Jurisprudential Solitudes Revisited

Slaw carried a post during the summer about jurisprudential solitudes – a gap in knowledge between Quebec’s civil code-based and predominantly French-language legal resources and those in common-law, English-speaking Canada. I find that the barrier tends to run in one direction not both, in that there is more information about the Rest of Canada in Quebec legal circles than vice versa.

In any event, here is a very brief note of three recent decisions of Quebec courts (thanks to a publication by Nicolas Vermeys and Patrick Gingras for Éditions Yvon Blais.) Are there any similar decisions in other Canadian (or other) courts? Would those courts be likely to do the same thing under their applicable law? Should they, in any event?

1. Family law: disputing and chronically hostile parents ordered to communicate only by email, and by phone only if there is a child-related emergency: P.G. v S.L. 2012 QCCS 2107 (CanLII)

2. Employment law: employer finds employee sending confidential information from business email to his home email; employer uses password cracking program to get into employee’s home email, finds that the information is being sent on to competitor. Held: evidence of home email use is admissible and will not bring the administration of justice into disrepute: Pneus Touchette Distribution v Pneus Chartrand et al 2012 QCCS 3241 (CanLII)

3. Defamation: holding of SCC in Crookes v Newton that publication of hyperlinks to defamatory material is not in itself defamation does not apply when the links go to material written by the person providing the link. In other words, you can’t link to your own defamation with impunity. That’s not likely to be a controversial ruling. Laforest v Collins et al 2012 QCCS 3078 (CanLII) (para 84ff)

Would any of these holdings be controversial in the courts you are familiar with? Are there parallels you can refer us to?

Comments are closed.