[-] Someone@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

Isn't there a huge difference between safe supply and safe consumption sites? I agree with safe consumption sites if it keeps people from dying on the streets, but if the safe supply is allowed to leave the site it's not really solving any of the problems.

[-] Someone@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 days ago

I don't think the original story would've blown up if that was what she was initially charged with.

[-] Someone@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The original owner was the car dealership that's now selling them. So officially, they were stolen from the dealer, but it really sounds like they were stolen by the dealer from their own customers

[-] Someone@lemmy.ca 20 points 1 week ago

Maria Cruciano and her husband Jim White bought a 1957 Chevrolet from Robert Bradshaw in February 2023. After storing it and making repairs over the winter, they went to register the car in early June, only to discover it was now listed as belonging to Grogan Classics. 

White called Grogan, who explained that there had been an error. Grogan offered to sign over the ownership slip and courier it to Bradshaw. White picked it up the next day and registered the car in his name. (Cruciano and White provided CBC News with a copy of the signed slip and phone records documenting the call to Grogan's dealership.)

Yet the Chevy was still declared stolen six months later. The OPP seized and returned the car to Grogan in July.

"[Grogan] absolutely knew our car had been sold," said Cruciano. "We spoke with him. He signed the ownership. He couriered it to Bradshaw.

"And you know what the man didn't say to us? 'Holy hell, that car was stolen! That guy can't sell my car!'"

This is insane. How is it not fraud to report a car as stolen after signing the documents personally?

[-] Someone@lemmy.ca 39 points 2 weeks ago

I don't have confidence in the Liberal government, but I am confident the Conservatives would be worse.

[-] Someone@lemmy.ca 40 points 1 month ago

So if/when rates go back down the tenants can apply to have their rent lowered back, right?

[-] Someone@lemmy.ca 27 points 3 months ago

the party is taking a stand against a policy that disproportionately affects wealthy people and big corporations.

What about every single other policy that's even tangentially related to affordability that disproportionately affects everyone who isn't wealthy and small businesses?

[-] Someone@lemmy.ca 13 points 5 months ago

There's no need to water a lawn even if you "need" one. There's nothing wrong with brown grass, it'll change back once it rains.

[-] Someone@lemmy.ca 12 points 5 months ago

The most insane part to me is that the minimum threshold to start cutting back OAS is $80,000 when it's only $35,000 for the CCB. This should be flipped, a fundamental requirement of the CCB is that you have a whole extra person (or more) to take care of. How does it make any sense that a senior needs more than double to live on than a whole family?

[-] Someone@lemmy.ca 12 points 5 months ago

This has to be one of the weakest ~~bunch of whining~~ arguments from any of the bankers, executives, etc. He's not even saying it will do any damage, just that things won't improve. How does an increase in foreign investment improve our standard of living? By sucking all the profits offshore?

[-] Someone@lemmy.ca 12 points 11 months ago

Exactly, you can throw all the incentives you want at me and I'd be happy to switch today, but my landlords don't care because they're not the ones paying the carbon tax.

[-] Someone@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago

You'd think you should be able to put a lien on the property at the very least, but I don't know anything.

view more: next ›

Someone

joined 1 year ago