How to recall the nasty email you accidentally just sent your boss

By  |

It’s late, you’re tired and you accidentally just emailed an angry rant about your boss to her, instead of to the co-worker it was intended for.

D’oh!

It’s probably too late to do anything about that email. But by making a few simple tweaks to Gmail or Outlook you can greatly reduce the chances of future email slip-ups ruining your life.

How to undo sent emails in Gmail

Gmail doesn’t have a traditional “recall” function like Outlook. Instead, it has a function you can enable that allows you to “unsend” a message within a certain amount of time.

CNBC Tech: Recall gmail
  • You can turn it on by going to the cog icon in Gmail (on the top right), selecting “Settings” and then selecting the “General tab.”
CNBC Tech: Undo send gmail
  • Scroll down the page and check the “Enable Undo Send” option. You can choose a cancellation period of five, 10, 20 or 30 seconds.
CNBC Tech: Recall gmail 3
  • Now, whenever you send an email, you’ll see a pop-up that asks if you want to unsend the message. Tap it and it’ll never leave your outbox.

Ontario Chamber of Commerce Endorses Major Changes to Auto Insurance Rate Regulation

Ontario’s leading business organization, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce (OCC), is calling on the provincial government to put an end to its existing auto rate filing system, a system the chamber describes as “one of the most costly, onerous, and restrictive in North America“. The OCC, which represents 60,000 businesses from across the province, officially endorsed auto rate regulation reform after a unanimous vote by local chamber of commerce delegates at the OCC’s AGM in Sarnia, Ontario.

Ontario’s antiquated rate regulation system no longer works for consumers and businesses,” said Kim Donaldson, Vice-President, Ontario, IBC. “We’re pleased to see the Ontario Chamber network join leading voices like David Marshall in calling on the Province for change.”

The OCC’s endorsement is aligned with the 2016 findings of the Province’s Expert Panel that reviewed the mandate of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO). The Panel noted that a variety of studies suggest that strict rate controls could limit competition and consumer choice and thus lead to higher prices. The Panel recommended that the province review the rate approval process as a first step in implementing a less costly, less time-consuming, and more transparent process.

Echoing the findings and recommendations of the Province’s Expert Panel, the OCC argues that the transition from FSCO to the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) provides a window of opportunity for Ontario to adopt a more efficient approach to regulating automobile insurance. The OCC suggests that a “file and use” approach or a government review of alternative approaches to rate regulation is highly preferable to the current model.

“We will continue to work with government to ensure that FSRA’s Board of Directors is empowered to review and ultimately find alternatives to our existing rate regulation system,” added Donaldson.  “As both the chamber and government’s Expert Panel noted, the transition to FSRA provides a unique opportunity to create a transparent and accountable rate regulation process – a process that benefits consumers.”

About Insurance Bureau of Canada
Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) is the national industry association representing Canada’s private home, auto and business insurers. Its member companies make up 90% of the property and casualty (P&C) insurance market in Canada. For more than 50 years, IBC has worked with governments across the country to help make affordable home, auto and business insurance available for all Canadians. IBC supports the vision of consumers and governments trusting, valuing and supporting the private P&C insurance industry. It champions key issues and helps educate consumers on how best to protect their homes, cars, businesses and properties.

P&C insurance touches the lives of nearly every Canadian and plays a critical role in keeping businesses safe and the Canadian economy strong. It employs more than 120,000 Canadians, pays $9 billion in taxes and has a total premium base of $49 billion.

For media releases and more information, visit IBC’s Media Centre at www.ibc.ca. Follow IBC on Twitter @InsuranceBureau and @IBC_Ontario or like us on Facebook. If you have a question about home, auto or business insurance, contact IBC’s Consumer Information Centre at 1‑844‑2ask-IBC.

If you require more information, IBC spokespeople are available to discuss the details in this media release.

