Subjective top ten lists are great for starting arguments given the improbability of any two people sharing precisely the same worldview. It’s a little tougher to engender heated debate over objectively measured top ten lists, but not impossible. After all, we can still dispute methodology and relevance! I invite Slaw readers to infer meaning and to offer analysis of the results.

So with that, I’m pleased to present for 2011 the top 10 most consulted cases on CanLII.

1. Bruni v. Bruni, 2010 ONSC 6568
2. Indalex Limited (Re), 2011 ONCA 265
3. Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9
4. Bedford v. Canada,

. . . [more]

On December 8, 2011, the federal Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service (formerly Bill C-22) came into force. The new legislation aims to protect children from online sexual exploitation, by requiring suppliers of Internet services to the public to:

Here’s the scenario: you’re retained to argue an appeal in the tough U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit; there’s a precedent from that very court that appears clearly to stand in your way; you’re about to prepare your brief for filing. What do you do about the obstinate precedential obstacle?

I’d be willing to be that if you took a poll of appellate advocates, something on the order of 99.4 percent of them would say that, whatever you do, you don’t just ignore it. But that’s exactly what counsel did in Gonzalez-Servin, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, . . . [more]

The Supreme Court of Canada announced today that judgment in the National Securities Regulator Reference will be delivered at 9:45 a.m. EDT on Thursday, December 22, 2011. That’s In the Matter of Section 53 of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, C. S-26 and in the Matter of a Reference by the Governor General in Council concerning the proposed Canadian Securities Act, as set out in Order in Council P.C. 2010-667, dated May 26, 2010 (33718)

We’ll link to it and commentary when it comes down.

Perhaps the word “Judgment” implies that it will be the decision of the Court, . . . [more]

I have always loved law reform commission reports. They are great sources for legal research. Many of the reports provide historical background on an issue and you can often find comparative information about how other jurisdictions have responded to a legal problem.

My highlights from the fall of 2011:

• Of course, the great news is that all of the reports of the former Ontario Law Reform Commission have been digitized (as reported December 12 right here on Slaw)
• The British Columbia Law Institute (BCLI) is launching a two-year project to consider reforms to judge-made rules governing when a person is

. . . [more]

We have discussed Arizona’s controversial new anti-immigration measures several times on Slaw (e.g., here, here and here). Besides appearing to discriminate against various groups, the measures conflict with federal immigration laws and policies. Well, the saga is not yet over. On December 12, 2011, the New York Times announced that the United States Supreme Court agreed to decide whether Arizona may impose such tough anti-immigration measures. The measures include:

• Requiring police officers to determine the immigration status of people they stop for a violation of any law if the officers think the persons are in the country illegally

. . . [more]

On December 7, 2011, Bill 28, The Registered Human Resources Professionals Association Act, 2011 was reintroduced in the Ontario Legislature (formerly Bill 138). This time, by representatives from all three political parties: David Zimmer, MPP, Christine Elliott, MPP and Michael Prue, MPP. The aim of the Bill remains to create a new public act governing HRPA and its members making the HRPA a true regulatory body much like those governing accountants and lawyers. We examined the previous Bill (which is similar to the new Bill) on Slaw here.

The Bill would repeal the Human Resources Professionals Association of Ontario . . . [more]

According to yesterday’s news (see here for an article from the National Post), the government of New Brunswick will be asking the Supreme Court of Canada to look into the status of its language laws as it appeals the decision of its appellate court upholding the decision of a provincial judge who excluded breath-sample evidence of a suspected impaired driver pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms because his language rights had been violated (see R. v. Losier, 2011 NBCA 102 (CanLII)). Indeed, in that case, a police officer only offered the . . . [more]

We read from time to time that Internet defamation is worse than that in other media because of its global reach and persistence over time. Thus the Ontario Court of Appeal in Barrick v Lopehandia 2004 CanLII 12938 issued an injunction against further defamation, in part because of the Internet’s character as “potentially a medium of virtually limitless international defamation” (the Court quoted Matthew Collins, The Law of Defamation and the Internet.) The court (by majority) also increased fivefold the damages awarded at trial, for similar reasons.

Recently the British Columbia Supreme Court granted ex parte injunctions against publication . . . [more]

Can a copyright owner enforce his rights in small claims court? The answer varies depending on which side of the 49th parallel you are on. In Canada, yes! In the U.S., no. Perhaps this is about to change. The U.S. Copyright Office is accepting submissions from the public until 16 January 2012 on remedies for copyright infringement suits in small claims courts. U.S. Congress has asked the Copyright Office to investigate and seek comment on how small copyright claims have been managed in the past and to outline recommendations for changes and alternatives to current procedures.

This is not the . . . [more]

An announcement of new legislation being introduced here in Nova Scotia caught my attention recently, leading me to do a little searching which produced something that I find interesting. Considering the history of Halifax, and Nova Scotia in general being a seaport kind of place, it might seem somewhat late the NS Gov’t is introducing legislation to regulate tattoo parlours in the province. The legislation itself is not that fancy in that is simply enabling regulations to be created to regulate the industry.

This bit of news caused me to wonder what other jurisdictions have done regarding tattooing so . . . [more]

Last April, David Canton noted an Alberta Court of Appeal decision that Leon’s Furniture was justified in collecting licence plate information from people picking up furniture at the store. The AB CA held that the licence plate number was not personal information.

Recently the Supreme Court of Canada refused leave to appeal, a decision that disappointed some privacy authorities.

Are licence plate numbers like Internet Protocol addresses (at least in the eyes of the federal Minister of Justice), in that they point to a machine and not to a person, and a machine that may be used by more . . . [more]