unprecedented' steps by working with police and city officials throughout the protest to limit the protest's impact. 'This is an individual who came to this city with the best of intentions, as recognized by the judge. She has been under strict bail conditions for three-and-a-half years. She spent 49 days in jail for the offence of mischief,' Greenspon said during the hearing's lunch break. 'And if one looks at the positive impact that she's had on the lives of many Canadians and the community service that she has continued to do, there's absolutely no reason for her to not receive an absolute discharge.' Greenspon read a brief statement on Lich's behalf that simply said 'freedom is not free.' Accused are given a chance to address the court during sentencing submissions. Barber's lawyer Diane Magas said Wednesday that she is seeking an absolute discharge for her client because he has been on bail for the last three-and-a-half years without incident. Greenspon became emotional at times while reading from dozens of support letters submitted on behalf of his client. He read out messages from people who said the convoy protest gave them hope after two years of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated public health measures they saw as government overreach. 'Tamara Lich, Chris Barber stood up for what they believed in and what many, many people -- thousands of people across the country were not capable of standing up (for). And those people were inspired,' he said. Crown prosecutor Siobhain Wetscher said during her sentencing submissions Wednesday that she is seeking stiff sentences for Lich and Barber because of the broad community harm caused by the three-week 2022 protest in Ottawa's downtown core. She said that she is seeking long sentences not because of Lich and Barber's political beliefs but because of their actions during the protest. Wetscher said that while Lich and Barber may have come to Ottawa with noble intentions, they continued to encourage people to take part in the protests even when it became impossible for them to ignore the effect it was having on downtown residents and businesses. Greenspon said Thursday that it's 'facile and inaccurate' to say the Crown's sentencing proposal sentence is not motivated by his client's politics. He said Lich continually called for protesters to remain peaceful and can't be held responsible for the actions of individuals at the demonstration. Wetscher replied that while some people are fans of the convoy protest, it does not change the fact that it caused harm to people living and working in downtown Ottawa. The defence raised issues with victim and community impact statements submitted by Wetscher. One of the statements came from fellow 'Freedom Convoy' organizer Pat King's case and others were sworn affidavits derived from a separate $300 million class action lawsuit filed against convoy organizers by downtown Ottawa residents. Wetscher said that the statements are meant to capture the broad scope of the convoy's impact. David Baxter, the Canadian Press This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 24, 2025.
