Archive for ‘Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions’
M was 84 when she was struck by a vehicle while crossing a road. One liability issue was whether she was in a crosswalk crossing with the lights. She was on her way home from the bank.
She was healthy enough (physically and mentally) before the accident to be living independently, comfortably. Nonetheless, the defence counterclaimed against M’s children for contribution, alleging that M was mentally incompetent, that the children had a duty to supervise her, that they breached this duty, and that that breach was a cause of the incident.
The children moved . . . [more]
As everyone will know by now, Conrad Black’s six libel actions in respect of statements posted on the Hollinger International, Inc. website will be allowed to proceed in Ontario. The defendants lost their challenge to the court’s jurisdiction in the Ontario Court of Appeal judgment released yesterday — Friday the 13th, as it happens. The court explored the proper manner to determine whether “a real and substantial connection” exists between the jurisdiction and the defendant and the plaintiff’s claims; they also looked at whether the motions judge exercised discretion properly on the issue of forum non conveniens.
This entry . . . [more]
An English court has ruled that the material hyperlinked to an online article alleged to be defamatory can be read to put the article in ‘context’ to understand its meaning: Islam Expo Ltd v The Spectator  EWHC 2011 (QB). (See the story on OutLaw.com.)
Despite the rather unusual statement by the judge that he took the hyperlinked material into account “without thereby intending to imply any ruling, one way or the other, as to whether that approach is right in law” (para 15), I don’t find what he did to be unusual.
Would not a Canadian court do . . . [more]
The legal press around the world this weekend featured a variety of stories that caught my attention. Let’s visit India, Sierra Leone, Namibia and England. . . . [more]
For lawyers looking for clients and others considering additional financial consequences of the G20, the just released Vancouver (City) v Ward 2010 SCC 27 is perhaps a collection manual for those who were improperly arrested at the G20.
The facts of Ward. I’m quoting the headnote:
. . . [more]
During a ceremony in Vancouver, the city police department received information that an unknown individual intended to throw a pie at the Prime Minister who was in attendance. Based on his appearance, police officers mistakenly identified W as the would‑be pie‑thrower, chased him down and handcuffed him. W, who loudly protested his detention
I was browsing Alberta case law posted to CanLII today using their funky RSS feeds and an interesting tidbit caught my eye. In Alberta (Justice and Attorney General) v. Yousif, 2010 ABQB 478, solicitor and client costs were awarded against the Minister.
. . . [more]
 This matter was instigated by the Minister who was the principal architect of the legislation under which the action was taken. As I indicated in the last judgment, the objective of the legislation is that proceeds and instruments of crime may be used for the benefit of victims of crime. It gives the Minister broad
What Slaw talks about, the world talks about tomorrow. Well not quite. No illusions about our reach.
So we’ll just put it down to coincidence or the zeitgeist that John Gregory’s mention of Henry VIII Clauses (he initially undervalued the monarch at a mere VII) here triggered global interest. But a few days later, the English legal press revealed that the Lord Chief Justice spoke on just this subject.
Lord Judge, who as Lord Chief Justice is head of the English judiciary, was speaking at the annual Lord Mayor’s dinner for the judiciary, the day before John Gregory’s comment; . . . [more]
The Court of Appeal for England and Wales has recently decided, in Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd  EWCA Civ 804 that the ‘responsible journalism in the public interest’ defence to defamation requires that an online archive of a story must be updated to take account of exculpatory developments.
Since the Canadian version of that defence (‘public interest responsible communication’) expressly applies to blogs and other non-mainstream-media publications, will bloggers have to update their stories too? Will they have to go back and amend or annotate the original posting? Does the usual blogging software allow for that?
(In Flood, . . . [more]
Earlier today I stumbled across an excellent, free Investment Treaty Arbitration website at UVic Law that has so far appears to have gone unnoticed by SLAW.ca commentators.
According to the site, it provides access to all publicly available investment treaty awards along with information and resources relating to investment treaties and investment treaty arbitration and links to further resources.
Readers of the site are encouraged to send investment treaty materials and awards to Professor Andrew Newcombe for posting.
You can access awards chronologically or alphabetically by claimaint or by respondent state. Information is also provided for expert opinions and ICSID . . . [more]