Susan Clairmont reports in today’s Hamilton Spectator that Mark Conacher, a Toronto JP holding G20 bail hearings, banned note-taking in his court “the other day”. Clairmont reports that, when challenged, Conacher qualified the ruling, saying “The ban doesn’t apply to the media.” According to Clairmont, Conacher offered no explanation and cited no law.

I haven’t been able to find Clairmont’s column on a free web-site, but it’s available on a suitable PressDisplay, LexisNexis or Factiva subscription. . . . [more]

The Supreme Court of Canada today granted leave to hear the appeal of Van Breda v. Village Resorts Limited, 2010 ONCA 84, a decision I blogged on earlier here.

One hopes the Court will take the opportunity to clarify when a court should take personal jurisdiction over out-of-province defendants since, despite a clear intention to clarify or update the law by the Ontario Court of Appeal, I am not convinced they did as much.

A search here on my custom Google search of Canadian law firms, blogs and journal sites shows a fair bit of chatter over this . . . [more]

On Tuesday July 6, I heard that the United States government filed a lawsuit against the State of Arizona over the immigration law, arguing that it is meant to supersede the federal government's authority under the US Constitution to regulate immigration.

In May, the Ontario Court of Appeal reversed the lower court decision in Piresferreira v. Ayotte. The reversal limits an employee's ability to hold an employer liable for negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress in the workplace. The Court stated that employees may not make the charge of negligent infliction of mental suffering against an employer or supervisor for conduct in the course of employment.

The oldest law reports in North America were originally written by Josiah Quincy Junior (1744-1775), recording the cases of continental America’s oldest court, the Superior Court of Judicature of the Province of Massachusetts Bay. That is the direct ancestor of today’s Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, which has been in continuous existence since 1692.

My friend Daniel R. Coquillette, former Dean of Boston College Law School has edited a new edition of the law reports published this month.

Quincy’s court reports offer a rare legal insight into life in the American colonies prior to the American Revolution, and cover such

. . . [more]

This is a short note with some links related to cyberbullying, starting with one to the June 27th New York Times feature article, Online Bullies Pull Schools Into the Fray. Reporter Jan Hoffman details how American school administrators are dealing with the pressure to intervene in cyberbullying cases despite challenging questions about the scope of their power to deal with “off campus” student conduct.

The pressure for intervention is understandable because the prospect of taking on a cyberbully through the courts can be daunting. Whether this cost should be mitigated by protective orders is the issue in a Nova . . . [more]

As discussed in other Slaw posts this weekend, it has been a difficult weekend in Toronto with peaceful protests associated with the G20 meeting being marred by criminal violence. The mainstream media has covered the more violent aspects as well as the human angle of people being held for four and a half hours in the rain on the streets last night, both aspects of which have been shocking to many of us living in the city. We also saw interviews on TV with people as they were being released from a temporary detention centre.

However, one thing we saw . . . [more]

The Supreme Court of Canada rendered judgment today, granting application for appeal in PHS Community Services Society v. Canada, the case of the Insite supervised injection site in B.C. I attended the hearings in Vancouver at the Court of Appeal last summer and posted my notes here on Slaw.

The 2-1 ruling, released in January, upheld the trial level decision allowing the clinic to remain open.

Coverage of the case is available at The Globe, CBC, and the Vancouver Sun. . . . [more]

The Ottawa Citizen recently ran a series on the capital’s crack cocaine problem.

An article that ran on Saturday, June 19, 2010 as part of the series examined the city’s Drug Treatment Court that works to divert small-time drug offenders away from jail and into addiction treatment programs:

Offenders in Drug Treatment Court are always facing jail for the petty theft that feeds their habit. After a rigorous assessment, they are accepted into the program and begin treatment with Rideauwood Addiction and Family Services. First they are required to plead guilty to any charges they face.

Addicts in the

. . . [more]

First year property law profs everywhere are surely revising their casebooks as a result of Barclays Capital et al. v. Theflyonthewall.com, a case decided in March by the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York, particularly now that Google and Twitter have filed amicus briefs in the on-going matter. The nub of the story, which is nicely expounded in a series of Ars Technica Law and Disorder columns (1, 2, 3), is that The Fly, in the business of promulgating market information and rumours, would as a matter of routine obtain and . . . [more]

Sympathy is not evidence upon which a jury may find in favour of a litigant.

After a two-week trial in a medical malpractice claim, the jury found cause-in-fact [factual causation] was established on the balance of probability. However, the trial judge ruled that there was no evidence whatsoever to support the finding. The judge dismissed the action.

Salter v. Hirst, 2010 ONSC 3440 (Ontario Superior Court) is a reminder to lawyers and litigants of the expensive consequences of not having the necessary evidence and of not asking the necessary questions, even if one has a tragic injury, a sympathetic . . . [more]

This is an early take on today’s Supreme Court of Canada decision in Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v. Criminal Lawyers’ Association.

The Court unanimously held that the Ontario Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act does not violate section 2(b) of the Charter for its failure to offer a “public interest override” of the law enforcement and solicitor-client privilege exemptions to the public right of access to government information. This is the narrowest finding in a judgement that could give the public a new means of accessing government information.

FIPPA gives the public a presumptive right of . . . [more]