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

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

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?

It sounds more like a "whichever comes first, which I’d argue makes a lot more sense. The mortgage on the 60% would be paid off by 25 years and if you sell early you’d basically use any appreciation/the full value to pay back the 40%. In your scenario you could just immediately sell it and pocket the 40% for the next 24 years.

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

It’s because there is no nuance anymore. With every issue you have to either be 100% on my side or 100% on the other side. So many times people argue for and against things that aren’t mutually exclusive. It doesn’t mean we should “both sides” everything, but sometimes both sides each have half of a good idea.

Why would you assume they’re talking about a foreign election in a country that doesn’t even have a Conservative or Liberal party?

Hold on, you can get an apartment in a major city for under $2000? Is the minimum wage in Quebec $10/hr? I don’t live particularly close to any city and you’d be hard pressed to find anything more than a studio for $1500, you’re looking at close to $2000 for something decent. I wonder how many months it would take to break even after moving costs from BC…

Might-E Trucks are pretty awesome, but I’m definitely not going to be commuting on the TCH in one.

And even if this was one of them, it clearly can’t be that secretive if we’re hearing about it.

Didn’t Harper kind of screw us over by signing FIPA back in 2014? I haven’t heard anything about it but those Chinese EV companies will probably sue us over these tariffs.

If we had vacancy control, we could swing almost every other policy way closer to what the landlords want. There’d be almost no incentive for bad faith evictions, and at the same time the financial impact of having to find a new place to rent would be minimized (if not initially, over time).

Right now we’re so far the opposite way, we have to have all these protections in place. Of course landlords would love to toss their long term tenants to get double or triple rent each month, and at the same time it’s financially ruinous for a tenant to have to suddenly find themselves an extra $1-2000/mo to afford even the cheapest rental on the market.

I’m not sure exactly what your point is, but we do ship a lot of raw logs across the Pacific right now. If China had good logs maybe Japan wouldn’t import them from BC.

Positive pressure hallways/staircases would make a huge impact on the spread of smoke. Smoke would still be an issue if the fire was in the hall itself, but no amount of staircases can help you if you can’t access them. The quote from the Fire Chiefs Association really makes me think we’re using the second staircase to skimp on every other aspect of fire safety.

I was going to agree with you, but I think after reading your points I actually feel the complete opposite. I think if there’s a role for heavy taxation to play it should be on new ICE vehicles, as opposed to on the gas itself. We’re talking about new vehicles here, there are millions of perfectly good used vehicles out there that would fill all the roles you’re talking about. Increasing gas taxes ends up punishing the people who can least afford it. Like the farmers who have to have to haul their equipment hundreds of kilometers between farms, the condo dwellers who aren’t allowed to charge at home, and the renters who can’t afford to install an EV charger, let alone buy a new car. The tax should also go towards making EVs more affordable at the low end (it would be nice to subsidize used EVs but I can see many ways to abuse something like that).

We need to get the percentage of new EVs up today so that tomorrow’s used market is where we want it to be. We can only do that by encouraging those who can afford a new car to pick an EV, not by punishing those who can’t afford a choice.

I think you nailed one of the biggest but least talked about factors in mass adoption. I’d love to get an EV, but the only used ones I could reasonably afford would require daily charging as I’d use well over half a charge per workday and I have nowhere to charge at home or work.

Just because a car is cheaper than the average new car doesn’t make it affordable. Lots of people can only afford used cars. I’m not suggesting we need new EVs to compete with used car prices, but we need the prices to come down so that the prices of current used EVs become more affordable and/or these cheaper new EVs become affordable when they’re resold in several years.

Honestly I’m not 100% sure. For context I’m in a much smaller union for a different essential service. Decades ago we (not me personally, I was a kid) were legislated back to work and the arbitrator decided to slip in a binding arbitration clause to our contract. The point is, we aren’t allowed to strike and from my understanding of an illegal strike there could be fines for the union, fines for the members striking, and possibly jail time for union leadership. Obviously they could likely fire everyone with cause, but that would be a terrible decision when they’re already struggling with retention of qualified people. Everyone could decide to quit at the same time, it’s not a strike if you aren’t employed, but that won’t really help anyone, especially if you have specialized skills. In this case you can’t really just go get a job as a railway engineer somewhere else.

Maybe check back with me in 2026, depending if our relationship with management gets better or worse I might have some more relevant first hand experience.

A friend of mine went to get a vasectomy after his second kid was born and the doctor either talked him out of it or refused. He now has a 3rd kid and went to a different doctor.

No, it is binding, just neither of the parties agreed to send it to arbitration. Which I’d say is worse but arbitration always ends with an outcome that’s shitty for both sides.