The Court (Revisited)

I’m trying, over on the blawg about the Supreme Court of Canada – The Court [] – to start a discussion about the adequacy (or not) of the SCC’s performance in private law areas that generally fall under the “obligations” rubric, although I’ve started it by using tort & damages cases.

My theme is the adequacy of judgments from the perspective of the practitioners who have to use them to advise clients. I’m sure the problem has arisen, recently, in areas other than those I’ve mentioned. Somebody could mention the punitive damages jurisprudence. The thread could expand, of course, to broader commercial concerns. Pro Swing or Friedmann Equity v Final Note, or Transport North American, could be other examples which involve commercial matters and not specifically damages.

The response, so far, has been thunderously silent. Would those of you interested in that subject could consider joining or mentioning the thread to your colleagues who might be interested.

This might turn out to be nothing more than another spill of (electronic) ink amounting to a debate which need not be catalogued; on the other hand, maybe not.


David Cheifetz


  1. Simon F and all:

    I know it’s early in the developmental day, but if THE COURT is to live up to the “debate” portion of its logo – “THE COURT is the online resource for debate & data about the Supreme Court of Canada* then it has to get more input from both practitioners and teachers.

    It’s the “buzz effect” of the busy restaurant. Passers-by, i.e., lurkers, see the place is busy, assume it’s busy because it’s a place to be, so hang around wanting to be seen (heard) there. If they hang around, likely some will eventually contribute.

    I repeat my request that those, here, in a position to urge their colleagues to participate do so. If you know people who have ‘blawgs’ of their own where it would make sense they mention The Court, then please ask. The Court should get mentioned in the emailed newsletters of the various subsections of the CBA and its provincial branches etc.

    One of the shticks regularly used on many of the better US blogs is the guest blogger. It seems me that, in the collection of regular and quasi-regular contributors, here, somebody knows somebody who’d not only make a good guest blogger, but who’d be willing to do so if the powers that be agreed.

    I’ve already done more talking to myself, on THE COURT, than I’d have preferred to, and now I have to do other things, billable work not the least of it.

    Paraphrasing from “Field of Dreams” if we want them to come, we have to build it.

    David Cheifetz
    Partner, Bennett Best Burn LLP