Monday’s Mix

Each Monday we present brief excerpts of recent posts from five of Canada’s award-winning legal blogs chosen at random* from sixty recent Clawbie winners. In this way we hope to promote their work, with their permission, to as wide an audience as possible.

This week the randomly selected blogs are 1. The Court  2. Canadian MMA Blog  3. Legal Feeds  4. Environmental Law and Litigation  5. First Reference

The Court
Secretly Poking Holes in Condoms Vitiates Consent to Sexual Activity: SCC in R v Hutchinson
After two trials and cycles through the appellate court system, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has dismissed the appeal in R v Hutchinson, 2014 SCC 19 [Hutchinson]. Building on the decision in R v Mabior, 2012 SCC 47 [Mabior], the Court in Hutchinson further clarified the law surrounding consent to sexual activity, holding that the sabotage of condoms constitutes fraud, which vitiates consent to sexual activity. On the facts, that the complainant subsequently become pregnant was sufficient for a finding that the appellant was guilty of aggravated sexual assault. . . .

Canadian MMA Blog
Regulatory Lessons From Texas – No Glove, Full Gi Full Contact MMA
Since laws and regulations regarding Combat Sports vary from State to State and Province to Province some unique provisions exist across different jurisdictions. One interesting provision that caught my eye when reviewing the Texas Combative Sports Administrative Rules relates to the ability to hold MMA contests with no gloves. Section 61.111 of the CSAR deal with MMA. Rule 61.111(b) specifically allows MMA events to be hosted with no gloves whatsoever provided that “If both contestants are not wearing gloves, frontal palm/heel strikes and closed fist punches are not permitted, except to the body.” Subsection (g) goes on to note that “If contestants are not wearing gloves, it is not permissible to wrap hands, but wrists may be taped….Contestants choosing not to wear gloves, may only compete with other contestants who choose not to wear gloves.“ . . .

Legal Feeds
Repeal of early parole rights violates Charter: SCC
When Parliament killed early parole provisions in 2011 and applied the abolishment retrospectively, it violated the rights of those who were sentenced before the repeal took effect, the Supreme Court of Canada has found. The top court agreed today with the British Columbia Court of Appeal and a lower court in that province that the Abolition of Early Parole Act, which came into effect in March 2011, amounts as double jeopardy for those who went to prison expecting they could be released sooner. Before it was stamped out, the accelerated parole review provision made first-time, non-violent offenders eligible for parole review after they served one-sixth or six months of their sentence, whichever was longest. . . .

Environmental Law and Litigation
Proposed legislation would make the roads safer for cyclists
On Monday, the Province announced new legislation that would improve cyclist safety on Ontario’s roads and highways. If passed, the proposed Keeping Ontario’s Roads Safe Act and supporting amendments to the Highway Traffic Act will: · Increase fines for distracted driving from a range of $60 – $500 to a range of $300 – $1,000 and assign three demerit points upon conviction ·
Increase fines for drivers for dooring cyclists from a range of $60 – $500 to range of $300 – $1,000 and raise the demerit points from two to three . . .

First Reference
Three of the most popular articles this week on HRinfodesk
Employer who paid employee with disability $1.25 per hour ordered to pay a hefty price for discrimination. The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal confirmed that an employer discriminated against an employee who suffered from an intellectual disability when it paid her an hourly wage of $1.25. As a result, the employee was awarded 10 years’ worth of minimum wages; this constitutes about $142,000. . . .


*Randomness here is created by and its list randomizing function.

Comments are closed.