SOURCE Insurance Bureau of Canada

Uber setting up Canadian driverless car lab headed by Toronto AI expert

Uber setting up Canadian driverless car lab headed by Toronto AI expert

By Colin Perkel

THE CANADIAN PRESS

TORONTO _ Uber has hailed a prominent artificial-intelligence academic to lead a driverless-car project in Toronto _ the ride-hailing company’s first such research hub outside the United States, its CEO announced Monday.

In a blog post, Travis Kalanick said he was proud to have Raquel Urtasun, an associate professor at the University of Toronto, on board. He described her as “one of the world’s leading researchers” in the fields of machine perception and artificial intelligence.

“Raquel will remain in Toronto to lead a new branch of our advanced technologies group our first outside the U.S.,” Kalanick said in his blog. “Raquel’s work focuses on developing the software that allows self-driving cars to ‘see:’ recognizing objects so they can navigate the world smoothly and safely.”

In an interview from San Francisco, Urtasun told The Canadian Press discussions with Uber began a few months ago. The lab has now begun operation with her and eight of her students with dozens of people still to be hired in the “near future” from what Kalanick described as the region’s “impressive” talent pool.

A key area of focus, she said, will be what is called perception essentially the brain of the self-driving car. That means coming up with formulas to interpret information from sensors such as video cameras about what’s happening around the vehicle nearby cars, pedestrians, cyclists and predict what they might do in the coming seconds.

“It’s a complicated task and this is why we don’t have self-driving cars everywhere right now, but it’s definitely not an impossible quest,” Urtasun said.

The lab will also focus on “localization.”

“In any point in time, the car needs to know where it is in the world,” she said.

Urtasun said she was not concerned about joining the company that is facing a lawsuit from Google’s self-driving car unit. The claim alleges Uber used stolen trade secrets to develop sensors for its autonomous vehicles. Urtasun said her research area is in a different area.

“If I had doubts that Uber did something wrong, I would never have joined the company,” Urtasun said.

She also acknowledged her hire as a high-profile woman by a company looking to change an image some have attacked as misogynist, saying she discussed the issue with Kalanick.

“The company is doing everything necessary to change whatever the remaining issues are,” she said.

The associate computer science professor, originally from Pamplona in Spain, has previously been an assistant professor at the Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago and a visiting professor in Switzerland. Her research interests include machine learning, computer vision, robotics and remote sensing.

In February, she was awarded a fellowship given each year to Canada’s top six scientists and engineers for her work on machine perception for self-driving cars.

While she won’t predict when self-driving cars might become a common sight, she does say those able to ply simple, controlled routes might be in place “relatively soon.”

Kalanick said Toronto has become an important hub of artificial intelligence research, which he called ‘critical to the future of transportation.”

“That’s why we’re also making a significant multi-year financial commitment as a platinum sponsor of the Vector Institute, which Raquel helped to set up as a co-founder,” Kalanick said.

Urtasun is one of the co-founders of the independent, non-profit institute set up in March. Its aim is to push Canada to the forefront of research into artificial intelligence.

The new lab will focus on improved mapping for autonomous cars but the company, which also does driverless-car research in San Francisco and Pittsburgh, said it had no plans to actually test the vehicles in Toronto.

“Self-driving technology promises to make our roads safer, our environment healthier and our cities more livable,” Kalanick said. “While there’s still a lot of work to be done, we believe that the combination of our global ride-sharing network with the cutting-edge software and hardware being built by our teams will make this vision a reality.”

Spam campaign targets Google users with malicious link

Spam campaign targets Google users with malicious link

Reuters

Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O) warned its users to beware of emails from known contacts asking them to click on a link to Google Docs after a large number of people turned to social media to complain that their accounts had been hacked.

Google said on Wednesday that it had taken steps to protect users from the attacks by disabling offending accounts and removing malicious pages.

The attack used a relatively novel approach to phishing, a hacking technique designed to trick users into giving away sensitive information, by gaining access to user accounts without needing to obtain their passwords. They did that by getting an already logged-in user to grant access to a malicious application posing as Google Docs.

