New Blog Provides “Informed” Legal Commentary

Are you frustrated with the media and pundits providing an incomplete picture of a legal issue? A new law blog seeks to provide a more in-depth perspective on Canadian Legal Ease. The about page states,

This site intends to help fill that gap by providing a forum to provide the public with timely, informed commentary on legal issues currently facing Canada and Canadians.

The opening post this week is from Osgoode Hall Law School Professor Kent McNeil, who says Idle No More Deserves Our Thanks,

A major concern of the Idle No More movement is Bill C-45, the omnibus Budget Bill enacted by the Parliament of Canada as the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

The Idle No More movement is right to be concerned. Bill C-45’s amendments to these Acts could have significant negative impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights, especially rights to hunt and fish, that are recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the  Constitution Act, 1982.

The follow-up post is from UofT law graduate Benjamin Oliphant, looking further at whether Bill C-45 violates the duty to consult in section 35. After providing case law on both sides of the argument he concludes,

As the Alberta Court of Appeal aptly noted: the “exact content of the duty to consult is in its formative stages, and is still being hammered out on the anvils of justice”. Hopefully this issue makes it up to the Supreme Court before too long.

The various analysis by the Globe & Mail and Mark Blevis, as well as cursory Google comparisons of Idle No More to things like the “Walking Dead,” suggest there is indeed quite a broad interest and demand for information on this subject.

idle no more

If the contributors at this new site can provide some insightful commentary on topical issues I’m certain we would all appreciate it, particularly when it demonstrates that parties on both sides of a significant conflict do not necessarily have the complete answer.


  1. Does Slaw provide a similar service or forum, or does Legal Ease have a different mandate or target audience?

  2. Slaw doesn’t issue a general invitation to submit articles. We do, as you’ll know, publish from time to time submissions by guest bloggers that we’ve received and that we think merit publication. Fundamentally Slaw relies on its 24 regular bloggers and 60 regular columnists to provide interesting content.

    It’s not clear but I think that Legal Ease aims to include the general public more, whereas Slaw aims at those who work in law. Some nice overlap, though, which is all to the good.

    What’s also not clear to me is who is behind Legal Ease. Unless I’ve missed it, the site doesn’t give us a name or names. It just talks about the judgment of their “editors.” This seems needlessly cryptic. If I were submitting a piece for publication I’d want to know who was judging it, I think — and who was going t0 publish it.