♫ Break down the walls
Yes, we’ll break down the walls…♫

Lyrics, music and recorded by Youth of Today.

 

In June, the Benchers of the Law Society of British Columbia adopted new rules and took some important steps towards expanding the role of paralegals in the province.

A lawyer will be able to designate two paralegals who will be entitled to perform a number of additional legal services. These services will include the giving of legal advice and appearing in court on certain matters.

Specifically there are discussions on holding a pilot project to allow paralegals to appear . . . [more]

A court in Massachusetts last month refused to dismiss a case brought by the National Association of the Deaf against Netflix, claiming that Netflix is required by the Americans with Disabilities Act to provide closed-captioning on all its products, including streaming of broadcasts. Netflix was held to be a place of public accommodation within the meaning of the Act.

Does this strike you as a reasonable result? What would happen in Canada, under our various access statutes, one of the most extensive of which is the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act? Governments tend to have standards about . . . [more]

On July 12, 2012, a two-to-one majority dismissed the appeal, upholding the ruling that Portsmouth diocese is liable to pay for alleged wrongdoings of its clergy. This ruling according to many legal experts paves the way for similar claims and far reaching implications.

For whatever this is worth, for those who need to care (or do, regardless of need).

These propositions are written for the Canadian lawyer whose knowledge of the relevant Canadian law is such that a Superior Court (or equivalent) judge would consider that lawyer competent to prosecute or defend an “ordinary” personal injury or property damage action. As such, they presume a certain level of knowledge.

Comments are on for a limited purpose. I will attempt to clarify any of these propositions if the manner in which I have stated the proposition is not sufficiently clear, bearing in mind what . . . [more]

Following our previous Slaw post, were we commented on the June 15 British Columbia Supreme Court ruling that struck down the Criminal Code ban on physician-assisted suicide. Without being surprised, on July 14, 2012, we learn that the federal government has decided to appeal that decision.

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/07/12/scc-gives-wide-interpretation-to-fair-dealing-in-copyright-saga/ . . . [more]

While lawyers and academics will surely be allocating a significant amount of short term resources to analyzing the SCC’s pentology of copyright decisions issued this morning, a quick look demonstrates a vindication of fair dealing, online innovation, technical neutrality and general common sense.

In brief and lacking any nuance, the Court’s decision in Entertainment Software Association v. SOCAN, 2012 SCC 34 seems to imply some interesting developments in copyright law:

Online distribution of video games should not be impeded with additional tariffs for musical works embedded in the games simply because the games are sold ‘by means of telecommunications’. The . . . [more]

A recent US Court of Appeals decision has caused some concern in banking circles. Here is a blog description with a link to the case, Patco Construction v People’s Bank. Essentially the court held that the business customer’s losses from online fraud had been caused by negligent security practices at the bank, so the bank was liable for them.

As the blog entry (by a noted electronic security expert) points out, while consumers have traditionally been protected in dealings with their banks (so the banks have devised a number of security measures to protect against loss), business clients have . . . [more]

As was SCOTUS last week, the Supreme Court of Canada is a focus of some attention this week, with an historic appeal yesterday that might nullify an election and tomorrow’s release of a pentad of copyright-related decisions which will say a lot about fair dealing. None of this is of the server-crashing magnitude and political impact of the SCOTUS Affordable Care Act decision, but it does highlight what works well with the SCC and its judges:

This is one of those weeks where I beam in admiration for our highest court, and its judges. I am in awe of the . . . [more]

Today’s going to be an interesting day at the Supreme Court: they’re hearing argument in the Election Act appeal (Ted Opitz, et al. v. Borys Wrzesnewskyj, et al.), the first such direct appeal brought to this court. Factums are available here; and this is the link to the webcast. If you’re too pressed for time to wade through factums or watch the hearing live, you might like to follow Ottawa law prof Carissima Mathen’s tweets from the courtroom instead.

[Remember: when you need to get to the Supreme Court website and can’t recall the official URL, just . . . [more]

I believe that what I’ve written below is a good enough summary, for now, of what practitioners in Canada’s common law jurisdictions need to know about the effect of  Clements v Clements, 2012 SCC 32 on the manner in which causation is to be proved in negligence actions. (For those who don’t know, Quebec is a civil law jurisdiction; all others are common law.)

These propositions are written for the Canadian lawyer whose knowledge of the relevant Canadian law is such that a Superior Court (or equivalent) judge would consider that lawyer competent to prosecute or defend an “ordinary” personal . . . [more]

This week the Ontario Court of Appeal released the decision in Taylor v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 ONCA 479, in a special case motion assessing the sufficiency of fresh pleadings. The conflicting law related to the alleged negligence of Health Canada in applying the Food and Drugs Act by allowing unsafe temporomandibular joint (TMJ) implants.

Justice David Doherty framed the case by opening as follows:

[1] Government regulation impacts on most facets of modern life, particularly matters of public health and safety. If a government regulator exercises its powers in a negligent way, people can be hurt and suffer

. . . [more]