Back in January, I wrote about a class action that had been filed in New York by former law students claiming they had, in a sense, been duped with regard to post-graduation job prospects (see here). These law students sought over $200 million in damages. Last week, the New York Supreme Court dismissed the action (see here).

Justice Schweitzer wrote that students considering going to law school are “a sophisticated subset of education consumers, capable of sifting through data and weighing alternatives before making a decision regarding their postcollege options.” Moreover, Justice Schweitzer recognized that times were tough; . . . [more]

One of the satisfying moments that recurred regularly in Star Trek, the Next Generation, was Captain Jean-Luc Picard’s simple executive gesture and the words, “Make it so.” A lot of magic thinking was bound up with that. The United States Supreme Court, however, has recently told attorneys that no such wishful assertion can be as effective, at least in the universe where human laws intersect with the laws of nature.

Two days ago the court released the decision in Mayo Collaborative Services et al. v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. No. 10–1150. The following is from the headnote:

Although “laws of

Those of you who read the Globe and Mail may have seen in today’s paper the report by Jeff Gray, “Yes, Virginia, this is a rant from the bench,” reporting an edited version of what Justice David Brown had to say from the bench, Thursday, about Ontario’s paper-based document management system. I might not have called it a “rant,” which suggests a lack of control; rather, it’s a scathing and at times sardonic denunciation by a judge fully in control of his facts and his language. It concludes:

[17] If some may consider such criticism un-judicial in

This week the Supreme Court of Canada released the decision in Richard v. Time Inc., considering an appeal of prohibited business practices in marketing under Quebec’s Consumer Protection Act. John Gregory summarized the case on Slaw previously here.

The plaintiff received $1,000 in compensatory damages and $15,000 in punitive damages after he received a direct mailing from the defendant that appeared to indicate that he had won a Cash Prize of $833,337.00. The Quebec Court of Appeal reversed the trial judge’s decision in favour of the plaintiff, indicating that the campaign did not explicitly make any promises and . . . [more]

even for civil litigators.

on CanLII

or

http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2012/2012ONCA0138.htm

until it shows up

Judgments from each of Watt JA (dissenting), Feldman JA, and Blair JA, concurring in the result.

From Blair JA’s reasons

[151] For centuries, judges, lawyers and academics have devoted much thought and debate to the questions of what does or does not constitute hearsay evidence and why and in what circumstances, and what are the principles underlying the admissibility of such evidence. The authors of McWilliams’ Canadian Criminal Evidence observe that “[f]or more than two centuries the common law has woven a web of complex rules and exceptions

Lacking The Right Stuff, Sylvio Langevin finds his Galaxy Quest over just as he launched his Mission to Mars. With the prospect of A New Hope subject to leave of the Men (and women) in Black, perhaps he should seek Serenity, abandon his quest and make The Voyage Home.

In a Langevin (Re), a decision released last week but published on CanLII just yesterday, the Quebec Superior Court declared Langevin a “quarrelsome litigant” and barred him from bringing any further action without leave.

That order alone, though infrequently issued and a factually and legally . . . [more]

The French constitutional court has held unconstitutional the law passed in January of this year (that’s a fast decision by our standards) that made it illegal to dispute any genocide recognized by law. This kind of rule did not fall into the proper scope of a legal rule. While it was possible for the law to govern the exercise of speech to protect its freedom, this statute went in the opposite direction.

One may note the legislative and judicial materials that appear with the press release to which the above link leads – the law, the supporting material in both . . . [more]

“You may have won a million dollars!” … or not, if you don’t happen to have the pre-selected winning number. Various bonus prizes for early birds are also offered. This is a common marketing device, but the Supreme Court of Canada held unanimously in Richard v Time 2012 SCC 8 that it offended the Quebec Consumer Protection Act. Mr. Richard got $1000 in damages for being misled (no misles were involved), plus $15,000 in punitive damages, plus his costs at trial (where he had won) and on appeal (where he had lost), and on a solicitor-client basis in the SCC. . . . [more]

Simon Chester first mentioned the class-action proceeding launched by Lorne Waldman against Thomson Reuters for alleged breaches of copyright for providing original documents created by lawyers without their permission or compensation through their “Litigator” service. The resulting discussion highlighted much of the controversy and tensions around the issue.

Last Tuesday, Justice Perell certified the class action. The plaintiff introduced evidence that at least some of the factums used had been registered with Canadian Intellectual Property Office for copyright, whereas the defendant introduced evidence by Ronald G. Slaght on how these documents are created, using juniors and other precedents, and . . . [more]

Daniel Poulin just told me that Canlii will, this week, pass a momentous event – the millionth case will be added to Canlii.

We tend to take Canlii for granted – but it really has been a remarkably successful project, which should be supported by all Canadian lawyers, and cheered by Slaw readers. Public access is vital.

Now – a small challenge for those readers. What will the millionth case be?

A Newfoundland and Labrador trial decision? Or something from the Québec Commission de reconnaissance des associations d’artistes et des associations de producteurs? Which has the wonderful acronym, qccraaap. . . . [more]

In a decision rendered last week, the Québec Court of Appeal confirmed that if an employer wants an employee to be subject to restrictive coveneants (e.g., not to compete), those covenvants better be signed before the employment starts. In Jean c. Omegachem inc., 2012 QCCA 232, an employee, Mr. Jean, before being hired, agreed via email to sign a non-compete agreement. The details and tenor of that agreement were not provided to him. Three years after he started, his employer asked him to sign the agreement. It was quite broad and would have prohibited him from working for a . . . [more]

It’s so nice to be proven right so quickly. As my wife often reminds me, this is a rare event akin to a solar and lunar eclipse happening on the same day that the Leafs win the Stanley Cup but I’ll take it.

Less than a month after I ranked “Constitutional Challenges to the Tory Crime Agenda” as my number two prediction-to-watch for in my 2012 Crime & Punishment column, an Ontario Superior Court has launched the first salvo in the resurgent war against mandatory minimum sentences.

Justice Anne Malloy found Leroy Smickle guilty of possession of a loaded firearm . . . [more]