What are you doing at 6:00 PM (ET) on Monday, November 14, 2011? If you’re in Toronto, consider coming to Fraser Milner Cagrain at 77 King Street West to hear Human Rights Adjudication in the 21st Century, a talk by Timothy Endicott, Dean of the Faculty and Professor of Legal Philosophy (for Lawyers and Non-Lawyers alike)

The timetable is 6pm Wine and Cheese Reception, 6.45pm Talk and Discussion. $20 at the door but please let us know if you’re on the fence so we know how many to cater for. Here is the log-in.

Timothy Endicott is a Canadian . . . [more]

This week the Ontario Suprerior Court of Justice ruled in the costs award in the online defamation case of Baglow v. Smith.

The plaintiff, who lost on summary judgment, sought only minimal costs based on public interest because he claimed the case dealt with a novel point of law and fact situation. He based this on the commentary in the decision on “removing the sting” in blogging, which as I’ve noted here before was a unique approach to dealing with online defamation.

Annis J. rejected this argument and stated that his decision was primarily based on two points:

1. the

In R. v. Barros, 2011 SCC 51, handed down yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled on whether the defence in a criminal matter is bound by the “informer privilege,” deciding that it is not so bound.

Mr Justice Binnie wrote the judgment for the 7 in the majority, and on the broad point just stated his first paragraph says it all:

The jurisprudence establishes that the identity of police informers is protected by a near-absolute privilege that overrides the Crown’s general duty of disclosure to the defence. This privilege is subject neither to judicial discretion nor any balancing of

Already the subject of Slaw posts in the past with regard to different jurisdictions (see here and here), it is now Quebec’s turn to recognize service via Facebook after the Court of Quebec authorized this past summer a plaintiff to serve its motion to institute proceedings via this social network ing site.

In Boivin & Associés c. Scott, 2011 QCCQ 10324 (CanLII), the plaintiff submitted evidence that it had made every effort possible to serve the defendant by traditional means, but to no avail. Indeed, the defendant had no known address in Quebec and her last known address . . . [more]

The British Columbia Supreme Court has recently given judgment for Century 21 Real Estate company against a company (affiliated with Rogers Communications) that scraped real estate listing information from the Century 21 sites and repackaged it on its own site: Century 21 v Rogers Communications 2011 BC 1196 .

The court thoroughly reviewed US and Canadian law on the topic and recited a number of factors that might support a finding that a ‘browsewrap’ contract (i.e. one that did not depend on any active assent to its terms, but that operated by mere use of the web site) would be . . . [more]

Ten months ago, the two Simons sat at the back of the Supreme Court of Canada and watched the argument in Crookes v. Newton, one of a number of Internet defamation cases coming from British Columbia. The decision was handed down this morning as 2011 SCC 47, (October 19, 2011). Among the intervenors were Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Samuelson-Glushko, Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, NetCoalition, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, Canadian Newspaper Association, Ad IDEM/Canadian Media Lawyers Association, Magazines Canada, Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, Writers’ Union of Canada, Professional Writers Association of Canada, PEN Canada and Canadian . . . [more]

The Federal Courts Rules Committee has asked that the Discussion Paper on a possible global review of the Federal Courts Rules should receive wide distribution to members of the public and the profession. The final version of the paper has been posted in both official languages on the web sites of the Federal Court of Appeal and the Federal Court.

For Slaw readers the most interesting issue under discussion is

advancements in information technology are encouraging more and more litigants to become actively involved in the litigation process, even if they do not ultimately seek to represent themselves before the

For the record here is the Prime Minister’s announcement of Justice Andromache Karakatsanis and Justice Michael J. Moldaver as the Government’s nominees for the Supreme Court of Canada. Both nominees have agreed to appear at an ad hoc parliamentary committee to answer questions of Members of Parliament on October 19. Blatchford’s reaction in the National Post is here, the Post’s editorial reaction and CTV’s story.

Justice Moldaver’s CV and Justice Karakatsanis’ CV

  . . . [more]

In the latest chapter of the online defamation case by UofO law professor, Joanne St. Lewis, the plaintiff proceeded recently with a motion to compel a response from undertakings and refusals. These motions are rather commonplace in civil litigation, except that the defendant, Denis Rancourt, sought to have a blogger accompany him to report on the proceedings.

The undertakings and refusals emerged from the cross examination of an affidavit, submitted to oppose a motion by the plaintiff to abridge the time for mediation and require the parties to use an experienced private mediator rather than a roster mediator.

Counsel . . . [more]

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision in Sierra Club Canada v. Ontario was recently made available online. The decision is important for examining the level of deference by the judiciary in applying judicial review where matters extend into public policy relating to the precautionary principle in environmental law.

Background

The Detroit International Crossing Project (DICP) would add a much needed additional crossing to the Windsor-Detroit border, connecting the American interstates with the new Windsor-Essex Parkway and the 400 series highways in Ontario. Although the Windsor-Detroit crossings were only operating at 66% capacity in 2004, a significant increase in travel . . . [more]

The Supreme Court of Canada begins another season of hearings on Tuesday, October 11, 2011. If you click on the name of any upcoming case, you can find a summary of the issues as well as copies of factums that were filed by the parties with the Court’s Registry.

The Sept. 30, 2011 issue of The Lawyers Weekly presents some of the big cases that will be heard this fall:

“Veiled witnesses, copyright wars and hate speech are some of the hot-button issues facing the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in the busy fall session starting next month.”

Recently, I had occasion to look at the speeches and presentations made by members of ultimate courts of appeal – the Supreme Court and its equivalents. And Canada ranks somewhat disgracefully last in terms of making the speeches publicly available.

Eugene Meehan has monitored the court too for speeches and presentations, but his pickings are similarly slim in recent years. . . . [more]