Canada’s online legal magazine.

Archive for ‘Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions’

SCC Recognizes Blogging

Small footnote to the SCC’s recent decision in Simpson v. WIC and Mair.

LeBel J’s concurring judgment mentions blogs:

[73] This is all the more true in an age when the public is exposed to an astounding quantity and variety of commentaries on issues of public interest, ranging from political debate in the House of Commons, to newspaper editorials, to comedians’ satire, to a high school student’s blog. It would quite simply be wrong to assume that the public always takes statements of opinion at face value. Rather, members of the public must be presumed to evaluate comments

. . . [more]
Posted in: Practice of Law, Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions, Technology: Internet

Viacom Vying for Your YouTube User Records

A ruling released July 1st in the copyright infringement case Viacom v. Google has created a stir in the online world. Judge Louis L. Stanton in the U.S. federal New York Southern District Court ordered Google to produce to Viacom:

all data from the Logging database concerning each time a YouTube video has been viewed on the YouTube website or through embedding on a third-party website

. . . [more]
Posted in: Substantive Law, Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions, Technology, Technology: Internet

ECJ Blog

Those interested in the work of the European Court of Justice, might like to subscribe to the ECJ Blog. Allard Knook, a lecturer in law at the Institute of Constitutional and Administrative Law, University of Utrecht, has regular postings in English on cases decided by the Court. . . . [more]

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

Significant High Court Decision on Justiciability of a Referendum on Lisbon Treaty

Stuart Wheeler has lost a High Court case in his bid for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

Two judges rejected the millionaire’s claim that there was a “legitimate expectation” of a public vote. The Beeb summarizes the decision well, the Guardian has the key findings of the case, and Bailii has the entire decision. It has quite a style of cause: The Queen (on the application of Wheeler) v. Office of the Prime Minister, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Speaker of the House of Commons . . . [more]

Posted in: Substantive Law, Substantive Law: Foreign Law, Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions

BCE Decision Day

The Court has spoken, and it has said that BCE won.

This is all that is said:

The appeals from the judgments of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montréal), Numbers 500-09-018525-089 and 500-09-018527-085, dated May 21, 2008, heard on June 17, 2008, are allowed with costs throughout. The decision of
the Court of Appeal is set aside and the trial judge’s approval of the plan of arrangement is affirmed.

The cross-appeals from the judgments of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montréal), Numbers 500-09-018524-082 and 500-09-018526-087, dated May 21, 2008, heard on June 17, 2008, are dismissed with

. . . [more]
Posted in: Practice of Law, Substantive Law, Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions

Deciding Cases on Authorities Not Cited by the Parties

Today’s Wisconsin Law Journal raises a neat issue: whether it’s appropriate for judges to conduct their own research and decide cases on authorities not cited by the parties. I know this is an issue that we’ve blogged on before and because of Semelhago v. Paramadevan Professor Swan feels strongly about the appropriateness of it..

The Wisconsin case (decided by the Court of Appeals) settled that it wasn’t improper for a circuit court to do independent research, since a competent judge has a duty to ensure the correct law is being applied.

The case is Camacho v. Trimble Irrevocable Trust . . . [more]

Posted in: Practice of Law, Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions

Important Articles Dropped From Print

Here are a couple of links to interesting pieces that editors (in their infinite wisdom) decided didn’t need to appear in the print versions of either the Globe and Mail or Canadian Lawyer.

Martha McCarthy was asked to comment on the five years that have elapsed since the Ontario Court of Appeal’s Halpern decision.

Philip Slayton talks about how little we actually know about the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada. He observed from a conversation in a Yaletown bar that it was easier for two Canadian lawyers to list members of the U.S. Supreme Court . . . [more]

Posted in: Miscellaneous, Practice of Law, Substantive Law, Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions

CanLII Adds Past Ontario Cases

Let me quote from the Thursday news release on the CanLII site:

Thanks to a grant from the Law Foundation of Ontario, the following additions have been made on CanLII:

  • All Supreme Court of Canada cases originating from Ontario back to 1876 in searchable HTML and PDF-image format (2,100 cases)
  • All Court of Appeal for Ontario cases that were appealed at the Supreme Court of Canada (1,300 cases)
  • All reported Ontario Superior Court of Justice cases back to 1994 (3,500 cases)

This project added 100,000 pages of historical material on CanLII. CanLII wishes to sincerely thank the Law Foundation of

. . . [more]
Posted in: Legal Information, Legal Information: Publishing, Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions

Bernardo Interview Tape to Be Available to All Media

Today Ontario Superior Court Justice David McCombs made his final ruling allowing all media–television and internet alike–access to a tape of an interview with Paul Bernardo.

The video, running 31 minutes, shows Bernardo being questioned in a Kingston, Ontario jail on June 7, 2007 about the murder of Elizabeth Bain. Bernardo was not originally considered a suspect in her death, but some lawyers believe he should have been. Robert Baltovich was convicted of Bain’s murder in 1992.

The tape was meant to be evidence in Baltovich’s court case this past April, but was never played. According to the CBC website: . . . [more]

Posted in: Substantive Law, Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions, Technology

Life Is Just a Fantasy

On June 2, 2008 (one week ago) the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of Major League Baseball Advanced Media v. C.B.C. Distribution and Marketing, Inc (2007) 505 F.3d 818. ((8th Cir.(Mo.) Oct 16, 2007)), the Fantasy Sports case. To backtrack a bit; for those who are unfamiliar, Fantasy Sports (or rotisserie and many other names), is the pursuit where players “select” teams of players from real sports teams and compete against other fantasy sports players based upon the statistics compiled by the players they have selected, Wikipedia Definition here.

Fantasy sports have evolved over the . . . [more]

Posted in: Legal Information, Substantive Law, Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions