An important case on the scope of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest, Canadian National Railway v. McKercher LLP and Gordon Wallace (on appeal from the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal), was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada on January 24. The Canadian Bar Association and the Federation of Law Societies appeared as interveners.

You can watch video of the submissions here.

You can review more information about the case, including the parties' factums, on the SCC site. . . . [more]

The Divisional Court of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford on Friday in Magder v. Ford, reversing the decision of Justice Hackland, which had ruled that Ford had violated s. 5 of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA). The implications of Justice Hackland's decision is that Ford's seat as mayor could have been vacated under the City of Toronto Act (COTA).

Ford argued that the pecuniary interest of donations to a football team was not a violation of the city's Code of Conduct, which would have allowed for . . . [more]

This week, the UK Supreme Court launched a YouTube channel that highlights short summaries of judgments.

According to a press release published by the Court:

"Video of the five-minute summary given by the lead Justice in each appeal as they deliver their judgment will now be posted on the popular video-sharing website YouTube shortly after delivery in court. The move follows the success of the Court’s live web streaming of proceedings provided in partnership with Sky News (…)"

"The Justices’ summaries aim to explain briefly the background to the appeal in hand, the decision the court has reached, and

. . . [more]

On January 15, 2013, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg released its ruling in the cases of four Christian employees who argued that they suffered from discrimination and that their employers encroached upon their right to religious freedom at work. . . . [more]

The lengthy decision of Justice D. M. Brown released today in York University v. Markicevic is required reading for all civil litigators in Ontario.

It contains an up-to-the-minute, detailed consideration of the governing legal principles of: Mareva injunctions; fraudulent preferences; the admissibility of subjective intent and drafts in interpreting releases; and the test for summary judgment. It also powerfully reinforces the case law requiring unsuccessful parties to file their own bills of costs if they attack the quantum of costs sought by the successful party. See Justice Brown 2013-01-21 York U v. Markicevic . . . [more]

(beyond lip service), say two members of the Ontario Court of Appeal (if you read between the lines), even if you're the Attorney-General of Canada or the Prime Minister of Canada. See USA v Leonard & Gionet 2012 ONCA 622. . . . [more]

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice just confirmed that when an employer attempted to temporarily lay off an employee of 12 years, it actually terminated her because the temporary layoff was made without providing consideration to the employee and was not a possibility included in the employment contract. . . . [more]

No, you can't sell those pictures you found on Twitter. But their owner also can't enjoy an absurd windfall if you do.

Three years ago we saw heartbreaking images of a devastating earthquake in Haiti. Photographer Daniel Morel saw the devastation firsthand. As it is his work to do, he captured photos of what he saw. He also shared his images via Twitter. As it turned out, it seems much of what the world saw in the early aftermath were those pictures taken by Mr. Morel. We saw them not, however, through any arrangements made by Mr. Morel.

Agence France . . . [more]

GTA Linux User's Group, Political Outreach Group (David Collier-Brown, Editor)

Slaw readers may have noticed a flurry of interest around Voltage v. Doe and TekSavvy, an effort to get the courts to compel TekSavvy to identify 2000 households which Voltage Pictures argues are engaging in commercial copyright infringement via the “bit torrent” program.

Slaw has considered the subject of discovery of IP addresses recently in two posts: http://www.slaw.ca/2009/09/13/norwich-orders-applied-to-gmail-account/ and http://www.slaw.ca/2009/09/15/york-university-v-bell-canada-enterprises-observations-and-implications-for-future-norwich-jurisprudence/.

The technical community is following such cases with both interest and trepidation, as we expected suits against individuals to be rare, and limited to $100 to $5,000 . . . [more]

In my second post on Toronto Mayor Rob Ford in one day, the libel suit against him was just dismissed. Justice Macdonald concluded in Foulidis v. Ford,

[45] The plaintiff must prove four things on the balance of probability to prove a libel in this
case:

(1) That the defendant spoke the words in issue.
(2) That the defendant published the words in issue to one or more third parties.
(3) That the words in issue referred to the plaintiff.
(4) That the words in issue were defamatory of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff has proven the first two and

. . . [more]

No big surprise here, but the Federal Court decision of HomeAway.com, Inc. v. Hrdlicka  stated that:

[22] I find, therefore, that a trade-mark which appears on a computer screen website in Canada, regardless where the information may have originated from or be stored, constitutes for Trade-Marks Act purposes, use and advertising in Canada.

One of the issues was whether the appearance of the trade-mark on a website viewable in Canada that originated from the United States was "use" of that trade-mark in Canada. The site was for people wanting to rent homes, cottages or apartments for vacations, including some listed in . . . [more]

and admissible evidence that some members of the bench read Slaw.

Livent. Inc. (Special Receiver) v. Deloitte & Touche, 2012 ONSC 7007 at para. 149.

I had almost nothing to do with this. . . . [more]