Archive for ‘Case Comment’
Manitoba lawyers recently received a memo from the Law Society’s Insurance Department reminding them that it’s time to pay their 2014/15 liability insurance premium.
That memo also contains the annual reminder to practising, insured lawyers to “Speak now or forever hold your peace” with respect to known or potential claims. The Law Society reminds lawyers that:
. . . [more]
Because our Professional Liability Insurance coverage is written on a claims-made basis, if you know of any circumstances which might possibly, at some point in the future, give rise to an insurance claim against you and you want coverage under your Insurance Policy, then
In an unusual case, the Court of Appeal has granted the Appeal brought by the Defendants due to the fact that the inadequacy of the endorsement of the motion judge rendered the Court of Appeal unable to “conduct a meaningful review of his decision.”
The Plaintiff purchased a house from one of the Defendants. As it turns out, the house had previously been used as a marijuana grow-op. The Plaintiff alleged that the vendor failed to disclose that a grow-op had previously operated at the property and that the property had an extensive mould problem that renders it uninhabitable.
For . . . [more]
Three delightful legal curios remind us that when neighbours fall out, balance and judgment cascade out the window – or are defenestrated.
Let’s start with Monsieur Proust – who was sensitive beyond sensitivity. Yet even a cork-lined writing room couldn’t shield him from shoes on wooden floors and thin walls, from the harp-playing wife of an American dentist, Marie Williams.
Gallimard published the recently found letters as an epistolary novel, Lettres à sa voisine, last year. The catalogue descibes it thus::
. . . [more]
«C’est un vrai petit roman, fondé sur une surprise : la découverte de ces vingt-trois lettres
Update: Court of Appeal Rules Property Management Company Still Barred From Appearing at Landlord and Tenant Board
About a year ago I wrote a post about a case where the Ontario Superior Court issued a permanent injunction preventing the owner of a property management company from appearing before the Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board on behalf of his landlord clients.
The property management company appealed to the Court of Appeal, who dismissed the appeal last week.
. . . [more]
Speaking of media neutrality … a US judge has ruled that a search warrant served on Microsoft in the US required the company to divulge records stored on servers outside the US. An account of the decision is here.
The company argued that the court could authorize a search only of premises within the territory of the court’s jurisdiction. The court held that a search warrant that applied to electronic records was in the nature of a subpoena as well as a search warrant. Since MS had control of the documents, it had to turn them over.
Does this . . . [more]
The Attorney General of Ontario had been attempting to have the sale proceeds preserved pending a future forfeiture hearing on a number of grounds, including that the property was the proceeds of an unlawful activity and was used as an instrument of unlawful activity.
The court agreed that the property was used as an instrument of unlawful activity. However, given that the owner of the property had no involvement, or knowledge, of . . . [more]
Electronic Signatures and Election Registration: Case Comment on Getup Ltd. v Electoral Commissioner (Australia)
One of the principles governing how the law has come to terms with electronic or digital technology is that of media neutrality: the law should work the same way regardless of the medium by which information is created, communicated or stored. We do not want to create a parallel system of legal rules that apply only when certain technologies are used. We may need to adapt our usual rules to deal with special characteristics or applications of the technology, but these should disrupt normal expectations as little as possible. The challenge is to judge how far it is appropriate to . . . [more]
On April 9, 2014, the Quebec Superior Court ruled that businesses in the province of Quebec may continue to display their trademarks on public signs outside their premises in a language other than French if no French version of the trademark has been registered.
Facts of the case
On November 13, 2011, during an enforcement campaign called “Une marque de respect de la loi” (A sign of respect for the law), the Office québécois de la langue française (OQLF) took the position that the trademark exception found in the Charter of the French Language (loi 101) does not . . . [more]