The Association of American Publishers announced yesterday that they have successfully taken two websites offline that were freely distributing copyrighted e-books. One of these sites, library.nu, was said to contain more than 400,000 protected digital works.

PaidContent.org has a post up describing how publishers are banding together to fight against book piracy, similar to the battles the RIA has fought over the past decade. The piece also correctly notes how this takedown was conducted without any new legislative powers, such as those in the failed US SOPA bill.

But perhaps the best read of the bunch (at least for . . . [more]

Following the increased occurrence of bullying in schools among Canadian youths aged 11 to 16, and high-profile suicides of young persons due to bullying, several jurisdictions in Canada are in the process of enacting anti-bullying laws. The aim of the laws is...

Daniel Poulin just told me that Canlii will, this week, pass a momentous event – the millionth case will be added to Canlii.

We tend to take Canlii for granted – but it really has been a remarkably successful project, which should be supported by all Canadian lawyers, and cheered by Slaw readers. Public access is vital.

Now – a small challenge for those readers. What will the millionth case be?

A Newfoundland and Labrador trial decision? Or something from the Québec Commission de reconnaissance des associations d’artistes et des associations de producteurs? Which has the wonderful acronym, qccraaap. . . . [more]

In a decision rendered last week, the Québec Court of Appeal confirmed that if an employer wants an employee to be subject to restrictive coveneants (e.g., not to compete), those covenvants better be signed before the employment starts. In Jean c. Omegachem inc., 2012 QCCA 232, an employee, Mr. Jean, before being hired, agreed via email to sign a non-compete agreement. The details and tenor of that agreement were not provided to him. Three years after he started, his employer asked him to sign the agreement. It was quite broad and would have prohibited him from working for a . . . [more]

The Department of Justice’s Terminology Standardization Directorate has published the latest in the National Program for the Integration of Both Official Languages in the Administration of Justice (POLAJ) glossaries. The “Family Law Glossary (Common Law) Fascicle 3” [PDF] replaces the two earlier glossaries (Fascicles 1 & 2) respecting family law. (Gotta love that word “fascicle.”).

The idea is to assist those working in an area to make effective use of the fact that at many levels Canada has a bijural and bilingual legal system. Terms used in one system may not easily (or at all) correspond to terms . . . [more]

It’s so nice to be proven right so quickly. As my wife often reminds me, this is a rare event akin to a solar and lunar eclipse happening on the same day that the Leafs win the Stanley Cup but I’ll take it.

Less than a month after I ranked “Constitutional Challenges to the Tory Crime Agenda” as my number two prediction-to-watch for in my 2012 Crime & Punishment column, an Ontario Superior Court has launched the first salvo in the resurgent war against mandatory minimum sentences.

Justice Anne Malloy found Leroy Smickle guilty of possession of a loaded firearm . . . [more]

In the post-Charter era, we’ve become increasingly aware of vulnerable populations and the need to address societal imbalances in power. But as I highlighted last month, the mentally ill still continue to face unnecessary barriers that often prevents full participation in society.

The Supreme Court of Canada released a judgment on Friday which could help combat sexual abuse against the mentally ill. The mentally disabled are frequent targets for sexual assaults given their perceived inability to relate the incidents to others. Some estimate this risk factor may be as high as four to ten times higher than the general . . . [more]

See Here We Go … Again for the first part.

I’ll complete the discussion for now – lawyers are trained to do things in threes – by picking on the British Columbia Court of Appeal and British Columbia trial judges who were only doing their jobs. For the latter, that entails applying what their Court of Appeal has said the law is, even if they think it might not be the law. For the former, that entails applying what the Supreme Court of Canada has said the law is, unless there’s a valid way to duck … sorry distinguish it. . . . [more]

An interesting decision came out in the twilight of 2011. The Vancouver Sun v. British Columbia, 2011 BCSC 1736 is worth a look not only because it is the first of what is likely to be many cases adjudicating fallout from last year’s Stanley Cup riot in Vancouver, but also for its utilization of production orders to get useful information from third parties unrelated to the criminal events under investigation. As upcoming lawful access legislation is expected to create a number of new production orders (largely focused on acquiring telecommunications data from third parties), this case may provide a window . . . [more]

This morning in a brief decision Canada’s top court ruled in a Reference that Internet service providers are not bound by the CRTC’s broadcast regulations

The judgment is so brief we quote it in full: . . . [more]

At a press conference on February 6, 2012, Steve Woodworth, backbench Conservative MP for Kitchener Centre stated that he tabled a motion in Parliament calling for the creation of a special committee to study medical and scientific evidence about when a child can be considered a human being separate from the mother. He also wants that committee to examine the legal impact of denying full human rights to an unborn child and provide options to update the law.

Woodworth expects his motion to get an hour of debate in March and another hour in June.

As stated in my previous . . . [more]

Here is what Justice Corbett of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had to say recently in Sri Guru Nanak Sikh Centre Brampton v. Dhadda,

[1] It is not open to anyone involved in the plaintiff to dispense with the law because they think they are wise and know what is best. “Tradition” is not a basis for ignoring the law.

…

[4] The plaintiff has a long sad history of conflict. And this just has to stop. It is an embarrassment: the plaintiff is an important religious, social and cultural institution. The conflicts have been riotous, often petty,

. . . [more]