For my part, I generally call for killing everyone. After all, not one is righteous and we're all sinners deserving of an eternity in Hellfire. That seems fair enough for me and we have the nukes, biological and chemical weapons in numbers and quality sufficient to make it a reality. This is merely the logical outcome of our death penalty driving bloodlust in my view and there's no good reason it ought not be pursued (we've spent trillions of dollars on this after all, and surely we didn't spend all that money on pure stupidity and evil did we?).

I won't pretend that this view is seeking justice, but it sure as heck is seeking something that the human heart and soul deeply desires.

The Wet One

It is a separate question whether the tribunal or a court should go behind that plain argument to say (along the lines of 'and no plainer…') that the payments were expressly or impliedly provided in lieu of services or to permit the receipt of services, or both, and therefore the payment was the equivalent of providing services and covered by the statute.

Plain language is not plain meaning. Plain language is intended to convey plain meaning. It may or may not succeed.

The 'modern sense' presumably refers to the 'modern method' of statutory interpretation, which avoids older tests like 'the mischief rule' or 'the plain meaning rule' or various presumptions, and says that one has to read the whole text in context to understand what the text means.

In this case reading the statute in the context of the history of the parties and the payment system might be helpful in deciding whether the payments should be treated as the equivalent of services.

With respect to signatures, if one imposes a reliability requirement, is there not a risk that some e-signatures will be held invalid for insufficient reliability, even if everyone knows who did them and why? Today in Ontario one does not need a signature on a real estate transfer (Land Registration Reform Act s. 19), so is it necesary to impose an open-ended technology requirement?

The third point deals with documents of title. Documents of title are not used to convey real estate. Thus that provision will not facilitate electronic land transfers.

Is it safe to allow the E-Commerce Act to apply to documents of title without any safeguards or barriers to promote security or uniqueness of the document, and to deal with the consequences? (New Brunswick's Electronic Transactions Act has never excluded them; everyone else's does SFAIK.)

http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/bc-court-hearing-fees-declared-unconstitutional-legislature-reminded-duty-maintain-judiciary

Yours truly,

Erik

esign

Neither the federal nor the provincial statute gives us the day off, however, as distinct from enjoining us to celebration. In Ontario that more practical function is served by the Retail Business Holidays Act or the Employment Standards Act. (Neither allows the Governor General to give employees a holiday in this sense; only provincial proclamations can have that effect.)

Interpretation legislations merely tell us what days may be meant when a statute or regulation refers to a 'holiday', often by way of saying that some deadline for an official action is extended for a day past the holiday.

For better or worse, this makes for a small redundancy in the definition of "holiday" in section 35 of the Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21.

Daniel.

The same is true in the Hearts game. Once you've won a couple, suddenly you're not getting the good cards any more, and your most inconvenient opponent is.

I wish the Solitaire game had a 'replay the same deal' option. With a real deck, one can turn over the alternative to the card played, and see what might have happened. No backing up or replaying on the computer. I can understand no backing up, but a replay would occasionally be fun.

Might I also add that, though litigation risk avoidance is obviously the goal, justification for its cost is less evident. The cost of the model licence – which runs to the end of 2015 – will vary with the size of the campus, but will it be worth the cost of any potential litigation for copyright violation? And what is the value of an updated precedent on fair dealing in education?

UBC's statement is an interesting read. On the flipside, the student comment posted May 15 is also an interesting read…

It is worth noting, also, that not all universities will be passing on the costs to the students – directly, anyway. Manitoba makes this clear in its statement.

As those interested in this issue might know, Prof. Ariel Katz has been inducting the various dominoes into his Halls of Fame and Shame.

Prof. Katz's post shows a few dominoes falling in the other direction: U of Winnipeg recently joined UBC and Athabasca U, with strong words from President Axworthy, who called it a "cash grab."

The University of Windsor confirmed yesterday it also will continue to operate without Access Copyright. Windsor published copyright and fair dealing guidelines and operates its own limited Copyright Clearance Service to assist with rights assurances and clearance.

Once the first two dominoes fell, it seemed the other universities would shy away from standing alone to face possible litigation. Clearly, that foreseen eventuality is not reality. There seems to be some security in numbers now among those who chose to turn away now from Access Copyright or, like Calgary and Memorial, signed the letter of intent but are evaluating their options before deciding whether to sign the actual licence, by June 30.

Your comments are thoughtful as always. I know of no other profession that makes claims to both act and regulate in the public interest as strongly as we do in the legal profession. There are many large gaps between the rhetoric of lawyering and the reality: see the Barrister's Oath in Ontario for example. Judges could order lawyers appearing before them to do pro bono. I agree they likely could not order other lawyers. There would be an obvious inequality in this. I would like to see the profession start with aspirational ethics on pro bono, at least.

Years ago, I read a case in the Reports of Family Law in which the domestic problems of a former classmate were published for everyone to read, including their children. It all seemed so unnecessary. For that reason, I became proponent of the use of initials in family law cases.

Early efforts by the legal publishers to deal with this issue were rendered ineffective with the arrival of comprehensive case citators and the publication of full text cases. The result was that the effort by some publishers to protect the innocent was negated by the courts and by other publishers who used the names of the parties.

