On May 22 the B.C. Supreme Court issued an interesting ruling in Vilardell v. Dunham, 2012 BCSC 748, an application that arose out of a family law proceeding. The plaintiff had sought to be relieved of hearing fees, or fees for the use of the courtroom. It is important to note the fees in question were as existed under a version of the Supreme Court Rules that was repealed and replaced in 2009; hearing fees continue to exist (at least to the point of yesterday’s ruling) but are reduced.
Archive for ‘Case Comment’
Those following the US antitrust litigation against Apple and five of the big publishers in respect of ebook pricing by now will have seen Judge Cote’s decision to deny the defendants’ motion to dismiss the class action suit by consumers. The Opinion & Order, In Re Electronic Books Antitrust Litigation 11 MD 2293 (DLC) makes for quite interesting reading. I read a PDF of the Opinion last night, and the Opinion’s also been uploaded to Scribd.
It’s been a long while since I’ve read one of these, but it’s evident from the Opinion that Judge Cote had no difficulty . . . [more]
The New Brunswick Court of Appeal has published a substantial review of the impact of using email to transfer real estate. Its decision in Druet v. Girouard 2012 NBCA 40 overturned the decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench, 2011 NB 204 (in French only on CanLII; the English text is at  N.B.J. No. 260, and  A.N.-B.no 260.)
In this case the parties exchanged a total of seven emails about the plaintiff Girouard’s possible purchase of the defendant Druet’s condominium apartment in Moncton. The final email was from Druet, withdrawing from the transaction. Girouard took the view . . . [more]
The Ontario Court of Appeal released its much anticipated judgment on the legality of Canada’s prostitution laws yesterday in the decision of R. v. Bedford.
Predicated on the rights of sex workers to ply their trade in an environment that does not jeopardize their constitutional right to security of the person, the case succeeded in overturning two of the three central pillars of the Criminal Code’s anti-prostitution sections.
Provisions prohibiting “common bawdy houses” (what non-lawyers might more commonly refer to politely as brothels) have been declared unconstitutional with the government being granted a one-year reprieve to try its hand . . . [more]
You may have heard about helicopter parenting – the overprotective parent who hovers over their child on the playground, maybe takes them to university, stays in the dorm for a few weeks, maybe even to law school… Well Justice McGee of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice will have none of this! In 2011, she issued an ex parte order preventing a party’s mother from representing him in a family law case. Mom had represented son in his Nova Scotia divorce proceeding. The divorce proceedings were acrimonious and the ill-feelings between Mom and her former daughter-in-law are evident in the . . . [more]
“You may have won a million dollars!” … or not, if you don’t happen to have the pre-selected winning number. Various bonus prizes for early birds are also offered. This is a common marketing device, but the Supreme Court of Canada held unanimously in Richard v Time 2012 SCC 8 that it offended the Quebec Consumer Protection Act. Mr. Richard got $1000 in damages for being misled (no misles were involved), plus $15,000 in punitive damages, plus his costs at trial (where he had won) and on appeal (where he had lost), and on a solicitor-client basis in the SCC. . . . [more]
It hasn’t taken long for a court to apply the new tort of invasion of seclusion first recognized by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Jones v. Tsige January. While not providing a great deal of added nuance, the Small Claims Court’s decision in Connolly v. Telus Communications Co.,  O.J. No. 464, does provide some new insights. While providing little new insight into the substance of this new tort, the case is somewhat remarkable for its very subject matter.
First, it involves a lawsuit by an aggrieved Telus customer sued his mobile service provider over its perceived mishandling . . . [more]
Summary (added Feb. 19, 2012)
The Supreme Court of Canada stated in R. v. Sheppard,  1 S.C.R. 869 at para. 24, 2002 SCC 26 that
at the trial level, the reasons justify and explain the result. The losing party knows why he or she has lost. Informed consideration can be given to grounds for appeal. Interested members of the public can satisfy themselves that justice has been done, or not, as the case may be.
It is my opinion that the reasons in this case do not adequately . . . [more]