On December 15, 2010, the Attorney General of Quebec, Jean-Marc Fournier announced that the Quebec government has decided to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the Eric v. Lola case to determine whether common law partners should have the right to claim alimony after a breakup.

Dear Friends, Colleagues, Readers,

I’m writing a paper for a CLE conference that’ll be held in Vancouver next June. I’m trying to gather anecdotal information as to whether the SCC decision in Resurfice v Hanke, 2007 SCC 7 and the “material contribution” doctrine mentioned in the case are helping plaintiffs get before-trial settlements — by using the Resurfice“material contribution” notion to get them past difficulties in proving factual causation using the “but-for” test — which are settlements that they might not have been able to get before Resurfice. I’m not after settlement details, just a yes or . . . [more]

Yesterday’s United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit finding that e-mail held by a service provider cannot be accessed without a warrant has already been much discussed. For good American commentary, see blog posts by Professors Paul Ohm and Orin Kerr and the Electronic Frontier Federation’s news release. This is a short note to identify the links with our recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Gomboc.

The American decision, United States v. Warshak, is very much about the societal value of confidential e-mail communications. The Court recognizes such value and grants it . . . [more]

This week in biotech was very slimming:

There have been three obesity drugs presented to the FDA for approval this year. The agency has very stringent criteria for obesity drugs because while they could see wide application (sic), the condition they treat is not generally life-threatening. So any signs of dangerous side effects can doom candidates’ applications. The third and final drug, however, Orexigen’s “Contrave” product, .

The Indian Drug Manufacturers’ Association is lobbying heavily to slim down the free trade agreement being negotiated between India and the EU. They want to accomplish this by keeping “data protection” and . . . [more]

And a bit of substantive law, too, for those with too much time on their hands this very cold (in Toronto) December day.

Different courts in different jurisdictions sometimes arrive at different answers to the same question. Sometimes, though, they arrive at the same answer by different routes. Those interested in the art of judging, even in the development of the area of jurisprudence involved, may sometimes find it useful to compare the cases. (I’ll mention them eventually.) . . . [more]

We have a new law in Canada, or we will when it received Royal Assent. Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, made it through the House of Commons and the Senate.

SUMMARY
This enactment amends the Old Age Security Act to preclude incarcerated persons from receiving benefits under this Act while maintaining entitlement to benefits for, and avoiding a reduction in the amounts payable to, their spouse or common-law partner under this Act.

Thank heavens that our minority government could all agree that Canadians would feel better to know that if you make it . . . [more]

Young Mr. Byron Bennett sells chocolate. He has an elaborate shop in Manhattan offering 36 brands of the luxurious substance, hailing from ten countries. He also believes in order, so his chocolates are ranged on shelves with careful precision as to type and origin. To reflect this combination of succulence and seriousness he named his shop The Chocolate Library. It would seem to be a sensible and harmonious marriage…

…to everyone, that is, except the New York State Education Department.

What, you might ask, does a department of education have to do with a chocolate shop? The answer makes about . . . [more]

How far is too far? How far should the state go in proscribing citizen's behaviour?

Bill C-389, a private member’s bill entitled An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity and gender expression) was “concurred in at report stage” in Parliament yesterday, and now will move on to third reading. The bill would add the phrase “gender identity, gender expression” to the list of prohibited bases for discrimination found in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the relevant hate propaganda and sentencing sections of the Criminal Code (ss. 318(4) and 718.2(a)(i) respectively).

There is a wide range of people who would be potentially protected by . . . [more]

Many workplaces are insisting that employees say “Happy holiday” or “Season’s greetings” to promote intercultural respect and inclusiveness, and not to offend clients and other co-workers.

A court in Illinois has recently held that showing a credit card number on a computer screen did not constitute printing that number: Kelleher v. Eaglerider, Inc., 2010 WL 4684037 (N.D.Ill., Nov. 10 2010). Internet Cases has the story.

The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 [PDF] (FACTA) says that a merchant must not print out a receipt with more than the last five digits of a credit card number. Someone who did a transaction saw his full number on the screen, and sued for damages for breach of the statute. He lost.

In my view, I’m . . . [more]

It’s early for a year-end list, but I want to leave time for a response before we all boot down for the holidays. Here’s a list of the top Canadian information and privacy cases of the year. Comments are invited.

#1 Ontario (Public Safety a­­nd Security) v. Criminal Lawyers’ ­Association. The Supreme Court of Canada recognizes that the Charter gives the public a limited right of access to government information. A limited but profound new right. From June.

#2 R. v. National Post. In three separate decisions, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously holds that privilege claims made . . . [more]