Canada’s online legal magazine.

Archive for ‘Case Comment’

Regulating Student Misconduct on Twitter

Universities across the country are struggling with how to deal with their students’ use of social media. I previously covered the Alberta case of  Pridgen v. University of Calgary, where the court quashed a decision by the university to discipline students who made critical comments on Facebook about a professor. Key to this decision was the university’s actions lacked procedural fairness.

Earlier this year the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld this decision, with three separate decisions. Justices McDonald and O’Ferrall indicated that the Charter analysis undertaken by the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta was unnecessary, and upheld the . . . [more]

Posted in: Case Comment, Substantive Law

Employer Discriminated by Terminating Disabled Employee, but Not by Paying Her $1.25 Per Hour… Reconsidered Again

At issue in the second request for reconsideration is the Tribunal’s determination that an ongoing wage differential between disabled and non-disabled employees is not a series of incidents for the purposes of determining the limitation period provided by section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.
Posted in: Case Comment, Substantive Law, Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions

Federal Court Upholds Hate Speech Provisions in the Canadian Human Rights Act

The Federal Court of Canada ruled on Tuesday October 2, 2012 that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal erred in law when it refused to apply Section 13 of the Canada Human Rights Act following a hearing into a complaint by Ottawa lawyer and activist Richard Warman.
Posted in: Case Comment, Substantive Law, Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions

HathiTrust Win “Transformative”

Virtual delight echoed in tweets, posts, and emails in my corner of the web late Wednesday, upon the release of Judge Baer’s opinion in Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust 11 CV 6351 (S.D.N.Y.). Very shortly after its release, Prof. James Grimmelmann posted the opinion on Scribd.

Briefly, for those unfamiliar, the plaintiffs and defendants had each sought summary judgment in respect of the plaintiffs’ copyright infringement claim. HathiTrust and related university defendants saw near-entire success in their summary judgment motions, failing only on a standing question not consequential to the result. The outcome: Fair use protects the defendants’ participation . . . [more]

Posted in: Case Comment, Legal Information: Libraries & Research, Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions, Technology: Internet

R v. Mabior; R v. DC

This is a guest post by Carissima Mathen, who is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa.

Having done an initial pass of the Supreme Court decisions issued today, my main sentiment is….admiration (not least, for the unanimous opinion). I think the Supreme Court has done its utmost to consider all sides, even if I don’t necessarily agree with everything it said.

First, some background. The Mabior 2012 SCC 47 and DC 2012 SCC 48 appeals presented the Court’s first opportunity since 1998 to consider the difficult issue of how the law should . . . [more]

Posted in: Case Comment

Occupational Health and Safety Administrative Penalties and the Defence of Due Diligence

A recent case from Nova Scotia raises some interesting points around the defence of due diligence in administrative penalty cases for health and safety cases.
Posted in: Case Comment, Substantive Law, Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions

Four Christians Arguing for Their Right to Religious Freedom at Work Before the European Court of Human Rights

On Wednesday September 5, 2012, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg heard arguments from four workers challenging British judgments over the expressions of their religious faith in the workplace. Two are arguing for the right to wear a cross at work, while the others object to dealing with same sex couples.
Posted in: Case Comment, Substantive Law, Substantive Law: Foreign Law, Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions

Cellphone Use While Driving: Court Finds Drivers Can Handle Phones Briefly

A recent Ontario Court of Justice decision has declared that briefly handling your cellphone while behind the wheel should not get you a ticket under Ontario's Highway Traffic Act distracted driving provisions.
Posted in: Case Comment, Substantive Law, Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions

Clements’ Conundrums (Coda)

Our task [as lawyers] must be to understand factual causation as it actually is. We should not be looking for a heuristic model of factual causation that generates liability in accordance with our instinctive feelings, unconcerned whether the model is accurate or not. Simply, lawyers cannot say that C was the cause of E when it was not, or that C was not the cause of E when it was. To do so is, literally, to part company with reality. It is sometimes said that a philosopher is someone from whom a tragedy is a good theory destroyed by the

. . . [more]
Posted in: Case Comment, Substantive Law, Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions