Tories Must Pay Ex-Candidate's Bills

Posted on Sunday, January 14 at 09:50 by jensonj
But he ruled that even if a confidentiality provision did exist, the party must still honour the compensation agreement. He ordered the party to pay Riddell's receipted nomination expenses and further ordered that an arbitrator be employed to determine how much, if any, of Riddell's subsequent legal costs should be reimbursed. Riddell has estimated that his nomination expenses totalled about $50,000. His lawyer, Tom Conway, said Riddell has since run up considerable legal fees trying to compel the Conservatives to honour the original agreement. "This has been an arduous and expensive proceeding for me," Riddell said in an interview. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/01/12/pf-3322011.html [Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on January 15, 2007]

Note: http://cnews.canoe.ca/C...

Contributed By



Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. by RPW
    Sun Jan 14, 2007 6:28 pm
    Ides of March and all that? (Except it is Julius doing in Brutus.....)

    ---
    "When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change."
    -Max Planck

  2. by Deacon
    Sun Jan 14, 2007 7:31 pm
    Ah...more examples of Tory goodness and wholesomeness; to one of their own no less.

    I wonder when the party will self-destruct?

    I will party hearty on that day.

    ---
    "and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

    "The Weapon" - Rush

  3. Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:58 am
    They bought a better candidate and refused to pay for the used one. It was all to be kept under wraps and we wonder if it would have been, had they honored their obligation. They say Alan Riddell opened his mouth before compensation but made no mention of how long he must wait to receive it. All parties use these same rules. Shut up and you'll get compensation. No point for the public to be aware of the details.

    ---
    Expect little from life and get more from it.

  4. Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:35 am
    "I wonder when the party will self-destruct?" <br><br> All I see are political parties doing the self-destruct thing over and over and I have to wonder how many times can a political party self-destruct before it's permanently dead? Unfortunately there appears to be no low that's low enough to kill these horrid beasts. <br><br> In Canada, all you need is a vote of 1 to 0 to win an election, so it all just boils down to who can muster up enough votes in your favor. No matter how much of a loser you are, so long as your opponents are no better losers, you can still be a winner. <br><br> Take the current "new" government for example, it managed to still "win" despite <u>not</u> winning 77% of the eligible votes. <br><br> Worse yet, a so-called "minority government" with almost no public support can always try and buy out enough of the opposition to become a "majority government" with almost no public support. <br><br> So there you have it, even a massive loser can still be a big winner as far as Canadian politics is concerned.



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news