Slaw’s First (?) Judicial Citation

and admissible evidence that some members of the bench read Slaw.

Livent. Inc. (Special Receiver) v. Deloitte & Touche, 2012 ONSC 7007 at para. 149.

I had almost nothing to do with this.


  1. I am not surprised that the learned Master Short would be familiar with Slaw – and he found a good authority to quote, of course. Isn’t it nice that you don’t have to be deceased to be quoted, in this enlightened era of jurisprudence?

  2. All things considered, yes.

    We’d still have almost no Canadian non-judicial scholarship to quote were the “better be dead if admittedly read” aphorism still in vogue since it’s likely that there’d be few volunteers for the honour.

    I’m told (by a lawyer who’d have reason to know) that the first time my apportionment text was mentioned in the SCC – the text was still in draft (the parties had portions of the manuscript) so that’ll give you an idea of when it was – one of the judges on the bench was less than impressed that they’d been referred to a still in progress work by a living author.

    I’m not sure how we’d get one of those from a dead author, but writers like Ludlum seem to manage it.

  3. John,

    I wonder what it says about the primary use of Twitter, at present, that this post, according to the data, has been retweeted 20 times in the few days its been up while, at a glance, nothing else I’ve written this year has reached double figures in the “twitterverse”. I suppose it proves the value of humour. And brevity.