Mr or Ms Executive, in the ONCA’s reasons for judgment released today, to keep your mouth shut about the state of confidential negotiations.

Here’s a link to the reasons on the ONCA  and some excerpts.

[1] This appeal is from the judgment of Justice Edward P. Belobaba dismissing the appellant’s application for an order that the respondents disclose the identities of confidential sources for a story written by the respondent Sinclair Stewart and published by the respondent the Globe and Mail Inc. The appellant, whose sole officer, director and shareholder is Jeffrey G. MacIntosh, holder of the Toronto Stock Exchange

. . . [more]

I’ll leave the substantive comments on the validity and merits of the decision to those with the expertise. I’ll say only that I suspect the Harperite law & order types involved in the appointment of Justices Moldaver and Karakstanis expected them to line up on the gov’t’s side and not the civil liberties side.

  . . . [more]

The Ontario Superior Court has issued a permanent injunction preventing the owner of a property management company from appearing before the Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board (the “Board”) on behalf of his landlord clients. 

Enzo Vincent Chiarelli operates a full service property management company for property owners. One of the services he provides is appearing before the Board in eviction proceedings. During a 2011 eviction proceeding, the tenants challenged Mr. Chiarelli’s standing to appear before the Board. The Board agreed with the tenants in that case and the Law Society subsequently brought an application to obtain a permanent injunction preventing . . . [more]

In light of the ongoing revelations at the Commission Charbonneau and recommendations from l'Office des professions et du Conseil interprofessionnel du Québec, on February 13, 2013, the Quebec government tabled Bill 17, An Act to Amend the Professional Code With Respect to Disciplinary Justice to improve the effectiveness of professional disciplinary boards and to reform how they issue disciplinary measures when a complaint against a professional is made.

This is an eventful week so far for those interested in US copyright matters. As many will have read, on Tuesday the Supreme Court of the US released a 6-3 ruling in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., in which it addressed the reach of the first-sale doctrine in respect of works published for foreign markets, or—stated another way—the reach of a copyright owner’s control over those products. Twitter continues to show joy over the decision among librarians and consumers of information, along with dismay among others concerned with importation and copyright control.

In Opinion analysis: Justices reject . . . [more]

The European Union is adopting regulations on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and online dispute resolution (ODR), according to a press release and associated documents, including a draft ODR regulation. This is aimed at consumer e-commerce in particular.

I have not yet found in the documents answers to some questions that occur to me off the cuff. (The answers may be in there somewhere – feel free to provide via comments.)

• Who pays? It appears to be taxpayer-funded, rather than relying on user fees. There is mention of a cost of 4.6 million Euros (annually?).
• What law applies? This list

. . . [more]

Although we are all excited to try out the new iPhone 5, Samsung Galaxy S III, or Blackberry 10, few of us think what it means for us to be carrying this enormous amount of information in our pockets.

The Canadian Charter grants the “right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure,” but one of the main exceptions to this is a search incident to an arrest, which allows a police officer to frisk a person who has been lawfully arrested. This exception exists largely because it has been considered a minimal intrusion on individual rights necessary to ensure . . . [more]

A criminal case was recently decided in which, I’m sure, many people reading this saw in the national media. It created a brief stir and the news cycle went on. What it left behind is a disturbing glimpse into our national obsession. In this case a minor hockey coach intentionally tripped a player on an opposing team in the handshake line at the end of the game and causing him injury. The purpose of this post is not to draw attention to the individuals involved in this incident or even the case itself, but to highlight the actions that would . . . [more]

Some of you might be interested in recent comments of Professor Jason Neyers (of the University of Western Ontario, Faculty of Law), which I repeat with permission, on the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. v. Ontario (Transportation), 2013 SCC 13 (CanLII).

Dear Colleagues:

Although from a very high level of generality, the Antrim case really changes nothing in relation to the way Canadian courts decide nuisance cases (a two-step test of substantialness and reasonableness) on many points of detail the case is very troubling. What are some of these troubling bits?

1. The

. . . [more]

Google Glass is a cool concept. The thought of having a real-time augmented reality display brings interesting possibilities. In addition to possible courtroom use, take a look at 10 Compelling Ways People Plan To Use Google Glass, and 11 Kickass Ways Normal People Will Use Google Glass. Possibilities include surgery, education, gaming, and navigation.

One of the hurdles to adoption is the practical aspect of whether people will want to wear them. Especially those who have gone to great length and expense to not to have to wear glasses in the first place. And when having a . . . [more]

Leslie Klinger has written a good many books about Sherlock Holmes. Currently he and author Laurie R. King are editing a book of stories by genre writers that are inspired by the Holmes canon. Their publisher, Pegasus Books, was contacted by the Conan Doyle Estate which, to quote Klinger,

implied that if the Estate wasn’t paid a license fee, they’d convince the major distributors not to sell the book. Our publisher was, understandably, concerned, and told us that the book couldn’t come out unless this was resolved.

Klinger began an action a month ago, asking the District Court in . . . [more]

A wag once said that the Yiddish word Chutzpah has been defined as the quality of a person who is accused of killing his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the Court because he is an orphan. The Crown’s chutzpah runs throughout the entire line of post-1982 Aboriginal rights cases from Guerin to the most recent decision, Manitoba Métis Federation Inc. v. Canada (AG) 2013 SCC 14 (MMF), decided Friday, March 8, 2013. (This is the most succinct and least scholarly statement of the thesis that I have been in the throes of finishing for the last while.) In every ground breaking decision the Crown makes arguments that the Court points out are singularly lacking in merit and that display a serious disregard for the Crown’s, its obligation to avoid even the appearance of “sharp dealing”, to resolve ambiguities in treaties and in statutes “in favour of the Indians”, its fiduciary duty to Aboriginal communities, its duty to consult and accommodate and the honour of the Crown.