The release of five class action decisions penned by Ontario Superior Court Justice Belobaba earlier this month has garnered significant attention in the press and in the profession, and has reignited a debate about cost shifting in class actions. In virtually identical language in Brown v. Canada (Attorney General), Sankar v. Bell Mobility, Crisante v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Dugal v. Manulife and Rosen v. BMO Nesbitt Burns, Justice Belobaba excoriated class action lawyers for over-lawyering certification motions, unnecessarily lengthening the proceedings and generating hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees and disbursements. The result, he bemoans, . . . [more]

The Supreme Court of Canada has just held that the collective right to freedom of expression in a lawful strike situation trumps an individual’s right to control their information in a public setting, striking down the Alberta Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA).

In its decision, Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401, 2013 SCC 62, the Supreme Court weighed the collective rights of a union’s freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms against the rights of individuals whose personal information was collected, used and disclosed without consent by the . . . [more]

Preserving one’s reputation is a fine value – and one that the law of libel strives to protect. But it’s not absolute, and the law recognizes that some communications are so important that they must trump reputation. That’s why communications that enjoy privilege are defensible in defamation cases. So is there a qualified privilege when reporting relevant information to the police in good faith, protecting the individual reporting the information from a libel suit. The answer is Yes.

Ontario’s Court of Appeal yesterday issued decisions in 6 cases arising out of challenges to the mandatory minimum sentences imposed with respect to various firearms-related offences. In two of those decisions, R. v. Smickle and R. v. Nur, the Court found that the mandatory minimum sentence provisions of s. 95 of the Criminal Code breached s. 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but did not breach s. 7 of the Charter.

Two recent decisions from the Court of Queen’s Bench in Manitoba have similarly challenged the constitutionality of the Criminal Code’s mandatory minimum sentencing provisions in relation . . . [more]

We know that today marks the start of the Senate reform reference at the Supreme Court of Canada. I am certain that many of us wish we had three days to devote to viewing the webcasts of this event. If you cannot make the time for full attention to the webcast, Eugene Meehan kindly tweeted some of the grab and go information sources.

Tweet by tweet coverage is being handled by:

• @cmathen
• @alisoncrawford5
• @pauldayesq
• @TondaMacC
• @journo_dale
• @fionahmcfarlane

There are some hashtags that are currently in use including #SenCa #SCC and #cdnpoli

If you are planning to watch an SCC Webcast, . . . [more]

On the day that the Supreme Court begins to hear argument in the federal government’s reference concerning reform of the Senate (In the Matter of a Reference by the Governor in Council concerning reform of the Senate, as set out in Order P.C. 2013-70, dated February 1, 2013), it is appropriate, perhaps, to point out that the judgment by Québec’s Court of Appeal in a reference begun by the provincial government is in fact available in English.

Projet de loi fédéral relatif au sénat (Re) 2013 QCCA 1807 was summarized by SOQUIJ for Slaw last Sunday, and, . . . [more]

The Supreme Court of Canada released its unanimous decision in R. v. Vu this week, dealing with s. 8 of the Charter and the search and seizure of electronic devices such as computers and cellphones.

The police were interested in the potential theft of electricity for a specific home and obtained a search warrant. The warrant in this case did not specify the search of the accused’s computer in their Information to Obtain a Search Warrant (“ITO”), although it did indicate “computer generated notes.” The search revealed marijuana plants, and the charges included production of marijuana, possession of marijuana for . . . [more]

Instead of calling a fall election, the Parti Québécois government has decided, among other things, to devote resources to fighting the federal government over a court challenge to An Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Quebec people and the Quebec State (commonly called Bill 99), the provincial law that outlines Quebec's rules for secession from Canada.

The Ontario Court of Appeal released a decision this month involving a dispute between physician residents and the University of Ottawa which again emphasizes the level of deference the courts are willing to offer educational institutions.

The plaintiffs in Aba-Alkhail v. University of Ottawa were physicians from Saudi Arabia who were completing their postgraduate medical residency at the University of Ottawa. All received some form of discipline or complaints which they attributed to discrimination based on their national origin. The university Senate dismissed the residents’ appeal of their dismissal from the medical program.

Complaints were brought before the human rights . . . [more]

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice rendered a judgment on the Ikea Monkey in September and it is just as weird as you would expect. However, this decision and others dealing with the custody of animals raise questions regarding animal welfare, the move towards protective rights legislation, and the remaining roadblocks to accepting notions of animal rights under the law.

The Ikea Monkey:

Most of you will remember the story of Darwin, the macaque who escaped from his owner’s locked car last December and made his way into a Toronto area Ikea store, wearing a diaper and winter coat . . . [more]

This week the Supreme Court of Canada released the decision in Cuthbertson v. Rasouli, involving a dispute between physicians and the family members of a patient who was on life support.

Summary of the Majority Decision

The dispute involved a patient who experienced severe brain damage from an infection following the removal of a benign tumour, resulting in what the physicians called a persistent vegetative state. The patient was kept alive through life support, and the physicians wanted to stop this care over and above the objections of the patient’s family members, who expressed the patient’s prior expressed intention . . . [more]

The Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program (SAWP) was first established in 1966, but came under national scrutiny during the SCC labour decision in Fraser v. Ontario. The migrant workers under this program, primarily brought to Ontario from Mexico and the Caribbean, have won another small victory in a recent Health Services Appeal and Review Board (HSARB) of Ontario decision.

Kenroy Williams and Denville Clarke were under contract under the program with Chardy Produce Ltd. until Dec. 15, 2012. Within days of starting their jobs the two workers from Jamaica were in a serious motor vehicle accident on August 9, 2012 . . . [more]