According to actuarial tables, a 35 year old has a 50% probability of being disabled for at least 90 days and the average duration of disability is an incredible 3.5 years. The probability decreases slightly as you get older, but the average duration increases. The probability of a 50 year old being disabled for at least 90 days is 33%, but the average duration is almost 5 years. 

Based on the probability of having a claim, I think you’ll agree that disability insurance is a good idea, but if you believe your employee Long Term Disability (LTD) plan offers plenty . . . [more]

The Federal Trade Commission in the US published – as part of a much larger report on privacy – a fascinating chart on the various routes that various kinds of personal information take from the individual to end users of all kinds.

There is a note on the website of the Centre for Democracy and Technology about the chart.

 
The chart itself is in PDF.

There is a lot of information on the chart, so you will have to blow it up at least to double size to see it clearly (if your eyes are no better than mine…). It . . . [more]

Earlier this week, Ontario Ombudsman André Marin released his report into the use of a secret regulation that gave police what he called “extravagant” and “likely illegal” powers to crack down on peaceful people protesting last summer’s G20 summit in Toronto or to arrest uninvolved, simply curious citizens caught in the vicinity of the security fence around the summit location.

So, you say: yet another official report that repeats the old refrain “cops go overboard, violate civil liberties”. La-dee-dah, big whoop, what else is new? Either you’re a law and order fan – so these reports do not impress you. . . . [more]

Bill C-389, a private member’s bill entitled An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity and gender expression) was “concurred in at report stage” in Parliament yesterday, and now will move on to third reading. The bill would add the phrase “gender identity, gender expression” to the list of prohibited bases for discrimination found in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the relevant hate propaganda and sentencing sections of the Criminal Code (ss. 318(4) and 718.2(a)(i) respectively).

There is a wide range of people who would be potentially protected by . . . [more]

Careful readers of Slaw’s Linkblogs may have noticed Steve Matthews post on adding RSS feeds.

While that’s very useful, I also want to point Slaw readers’ attention to the new website Attorney at Work on which Steve’s post is published and to an invitation to receive “One Really Good Idea Every Day”.

The project is the brainchild of Merrilyn Astin Tarlton, and Joan and Mark Feldman who were responsible for many years for the excellent Law Practice magazine of the American Bar Association. So I must declare an interest. You’ll see a number of members of the . . . [more]

I read with interest a significant two page article by Kirk Makin in this morning’s Globe and Mail focussing attention on the steps that Canada’s judiciary have been making to demystify the legal system and the operations of the courts.

“The whole judicial system depends on public confidence,” said Lance Finch, Chief Justice of British Columbia. “If you don’t have that confidence, people will ignore the courts and the law. … Eventually, you get anarchy.”

As Kirk explains, “Not so long ago, a judge seeking a public profile, let alone explaining his legal worldview, would have been unthinkable. Lawyers ascending . . . [more]

Many workplaces are insisting that employees say “Happy holiday” or “Season’s greetings” to promote intercultural respect and inclusiveness, and not to offend clients and other co-workers.

Recently, I have encountered a number of lawyers who have found themselves unemployed due to cuts or downsizing at their firms. Some of these lawyers were baffled that they had been let go; they had experience and were good lawyers who did their work well, kept their noses to the grindstone, made sure the work they were given by their practice groups or supervising partners got done, and met their billable hour requirements. They didn’t waste time socializing and kept out of the way, focusing on their billable work. But the very things that these lawyers thought should have kept . . . [more]

This communiqué distills the output of the experts’ deliberations at the Vancouver colloquium. While the depth of discussions obviously resulted in many subtleties which cannot be represented here, this document serves as the definitive record of the Vancouver gathering. It is organized chronologically, hewing closely to the agenda of the meeting

In 1910, an Englishman by the name of Percy T. Carden ^{[Fn. 1]} published an interesting proposal arguing for the creation of loose leaf law reports, which, at the time, generated considerable debate concerning the merits of ditching bound volumes in favor of publishing cases as single-issue slip opinions to be filed away in drawers. See Carden, Loose Leaf Law Reports, 26 L. Q. Rev. 75 (1910); see also Loose Leaf Law Reports, 30 Can. L. Times 244 (1910) (doubting that debris of littered “loose leaves” would ever find their way back to their proper places); Hawley, Law . . . [more]

A court in Illinois has recently held that showing a credit card number on a computer screen did not constitute printing that number: Kelleher v. Eaglerider, Inc., 2010 WL 4684037 (N.D.Ill., Nov. 10 2010). Internet Cases has the story.

The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 [PDF] (FACTA) says that a merchant must not print out a receipt with more than the last five digits of a credit card number. Someone who did a transaction saw his full number on the screen, and sued for damages for breach of the statute. He lost.

In my view, I’m . . . [more]

It’s early for a year-end list, but I want to leave time for a response before we all boot down for the holidays. Here’s a list of the top Canadian information and privacy cases of the year. Comments are invited.

#1 Ontario (Public Safety a­­nd Security) v. Criminal Lawyers’ ­Association. The Supreme Court of Canada recognizes that the Charter gives the public a limited right of access to government information. A limited but profound new right. From June.

#2 R. v. National Post. In three separate decisions, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously holds that privilege claims made . . . [more]