A full contingent of five judges sitting at the Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously ruled that where an employment agreement provides for a stipulated sum upon termination without cause, and is silent as to the employee’s obligation to mitigate, the employee will not be required to mitigate.

Peter Bowes had a written employment contract with his employer, Goss Power Products Ltd. (“Goss”). The employment agreement contained a sliding scale as to how much notice or pay in lieu of notice Peter was entitled to in the event that his employment was terminated without cause. The longer Peter was employed, the . . . [more]

Here is a link to the decision in National Federation of Independent Business, et al., , v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al., . More thoughts to come. Justice Kennedy joined Justices Scalia, Alito and Thomas in voting against the law. Chief Justice Roberts is thus the key vote.

Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.

. . . [more]

In a decision dated June 21, 2012, the Federal Court made it clear that, for purposes of copyright, using a hyperlink is not copying the material it points to. That seems obvious, but its nice to see it recognized by the courts. The Warman and National Post v Fournier decision also said that – at least in the circumstances of the case at bar – reproducing 1/4 of an original article was not a substantial part for copyright purposes, and was thus not a copyright violation.

This follows a Supreme Court of Canada decision last fall that said that a . . . [more]

The Supreme Court of Canada announced this week that it will release its decision in the appeal from Clements v. Clements, 2010 BCCA 581 on June 29. Clements is a personal injury action. The plaintiff was injured in a single-vehicle motor cycle accident. The issue in the appeal is causation. The plaintiff won at trial – on Resurfice material contribution, not the but for test: the trial judge having held the plaintiff had failed to prove factual causation on the balance of probability – but lost on appeal. The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the but-for . . . [more]

On June 15, our friends at Eagan published a brilliant and in some ways strange book that should be in every law library, since it is (as my headline says) the most important book on statutes this millennium: Reading Law, The Interpretation of Legal Texts. Its strangeness is due to the identity of its authors – the fiercely intelligent and challenging Justice Antonin Scalia the senior justice of the US Supreme Court , and the leading legal lexicographer of our time, Bryan Garner of LawProse in Texas. . . . [more]

This is a short update to previous Slaw posts on Arizona’s 2010 controversial new anti-immigration measures. After examining whether the law unconstitutionally invaded the federal government’s exclusive prerogative to set immigration policy, on Monday June 25, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down key provisions of Arizona’s immigration law as follows:

• Requiring people to carry their identification papers at all times in public places
• Making a crime of failure to apply for valid immigration papers
• Allowing police officers to arrest anyone they believe has committed a crime that would make them removable from the country
• Making it a crime for

. . . [more]

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois – Eastern Division released a decision on Friday in Apple, Inc. et al v. Motorola, Inc. et al, dismissing the case with prejudice, effectively ending what has been a highly charged and contested conflict.

The two cases were consolidated for judicial economy, with each party claiming damages. Apple’s claims focuses on patents 6,493,002, 6,343,263, 7,479,949, and 5,946,647, and Motorola’s claim centers around US patent 6,359,898. The dispute began in 2011, with Apple initially claiming 16 patent violations, and Motorola claiming 6. From the . . . [more]

The most recent annual report of the Law Commission of England is now available.

The report includes highlights of the past year’s work. In particular, the Commission saw two pieces of legislation that derive from its work reach the statute book: the Estates of Deceased Persons (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Act 2011 and the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012.

A number of other reports are awaiting implementation in the areas of trust, marriage breakdown, conspiracy, business partnerships, renting homes, etc.

Part 4 of the report is entitled “Measuring Success” and provides interesting stats about the . . . [more]

we frequently refer to Bill such-and-such years after the Bill has been passed and has become an Act. In the last decade, people tend not to distinguish between a Bill, which has not become law, and an Act, which has.

While this debate has already spanned many years now, this past week alone, the topic of assisted-suicide in Canada has been explored once more with the BC ruling discussed in this blog posting.

At this very moment, in the UK, this very same debate is ongoing, as the high court in London is currently hearing a case on assisted dying. Mr. Tony Nicklinson, who has suffered from locked-in syndrome since 2005, and his lawyer are arguing that the common law defence of necessity should be extended to doctors who assist individuals in cases of assisted suicide. At the moment, . . . [more]

On Friday June 15, 2012, the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled that the Criminal Code of Canada provisions prohibiting physician-assisted dying unjustifiably infringe the equality rights of Gloria Taylor and the rights to life, liberty and security of the person of Gloria Taylor, Lee Carter and Hollis Johnson.

Unless you have intentionally avoided any and all Canadian news sources this week, then you have been riding the Omni-Bus with everyone else. All the conjecture inspired me to look at the past several Budget Implementation Acts and see how long they have been or in other words how “omni” they have been.

41st Parl-1st Session: Bill C-38: 753 sections.

40-3: Bill C-9: 2208 sections

40-2: Bill C-10: 471 sections

39:2: Bill C-50: 164 sections

39-1: Bill C-52: 154 sections

39:1: Bill C-13: 217 sections

38-1: Bill C-43: 143 sections

37-3: Bill C-30 . . . [more]