“This is the future of phishing,” said Aaron Higbee, chief technology officer at PhishMe Inc. “It gets attackers to their goal … without having to go through the pain of putting malware on a device.”

He said the hackers had also pointed some users to another site, since taken down, that sought to capture their passwords.

Google said its abuse team “is working to prevent this kind of spoofing from happening again.”

Anybody who granted access to the malicious app unknowingly also gave hackers access to their Google account data including emails, contacts and online documents, according to security experts who reviewed the scheme.

“This is a very serious situation for anybody who is infected because the victims have their accounts controlled by a malicious party,” said Justin Cappos, a cyber security professor at NYU Tandon School of Engineering.

Cappos said he received seven of those malicious emails in three hours on Wednesday afternoon, an indication that the hackers were using an automated system to perpetuate the attacks.

He said he did not know the objective, but noted that compromised accounts could be used to reset passwords for online banking accounts or provide access to sensitive financial and personal data.

Reporting by Alastair Sharp and Jim Finkle in Toronto

Alanis Morissette ex manager facing prison for $7M theft

By Brian Melley

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

LOS ANGELES _ A business manager who stole more than $7 million from Alanis Morissette and others is expected to face the music and the singer at his sentencing Wednesday in federal court.

Jonathan Todd Schwartz could spend more than five years in prison for wire fraud and tax charges related to embezzlement that he blamed on his addiction to gambling.

But a federal prosecutor said there was no evidence Schwartz had a gambling problem and that all his expressions of remorse were insincere and self-serving.

Schwartz “has never ‘chosen’ to do the right thing in this case,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Ranee Katzenstein said in court papers. “Every expression of remorse he has made and every purported act of self-improvement he has taken occurred only after he realized he had no ‘choice’ to do otherwise because his seven years of criminal behaviour had been exposed, he eventually figured out that his lies were not going to get him out of the trouble he was in, and he knew he was going to face an eventual reckoning for his crimes.”

Schwartz, 47, admitted stealing nearly $5 million from Morissette between May 2010 and January 2014 and more than $2 million from five unnamed clients when he worked at GSO Business Management, a firm that touted relationships with entertainers such as Katy Perry, 50 Cent and Tom Petty.

Schwartz was a high-flying partner making $1.2 million a year, according to court papers. His crimes cost the firm at least $2 million above what insurance covered, led to layoffs of about a dozen employees and is expected to cause some $20 million in financial fallout because of the blow to the firm’s reputation, according to founder Bernard Gudvi.

The embezzlement was discovered by a new money manager Morissette hired.

When the firm was contacted about the apparent theft, Schwartz made “wild accusations” that his former client was in the throes of drug addiction and mentally unstable, Gudvi said. Schwartz also falsely claimed he invested the money in an illegal marijuana growing business.

“As the walls were closing in on the scheme to steal client funds … he was unable to turn away from the lies,” Gudvi wrote in a letter to the court. “The worse things became, the more easily he seemed to dispense with the truth.”

Schwartz, who was fired, had offered financial guidance to some of the biggest stars and was said to represent Beyonce and Mariah Carey, who both appeared at a fundraiser last year in support of a heart disease charity he founded.

Schwartz penned a mea culpa in The Hollywood Reporter last month. He said his father was a gambling addict who abandoned his family and he sought refuge in sports betting and drugs to deal with the stress from his business.

“The spiral I was in was toxic,” Schwartz wrote. “Winning did not make me feel better but losing was intolerable. If I lost, then I had to make it back and when I lost again, the hole I had dug got deeper and deeper. I felt weak and powerless, terrified by my internal demons that I was turning into my father.”

Schwartz might have lost some money gambling, but there was no evidence he was an addict, Katzenstein said. Instead, he used the money to fund a lavish lifestyle.

Can A Landlord Be Sued For Historical Contamination Potentially Caused By Its Tenant?

Last Updated: April 27 2017

Article by Kirsten Mikadze

A recent decision on a summary judgement motion underscores the difficulty inherent in suing a landlord for contamination caused by its tenant.