I believe that the issue is one that could be easily addressed by the courts who have the option of releasing the decisions without using the parties names, as happens in Quebec.

I agree with Angela that it is time for the judiciary to act responsibly in these matters rather than indulge themselves at the expense of families who are made the objects of ridicule as a result.

Then there's the political spin. Draw your own conclusions.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/05/18/pol-court-throws-out-etobicoke-centre-election-wrzesnewskyj.html

Conservative Party spokesman Fred Delorey said they're disappointed with the court decision after 52,000 people in Etobicoke Centre "followed the rules, cast their ballots and today had their democratic decision thrown into doubt."

[defeated Liberal candidate] Wrzesnewskyj told CBC News that the riding needs a by-election to restore democracy.

This seems to be a bit more sophisticated version of the email trust-money scams, where here, they have someone actually make personal voice contact, and then “pass off” to someone in another jurisdiction, where the scam action is really generated and centered. And since she had a rather heavy Asian accent, what would I know from thereafter, speaking to another woman with a heavy Asian accent at the number in LA to which I would be directed?!

There may be a real concerted effort here to scam our accounts.

The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, Chief Justice of Canada, announced today that Justice Marie Deschamps has written to the Minister of Justice, the Honourable Robert Nicholson, to inform him that she will retire from the Supreme Court of Canada. Justice Deschamps’s retirement will be effective August 7, 2012.

“Justice Deschamps has made a very significant contribution to the Supreme Court and, more broadly, to the administration of justice in Canada. We will miss her wisdom, intelligence, keen wit and boundless energy. She has been a wonderful colleague and will always be a good friend”, said Chief Justice McLachlin.

Robinson c. Films Cinar inc., 2009 QCCS 3793 (CanLII)
http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2009/2009qccs3793/2009qccs3793.html
(the images start before paragraph 506/footnote 336; I can see the similarities in the images used for Les Aventures de Robinson Curiosité and Robinson Sucroë, but love how they are different)

However, it's short on keyboards. They vary from flimsy to virtual to clunky. The bets of the lot may be the blackberry, and that's a thumb-keyboard.

I currently use the smallest netbook that has a comfortable keyboard (an Acer Aspire), because I write almost as much as I read.

In the security sphere, my connection to the IT network is rdesktop (sometimes also called RDP), so when necessary I have the same working experience as someone chained to a desktop. I also have all my local computing power, at the cost of having to run the (U.S.) NSA's secure version of Linux, so a random thief/hacker doesn't walk off with more than the hardware (;-))

I think I can predict a continuing life for the laptop, in part for a larger screen and in part for a keyboard I can use all day. Along with a plethora of pads!

–dave

So for kirpans: is there a history of their being used for actual fighting or for threatening people, in public places such as courts, or in schools, in Canada? If not, why not figure out how they can be allowed? The principles of open public access to the courts, and of participation on juries, in this case appear to outweigh the need to combat the threat that the kirpan might be dangerous to anyone.

The same reasoning lay behind the decision of the SCC that kirpans should be allowed in Quebec schools.

Yonit Fuhrmann, Deputy Director

http://www.nwtcourts.ca/Sissons/sissons.htm

Then I saw this:

(Until somebody comes in with a RIM Playbook or other oddball device).

Up until that point, I actually expected you to say "The RIM Playbook is probably the best device currently on the market for lawyers".
I am not associated with RIM in any way, but I've been really impressed with the Playbook, and find it a great tool in my practice.

First, the smartphone of choice for lawyers is overwhelmingly the Blackberry. That may change, of course (20 years ago, the word processor of choice for lawyers was overwhelmingly Wordperfect).
The Playbook is designed to work along with a Blackberry, in ways other tablets cannot.

With respect to connectivity, the Playbook does not have built-in 3G/LTE connectivity, but it nonetheless has mobile connectivity. It can tether with any phone (Blackberry or other) that supports Bluetooth Dial Up Networking protocol. Depending on your phone's data plan (make sure to check it – some plans charge ridiculous fees for tethering, like $6/Mb), this may well save money, as you will only be paying the monthly fees to Bell/Rogers/Telus for your smartphone, not for your smartphone and 3G tablet.

With respect to virtualization, this is already built into the Playbook if you also have a Blackberry smartphone. The "Blackberry Bridge" is a special form of tethering that essentially allows you to use the Playbook as an extended screen for your Blackberry, so you can access emails, files, and your intranet on your Playbook, using your Blackberry's secure internet connection. If you take the tablet out of Bluetooth range from the Blackberry, the confidential emails, open documents, and the intranet browser will 'disappear' from the Playbook. Assuming your IT department has already set your Blackberry up to be secure, the Playbook will be secure. There is nothing more for the IT department to do.

Though the Playbook was much maligned in the initial reviews when it was released in early 2011 (mostly because the software was not-quite-finished; most of the issues raised in old reviews have since been addressed), one thing that the reviews generally agreed on was that the Playbook had the best tablet-based browser on the market, and that it was the closest thing to a desktop browser available on any tablet, iPad included. That is hugely important if you are talking about running web-based apps.

