There is an August 22, 2011 decision from the U.S. District Court, Eastern District, in the Matter of Historical Cell-Site Information, 10-MC-897 (NGG), NYLJ 1202511989637 that Slaw readers may find interesting. The U.S. Attorney’s office wanted 113 days of cell phone records from Verizon Wireless. The court said:

While the government’s monitoring of our thoughts may be the archetypical Orwellian intrusion, the government’s surveillance of our movements over a considerable time period through new technologies, such as the collection of cell-site-location records, without the protections of the Fourth Amendment, puts our country far closer to Oceania than our Constitution

. . . [more]

Background

I initially mentioned the lawsuit against Law Buzz last year when it was first launched. The case settled earlier this summer, with the plaintiff opting to move forward with her business. But a spin-off lawsuit was launched by Tycho Manson, one of the defendants in the original action, against anonymous posters commenting about him on the original case.

Pepall J. of the Ontario Superior Court heard a motion earlier this month in Manson v. Doe, dealing with a various forms of relief by the plaintiff, Manson:

1. an order seeking validation of service by e-mail
2. an injunction requiring

. . . [more]

The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission’s appeal of the Whatcott freedom of expression case to the Supreme Court of Canada is scheduled to be heard in October 2011.

Well only as an intervenor.

According to a Press Release out this week, CanLII and the Federation to Defend Free Access to Law at the Supreme Court

CanLII and the Federation of Law Societies of Canada have been granted leave to intervene at the Supreme Court of Canada in SOCAN v. Bell et al., a copyright case to be heard later this year in which the Court will be asked to provide guidance on the meaning of “research” as a fair dealing user right under the Copyright Act.

While the facts of the SOCAN case relate to online . . . [more]

The Alberta Information and Privacy Commissioner recently confirmed that Alberta Health Services (AHS) breached the rights of one of its employees by intentionally using information from his addiction counselling against him during a human resources investigation. The breach of the employee’s personal health information clearly contravened the Health Information Act (HIA).

Those of us who need to know such things know that the SCC granted leave to appeal in Clements v Clements 2011 CanLII 36004 (from 2010 BCCA 581) where the issue will be the meaning of the Canadian material-contribution doctrine (and maybe some other things about proof of causation in Canadian tort law should the Court deign to go there.)

In the meantime, a judge of the New South Wales, Australia, Court of Appeal has, conveniently, written a primer on the subject: Evans v Queanbeyan City Council [2011] NSWCA 230. . . . [more]

In early July, the Quebec Court of Appeal upheld the constitutionality of Bill 30, An Act respecting bargaining units in the social affairs sector and amending the Act respecting the process of negotiation of the collective agreements in the public and parapublic sectors. The bill was originally declared unconstitional by the Superior Court of Quebec in 2007.

In coming to its decision, the Court of Appeal relied primarily on two Supreme Court decisions: 2007’s Health Services and Support – Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia and Ontario (Attorney General) v. Fraser, decided in April of this . . . [more]

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/elephant-in-the-room.html

Reece v. Edmonton (City), 2011 ABCA 238

Substitute child for animal in the Alberta legislation involved (the Animal Protection Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. A-41) , call it the Child Protection Act, and assume everything else is effectively the same.

Would the majority have made the same decision and on the same grounds? If not, their analysis is wrong.

If they didn’t see that, they should have.

If they would have made the same decision, imagine the public screaming.

Given that, do you think the decision would still have been the same or would the majority have found . . . [more]

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom recently had to decide if a private commercial arbitration agreement could specify the religion of the arbitrator. The lower courts had gone in different directions. The trial court said that was not a problem. The Court of Appeal held that such a provision violated equality laws in the UK by requiring discrimination on the basis of religion.

In Jivraj v Hashwani [2011] UKSC 40, the Supreme Court said that arbitrators were not employees and the parties could properly (and enforceably) agree to prescribe their religion, nationality or other characteristics that would normally be . . . [more]

Let the speculation begin.

According to an article in The Hill Times, the process to choose the replacements for Supreme Court of Canada Justices Louise Charron and Justice Ian Binnie starts today.

Earlier this year, Charron and Binnie, both from Ontario, announced they were resigning from the Supreme Court.

As The Hill Times article explains:

MPs and human rights lawyers say they expect Prime Minister Stephen Harper will attempt to swing the pendulum of Supreme Court of Canada rulings toward the prevailing views of Conservative Party supporters as he fills the court’s two vacancies in a secretive and high-stakes

. . . [more]

As Adeyemi Alfred-Adekeye learned, you don’t mess with Cisco Systems Inc. And as Cisco learned, albeit a little late, you don’t mess with the Canadian judiciary.

The tangled story, told in full in the latest judgment [PDF] and glossed in the ars technica article, goes like this in brief: . . . [more]

R v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42 is necessary reading for all Canadian lawyers giving advice about any aspect of private law obligations.

This case fits very nicely into our discussion about the need to avoid ambiguity in statements about law. It also shows how often ambiguity in the language actually used is too often associated with the writer(s)’ apparent confusion relating to the meaning of the concepts discussed.

Maybe the Court meant to make some of the assertions that the text of the reasons literally makes. And maybe they “misspoke” themselves.

Time will tell. 

But, in . . . [more]