Archive for ‘Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions’
We haven’t talked much about the killing of Osama bin Ladin here on Slaw, and there is considerable debate in international law over it. Contrary to what Jonathan Kay has said in the National Post, international law is still relevant, and even more so when the tables are switched.
Although it was completely unplanned, the Ontario Court of Appeal released a timely decision on Friday in United States of America v. Khadr dealing not with the more infamous Omar Khadr, but his brother, Abdullah Khadr, on extradition proceedings seeking to have him turned over to the United States.
In . . . [more]
The Grievance Settlement Board’s March 28th privacy award made for some sensational headlines that decried the Ontario Ministry of Labour’s disregard for occupational health and safety inspector privacy by undertaking CPIC checks without consent. The headlines do not do justice to the difficult and significant issue dealt with in the award that relates to the MOL’s obligation to disclose information about inspectors pursuant to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. McNeil.
The Supreme Court issued McNeil in January 2009. The Court held that the Crown is not a single entity for the purposes of its prosecutorial . . . [more]
The Supreme Court of Canada released the much anticipated decision in Ontario (Attorney General) v. Fraser this morning.
The majority held that the Agricultural Employees Protection Act, 2002, (“AEPA”) which excluded agricultural workers from the Labour Relations Act (“LRA”) following Dunmore v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2001 SCC 94,  3 S.C.R. 1016 did not violate s. 2(d) of the Charter. . . . [more]
The Ontario Superior Court recently released a judgment about recovering domain names, South Simcoe Railway Heritage Corporation v. Wakeford 2011 ONSC 1234, in this case a .com name rather than .ca domain name.
Someone who had been active in a voluntary organization registered a domain name for the organization and later transferred it into his own name. He also changed all the registration information settings to private so no one, including the organization, could track who was responsible for the site.
The plaintiff organization brought actions in ‘detinue sur trover’ (a new cause of action for me after all . . . [more]
British Columbia’s Civil Liberties Association Files Lawsuit Challenging Laws Against Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
The British Columbia Court of Appeal (Cojocaru v. British Columbia Women’s Hospital and Health Center 2011 BCCA 192) has overturned — 2-1 –the ruling of a judge whose written reasons for judgment:
. . .cannot be considered to represent his reasons, do not meet the functional requirement of public accountability, and do not allow for meaningful appellate review.
The judge in question adopted 321 paragraphs of his 368 paragraph judgment “almost word-for-word” from the respondent’s written closing submissions and did not acknowledge the borrowing.
It’s by no means unheard of for judges to adopt counsel’s written submissions as . . . [more]
The Supreme Court has wrapped up its two-day hearing into the federal government’s request that the Court rule on the constitutionality of proposed legislation to create a national securities regulator.
Appeal courts in Alberta and Quebec have ruled that the proposal would violate the Constitution because it would intrude on provincial powers.
The facta of all the parties and intervenors of the case are available on the Court’s website.
As well, the hearings were broadcast via webcast and the webcasts are archived.
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal released its decision on Monday in FACEBOOK v. CONNECTU, INC., dismissing the claims of the Winklevoss twins, who wanted to renege on a cash and stock settlement deal with Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerberg.
The recently released case by Justice Guy DiTomaso in Kohl v. ING Insurance Company of Canada, 2011 ONSC 2138, discusses the ability to amend a claim while arbitration is still pending.
The Plaintiff, Roy Kohl, was involved in a car accident when his car hit a brick wall on October 18, 2005. Ian Hu of Oatley Vigmond LLP commenced an action on his behalf for accident benefits and damages for bad faith and mental distress on December 10, 2008 against his insurer, ING Insurance Company of Canada, represented by Deborah Neilson of Carroll Heyd Chown. . . . [more]