In Sorban Investments Ltd v Litwack, 2017 ONSC 706, several Defendants successfully brought a motion for summary judgement dismissing the plaintiff’s claims against them. The Plaintiff owns land abutting the property formerly owned by the Defendants, and was seeking damages in nuisance, strict liability (Rylands v Fletcher), and negligence as well as under section 99 of the Environmental Protection Act. The Plaintiff’s property became contaminated by PCE and other chemicals used in dry-cleaning operations, the fact of which was discovered in 2010. In the early- to mid-1990s, the Defendants leased their property for use as a dry cleaning operation. The Defendants sold the property in 2007.

The Court did not address whether the Plaintiff could establish that the Defendants’ land was a source of the contamination on the Plaintiff’s land. Instead, it assumed for the purpose of the motion that it was.

Among other findings of fact, the Court found that the Defendants did not know that their dry-cleaning tenant was emitting contaminants; that prior to 2006 the Defendants had no reason to believe that their land was contaminated or was the source of the contamination on the Plaintiff’s land; that from about 2006 to 2007 the Defendants had reason to, and did in fact, investigate whether their land was a potential source of contamination; and that the Defendants acted reasonably in their investigations of the contamination.

The Court confirmed that landlord liability in such instances flows from the foreseeability that the nuisance would occur as an inherent part of the activity to be undertaken on the property. As espoused by the Divisional Court in its decision in Durling v Sunrise Propane Energy Group Inc, 2013 ONSC 5830, a landlord may be held liable for the actions or nuisance of its tenants only “when the use from which the damage or nuisance necessarily arises was plainly contemplated by the lease.”

In this case, there was no written lease in evidence, and there was no evidence one had ever been entered into. There was no evidence that the Defendants had authorized their tenant to contaminate the Defendant’s land; were involved in the operation of the dry-cleaners; had any knowledge that any escape of contaminants had occurred; or were aware of the contamination until 2006. Moreover, the nuisance created by the tenant, assuming nuisance was ultimately established, was not foreseen or foreseeable as “inherently part of the activity to be undertaken”—namely, a commercial dry cleaning operation. Even after the Defendants had discovered contamination on their property, the Defendants were advised by their environmental consultant that no remediation was necessary and had no reason to believe the contamination was migrating to the neighbouring property.

In terms of negligence, the Court agreed once again with the Durling court that the mere fact of being a landlord does not establish sufficient proximity to ground a duty of care to an abutting landowner. Finding a duty of care in such circumstances would have the effect of burdening landlords with the duty to involve themselves in the activities undertaken by their tenants on their properties in order to protect themselves from liability.

Only rarely does a landlord potentially owe a duty of care to third parties for the negligence of a tenant. As has been held by the Superior Court in Canadian Tire Real Estate Ltd v Huron Concrete Supply Ltd, 2014 ONSC 288, the geographic proximity of a landowner’s property to another property may be sufficient to ground a duty of care to the owner of that abutting property. However, for a landlord landowner of an abutting property to owe a duty of care related to the negligence of its tenant, it must be foreseeable that the tenant’s activities are inherently unsafe, dangerous, or illegal such that the alleged harm to the abutting property was likely to result. The facts must be “out of the ordinary” for a landlord owner of an abutting property to be found owing a duty of care to a third party.

The Defendants were also assisted by the fact, agreed by the parties, that the contamination was historical and not ongoing. By the time that the Defendants had discovered their lands were contaminated, the Plaintiff’s lands had already been contaminated (which it alleged occurred in 2006). There would also be no duty of care owed if the Plaintiffs could not establish that the lands were contaminated prior to the spring of 2007, when the Defendants sold the property.

The Court had little difficulty dismissing the Plaintiff’s section 99 claim given both the lack of evidence of a “spill,” as defined in the EPA, and the lack of evidence that the Defendants either owned or controlled any pollutant immediately prior to its first discharge.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from ILSTV

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest