See Here We Go … Again for the first part.

I’ll complete the discussion for now – lawyers are trained to do things in threes – by picking on the British Columbia Court of Appeal and British Columbia trial judges who were only doing their jobs. For the latter, that entails applying what their Court of Appeal has said the law is, even if they think it might not be the law. For the former, that entails applying what the Supreme Court of Canada has said the law is, unless there’s a valid way to duck … sorry distinguish it. . . . [more]

An interesting decision came out in the twilight of 2011. The Vancouver Sun v. British Columbia, 2011 BCSC 1736 is worth a look not only because it is the first of what is likely to be many cases adjudicating fallout from last year’s Stanley Cup riot in Vancouver, but also for its utilization of production orders to get useful information from third parties unrelated to the criminal events under investigation. As upcoming lawful access legislation is expected to create a number of new production orders (largely focused on acquiring telecommunications data from third parties), this case may provide a window . . . [more]

This morning in a brief decision Canada’s top court ruled in a Reference that Internet service providers are not bound by the CRTC’s broadcast regulations

The judgment is so brief we quote it in full: . . . [more]

Here is what Justice Corbett of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had to say recently in Sri Guru Nanak Sikh Centre Brampton v. Dhadda,

[1] It is not open to anyone involved in the plaintiff to dispense with the law because they think they are wise and know what is best. “Tradition” is not a basis for ignoring the law.

…

[4] The plaintiff has a long sad history of conflict. And this just has to stop. It is an embarrassment: the plaintiff is an important religious, social and cultural institution. The conflicts have been riotous, often petty,

. . . [more]

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the appeal in Clements (Litigation Guardian of) v. Clements, 2011 BCCA 581, reversing 2009 BCSC 112; leave to appeal granted 2011 CanLII 36004 (SCC) on February 17, 2012. The Supreme Court’s summary of the issues in the appeal suggests that that all the Court was asked to do is clarify the meaning of the Resurfice material contribution test for proof of the causation requirements in causes of action in negligence and, then, determine the correct result in Clements based on that test. See http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/cms-sgd/sum-som-eng.aspx?cas=34100.

That is an accurate enough summary of . . . [more]

Library Boy told us last year about some tentative steps that courts were making to embrace – or to sniff around tentatively – the whole subject of social media. Today’s announcement from the UK Supreme Court that it will start official tweets of judgments – this in anticipation of the Assange extradition decision – represents the first wholesale adoption by a final court of appeal.

It overshadows Chief Justice McLachlin’s announcement within a speech at Carleton University on the Media and the Courts, that the Canadian judiciary should start to think seriously about social media.

See the Globe, the . . . [more]

What is the responsibility of a public body to notify a third-party when a request for information is made? The Supreme Court of Canada considered this question in Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Health), on appeal from the Federal Court, and released this week. Although the appellant’s appeal was dismissed by the court, they did highlight some areas of improvement for the drug application process.

A competitor of the appellant pharmaceutical company, Merck Frosst, requested information under the Access to Information Act about submissions Merck had made to Health Canada. The submissions were required under the Food and . . . [more]

Steven Slevin had a lifelong history of mental illness. On August 24, 2005, Slevin was charged with driving while intoxicated and receiving or transferring a stolen vehicle, and checked into the Dona Ana County Detention Center.

He was placed in solitary confinement, and remained there for approximately 18 months. He was briefly released for 14 days to receive psychiatric care and was returned to solitary confinement, for a total of 22 months, before the charges were dismissed and he was released on June 25, 2007 due to incapacity of participating in his own defence.

Slevin files suit on December 23, . . . [more]

Globalization takes its toll. This time the toll is to be paid by Americans who want to use works that had, according to US law at the time, entered the public domain but that have been removed from that status and place back under copyright by a 1994 act of the US Congress in order to bring that country into line with the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. As you might imagine, a number of disappointed users sued the US government, arguing that according to the intent of the Copyright and Patent Clause of . . . [more]

English news sources reported yesterday that a three-judge panel of the High Court found Theodora Dallas, until recently a university lecturer in psychology, guilty of contempt of court and sentenced her to six months imprisonment. She will serve the first three in jail and “be on license” for the second three.

Dallas was on a jury trying a case of grievous bodily harm. The trial judge had given jurors clear instructions not to look up matters connected to the trial. At home, she searched the term “grievous bodily harm” and then put it in conjunction with “Luton,” producing a result . . . [more]

On Thursday January 12, 2012, Justice Jon-Jo Douglas convicted Coldin on the three counts of being nude in a public place. Douglas upheld the constitutional validity of Canada’s public nudity laws stating,...

Summary

Historically actions around privacy stemmed from concepts of trespass in the common law, and were only recognized as cearly actionable where stipulated by statute. An Ontario Court of Appeal decision today, Jones v. Tsige, changed that by recognizing the tort of invasion of privacy.

The action arose between two employees in a bank who did not know or work with each other. The plaintiff had a common law relationship with the former husband of the defendant, and the defendant acknowledged looking at the plaintiff’s bank information without just cause or reason on multiple occasions.

The plaintiff claimed $70,000 . . . [more]