On Friday, January 25, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in a tight majority judgment (five: McLachlin, Deschamps, Abella, Cromwell and Karakatsanis, against four: LeBel, Fish, Rothstein and Moldaver) that the Quebec Civil Code discriminates against common-law spouses because it does not grant them the same rights as married couples in regard to spousal support and division of property. However, and thankfully, the Court does not find that the discriminatory nature of these Civil Code provisions is unconstitutional. According to the Court’s decision, the infringement is a reasonable limit prescribed by law that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Today’s’ article talks about what we can start doing now to be ready when the Act comes into effect.

This is the forth of a series of 5 articles that will introduce the Act, describe what spam is and is not, talk about collateral provisions, what we can do now, and some of the challenges going forward.

At this point it is unclear when the Act will come into force. Expectations range from the next few months to as late as June of 2014. We have been waiting for some time for the regulations to be finalized, as they are . . . [more]

This article talks about things in the Anti-Spam Act that are not directly related to spam.

This is the third of a series of 5 articles that will introduce the Act, describe what spam is and is not, talk about collateral provisions, what we can do now, and some of the challenges going forward.

Spyware

The Act contains anti-spyware provisions – the goal being to eliminate spyware, malware, and other malicious software.

You may recall the Sony copy protection rootkit scandal from 2005 where Sony music CD’s automatically installed digital rights management software on users’ computers without their knowledge or . . . [more]

This article talks about what the Anti-Spam Act defines as spam, the myriad of exceptions, and what needs to be tracked to prove compliance. This will be presented by way of the thought process to be followed to determine whether a message is spam, and whether or how it can be sent without violating the act. The graphic that accompanies this article may be helpful. [Click here to download a PDF file of the graphic.]

This is the second of a series of 5 articles that will introduce the Act, describe what spam is and is not, talk about collateral . . . [more]

Ontario operates on a “loser pays” civil legal system. At the conclusion of trial (or a motion or application) the successful party can expect the presiding judge to order the unsuccessful party to pay a portion of the successful party’s legal costs. While awarding costs is always in the discretion of the presiding judge, as a rule of thumb litigants can expect to receive a cost award that reflects 40% – 70% of the fees they actually incurred.

Our Rules of Civil Procedure also provide a mechanism to encourage the acceptance of reasonable offers to settle. A party can make . . . [more]

Last Wednesday, the UK Supreme Court split on the issue of whether legal advice privilege extended to legal advice provided by accountants. In other words, did the privilege attach because of the nature of the communication, rather than the status of the person communicating.

The Court split 5 to 2, holding that legal advice privilege remains the exclusive preserve of clients of the legal profession. It protects communications passing between a lawyer and his or her client, with the lawyer acting in a professional capacity in connection with the provision of legal advice.

The Prudential case involved the issue of . . . [more]

An important case on the scope of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest, Canadian National Railway v. McKercher LLP and Gordon Wallace (on appeal from the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal), was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada on January 24. The Canadian Bar Association and the Federation of Law Societies appeared as interveners.

You can watch video of the submissions here.

You can review more information about the case, including the parties’ factums, on the SCC site. . . . [more]

The Canadian Anti-Spam Act was passed in December of 2010, and is expected to come into force some time in 2013.

If you think it won’t affect you because you don’t send mass emails trying to sell random products, or don’t infest other people’s computers with spyware, you would be wrong. It creates tools to fight spam, but unfortunately defines spam so broadly that it will affect how most of us conduct business. The definition of spam is so broad that goes far beyond what the average person would consider to be spam.

My personal view is that this Act . . . [more]

The Divisional Court of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford on Friday in Magder v. Ford, reversing the decision of Justice Hackland, which had ruled that Ford had violated s. 5 of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA). The implications of Justice Hackland’s decision is that Ford’s seat as mayor could have been vacated under the City of Toronto Act (COTA).

Ford argued that the pecuniary interest of donations to a football team was not a violation of the city’s Code of Conduct, which would have allowed for his . . . [more]

This week, the UK Supreme Court launched a YouTube channel that highlights short summaries of judgments.

According to a press release published by the Court:

“Video of the five-minute summary given by the lead Justice in each appeal as they deliver their judgment will now be posted on the popular video-sharing website YouTube shortly after delivery in court. The move follows the success of the Court’s live web streaming of proceedings provided in partnership with Sky News (…)”

“The Justices’ summaries aim to explain briefly the background to the appeal in hand, the decision the court has reached, and

. . . [more]

On January 15, 2013, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg released its ruling in the cases of four Christian employees who argued that they suffered from discrimination and that their employers encroached upon their right to religious freedom at work.

The High Court of England and Wales (Technology and Construction Court) has held that an employer has no proprietary right in emails sent by the company’s CEO that would give the company the right to see the content of the emails. The case is Fairstar v Adkins [2012] EWHC 2952 (TCC). (For various reasons no claim arising from copyright or confidentiality could be made, and the employment contract did not deal with the question.)

The court reviews a great deal of English (and a bit of Canadian) law on the point. It also considers the practical implications of holding that . . . [more]