A criminal case was recently decided in which, I’m sure, many people reading this saw in the national media. It created a brief stir and the news cycle went on. What it left behind is a disturbing glimpse into our national obsession. In this case a minor hockey coach intentionally tripped a player on an opposing team in the handshake line at the end of the game and causing him injury. The purpose of this post is not to draw attention to the individuals involved in this incident or even the case itself, but to highlight the actions that would . . . [more]

Some of you might be interested in recent comments of Professor Jason Neyers (of the University of Western Ontario, Faculty of Law), which I repeat with permission, on the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. v. Ontario (Transportation), 2013 SCC 13 (CanLII).

Dear Colleagues:

Although from a very high level of generality, the Antrim case really changes nothing in relation to the way Canadian courts decide nuisance cases (a two-step test of substantialness and reasonableness) on many points of detail the case is very troubling. What are some of these troubling bits?

1. The

. . . [more]

A wag once said that the Yiddish word Chutzpah has been defined as the quality of a person who is accused of killing his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the Court because he is an orphan. The Crown’s chutzpah runs throughout the entire line of post-1982 Aboriginal rights cases from Guerin to the most recent decision, Manitoba Métis Federation Inc. v. Canada (AG) 2013 SCC 14 (MMF), decided Friday, March 8, 2013. (This is the most succinct and least scholarly statement of the thesis that I have been in the throes of finishing for the last while.) In every ground breaking decision the Crown makes arguments that the Court points out are singularly lacking in merit and that display a serious disregard for the Crown’s, its obligation to avoid even the appearance of “sharp dealing”, to resolve ambiguities in treaties and in statutes “in favour of the Indians”, its fiduciary duty to Aboriginal communities, its duty to consult and accommodate and the honour of the Crown.

It is settled law across Canada that employers are required to accommodate disabled employees to the point of undue hardship. While the legal meaning and extent of the terms “handicapped” and “undue hardship” are constantly being tested before tribunals at all levels, the concept is uncontroversial – an employer must adapt the workplace to accommodate a disabled employee to a certain point. Accordingly, employers may need to adapt workplaces by providing ramps or elevator access, special bathrooms, handrails, etc. Depending on a number of factors, it can be the employer’s responsibility to bear any costs associated with those adaptations. It’s . . . [more]

… sometimes.

For some lawyers, anyway.

EG’s clients lost completely. They didn’t have much on their side apart from EG. Assuming (for argument’s sake) the cab rank rule applies in Canada, a strict application says that EG was obliged to take the gamblers’ case provided they met his fee.

I wonder, though, what else it means that it wasn’t BG on the appeal.

“Frank”ly speaking, that is.

Moreira v. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, 2013 ONCA 121. You can read about it in the papers. The short summary is: Gamblers lose; house wins. Again. Go figure.

  . . . [more]

It’s safe to say that most Slaw readers are familiar with the concept of Stare Decisis in the common law tradition. From the Latin, “to stand by things decided”, the concept of a legal system in which lower courts are bound by the determination of higher courts concerning questions of law leaves little room for the lower courts of a single jurisdiction to influence appreciation of the law across the country.

As Master in Chambers Funduk famously observed in a 1989 ruling:

[51] Any legal system which has a judicial appeals process inherently creates a pecking order . . . [more]

On February 11, 2013, an adjudicator of the Alberta Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner decided that Alberta's Legal Aid Society is subject to the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA), with consequences for all non-profit organizations that conduct activities with a commercial character.

Hogarth v Rocky Mountain Slate Inc., 2013 ABCA 57, from the reasons of Slatter JA concurring in the result:

[16] The issue on this appeal is whether the promoters of a limited partnership are personally liable to investors for misrepresentations made about the investment. …

…

[73] The law respecting the liability of directors and officers for torts committed while conducting corporate business is not entirely consistent. Some cases approach the problem from the perspective of the “duty of care”,whereas others approach it from the perspective of “piercing the corporate veil”. Some exceptions to general liability

. . . [more]

The Blue Mountain case, which was previously summarized by Yosie when the Divisional Court decision was released, was overturned earlier this month by the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Justice Blair held that the OLRB and Divisional Court interpretation of s. 51(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which requires reporting of workplace injuries and deaths, would render virtually every place in Ontario a “workplace,” simply because a worker may at some time be present. 

The intervenors, Conservation Ontario and Tourism Industry Association of Ontario, had argued that an end-risks analysis without a reasonable connection between a risk . . . [more]

The actions of policing bodies towards community members, and more specifically, towards “victims” of crime, has been impossible to litigate in Ontario. In 2011, in the Wellington v. Ontario decision (2011 ONCA 274), the Court of Appeal firmly stated that there is “a long list of decisions rejecting the proposition that the police owe victims of crime and their families a private law duty of care in relation to the investigation of alleged crimes.” In Wellington v. Ontario, the family of a young man killed by two police officers sought to bring a claim in negligence against the Special Investigations . . . [more]

The case of Ashby Donald et al. France, a decision last month of the European Court of Human Rights (Application n o 36769/08), is interesting in that it asserts a legally relevant tension between copyright law and the freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 10 of the European Convention, which provides:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right includes freedom to hold opinions and freedom to receive and impart information and ideas without interference there may be public authorities and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting,

. . . [more]

The Supreme Court of Canada has published its calendar of appeal hearings for February 2013.

To find out more about any particular case
, the Court’s website has a section that allows users to find docket information, case summaries as well as factums from the parties. All you need to do is click on a case name.

It is also possible to follow any hearing live via webcast. Webcasts are then archived on the Court’s website. . . . [more]