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.
A few weeks ago we wrote a post on Carter v Canada (Attorney General), 2012 BCSC 886, rev’d 2013 BCCA 435, leave to appeal to SCC granted 2014 CanLII 1206 (SCC), predicting what the Supreme Court might decide on the issue of whether the prohibition against assisted suicide amounts to adverse effects discrimination against people with disabilities, contrary to section 15(1) of the Charter. We mentioned that Carter is one of two adverse effects cases currently before the Supreme Court. This post will consider the second case, Taypotat v Taypotat….
Resolutions to better set and control client expectations
Clients can be demanding and will sometimes have expectations that will be unreasonable. Unmet expectations, even if they are totally unreasonable, are a recipe for unhappy clients. Setting and controlling client expectations is one of the best things you can do to ensure that you have a happy and satisfied client at each stage and the conclusion of a matter. Follow these resolutions to better set and control your clients’ expectations…
Entertainment & Media Law Signal
Ginuwine Concerns for Management Contracts
Elgin Baylor Lumpkin (the performing artist better known as “Ginuwine”) is being sued by his former manager. For those familiar with the R&B star, one could make the (terrible) pun that he is being asked to “Pony” up dough for outstanding royalties. But how did this lawsuit come about? It is unlikely that Ginuwine and his manager entered into their artist/manager relationship with the expectation that it would culminate in litigation. What went wrong? Could Ginuwine have done anything differently to avoid this costly and time consuming ordeal?…
À bon droit
À bon droit
L’expert unique, qu’il soit nommé par la Cour ou qu’il soit commun aux parties, est dans une position plus difficile que l’expert qui n’agit que pour une partie. En effet, il doit faire attention à ne pas donner l’impression par son comportement qu’il favorise une partie plutôt qu’une autre. Reste que pour faire disqualifier un tel expert, il faut démontrer une apparence sérieuse de partialité. Ce test n’est pas satisfait par le simple fait que l’expert ai rencontré une partie en l’absence de l’autre comme l’indiquait la Cour d’appel dans Droit de la famille — 141212 (2014 QCCA 1071)….
Vern Krishna: Income splitting is fair
The fundamental question of all tax law is identifying the taxable unit. A half-century ago the Carter Commission recommended that Canada adopt joint taxation for “married” couples as the taxable unit. Families live as economic units. If they share their financial resources, they should also be able to share their tax burdens. Horizontal equity – equal treatment of persons in equal financial circumstances — requires that families with equivalent incomes pay equal taxes….
*Randomness here is created by Random.org and its list randomizing function.