I purchased a Playbook in January, and use it regularly in my practice. My office uses an intranet-only browser-based client management program. Using the Blackberry Bridge, I can log into the program securely from anywhere I have cell phone coverage, with full secure access to case data, documents and so forth. Our IT department did not have to do anything to allow this to work.
We get faxes as PDF attachments via email. Though the text of a PDF fax is too small to read on a smartphone, a fax can easily be read on a tablet screen.

Playbook also has support for reading and editing Microsoft Office documents, which again can be opened if received as email attachments. And such document stay on the Blackberry, so there are no additional security issues with the Playbook. I asked my IT department about using the Playbook when I got it, and the answer was they did not need to do anything, it would just work. It did.

So, don't be so quick to dismiss the Playbook. It already does most of the great things your article says tablets should do. It probably will save your IT department headaches, not cause them, because it has the virtualization aspect already taken care of.

This decision makes a mockery of public safety issues within an environment where criminals abound. I mention this in the off chance you may have failed to take such a minor detail into account because from where I am standing, if it was taken into account, insufficient weight was afforded it.

I despair!

The UK legal system seems to be heading towards the non degree lawyer in the form of a legal executive, who can then take the Legal Practice Course (LPC). This legal executive needs 5 years practical experience under supervision of a solicitor but after the LPC I believe the Solicitors Regulation Authroity can make a decision on whether to provide them with the same status as a solicitor who has qualified via the tradition degree route.

Do you know if the College of Law Australia is affiliated with the UK College of Law? Or is it just a coincidence?

Mark – studyinglaw.co.uk/

But I find Jordan's reasoning persuasive on several counts. It used to be – may still be – that Quebec's equivalent of a small claims court did not permit lawyers. The sky did not fall, and economic slavery did not follow. So let's see what happens. ODR is not unique to BC either; a number of places are experimenting with it. A collection of readings, including examples, are on the UNCITRAL site here (online resources) and here (bibliography).

It's not clear to me — please correct me if I'm in error — that anyone is forced to use this new tribunal described in Bill 44. The bill states that a person "may" use the tribunal if the matter at hand is within the tribunal's jurisdiction. There are several "musts" that follow the choice to use the tribunal, including the acceptance of the tribunal's decision as final, but it appears to me that nobody is forced to use this system if they don't want to. (I appreciate Erik's assessment that Bill 52 is a different matter.)

Further, the ban on using lawyers is not absolute: section 20 goes on to say that lawyers are permissible if, e.g., the claimant is a child, has diminished mental capacity, or (importantly) merits legal representation in the tribunal's view. In that light, the use of "stripping the right to legal counsel" does not seem like an entirely appropriate description. (Note also that the government cannot be a party before the tribunal.)

But in any event, the government's aim here is very clear: it wants to create a state-sanctioned dispute resolution system that replaces judges and lawyers with technology and simplicity. I think the government is doing this because it wants to see if this system will work. They want to see if it will be much worse than the current court system, slightly worse, about the same, slightly better, or much better. I imagine they're counting on the latter three options as the most likely.

And this is the important part: when the government says "better," it's thinking in terms of affordability, efficiency and cost-effectiveness, not in terms of full legal representation or access to the complete range of legal solution. That may be a bad set of priority choices. But it is neither an irrational nor an inherently illegitimate set of priority choices. The Small Claims Court already implements this idea. So do expedited proceedings in various jurisdictions. What the government is doing here is creating a parallel DR system with a different set of rules and founding assumptions than those underlying the court system. That, to me, is a very interesting idea.

If I had to guess, I'd say the BC government has formed the opinion that the current court system isn't working and that judges and (especially) lawyers are the culprits. Again: that may be a mistaken diagnoses, but it's not an irrational one. When the CBA-BC says that the sole reason for court backlogs is the lack of proper state funding, it just confirms the government's perception that lawyers are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Certainly, funding can and should be improved; but lawyers taking advantage of the full range of legal tactics available to them are a prime driver of litigation costs and litigation time, and it would behoove us, as a profession, to at least tacitly acknowledge that.

I'm not saying that this tribunal will have no impact on the ability of disputants to access their full range of options under the law. That, in fact, is precisely the point of it. Reducing access to a lawyer is not a bug; it's a feature. What this tribunal is forcing us to do is ask what we mean when we talk about "Access to Justice." Do we mean "Access to a Lawyer in Court," or do we mean "Access to a State-Sanctioned DR System"? I think it can mean both, and this tribunal might possibly be the first step in that direction.

Was this always in the best interests of customers? No – I think Hugh was more focused on QL's survival. That and a passion for demonstrating – and expanding – the potential for electronic legal research.

When the business was sold, he and Dick profited handsomely. But they had sacrificed so much on the way, that the returns were modest if viewed as deferred.

One of a kind.

In making his decisions, Hugh acted in the best interests of his customers. The choice of LexisNexis over other suitors ensured that there would be balance in the online services provided by the major legal publishers, ensuring meaningful competition on an ongoing basis in the market for legal information in Canada.

I agree with Mark that the announcement was certainly one of the most dramatic moments in the history of CALL as well as one of the most significant.