The Supreme Court of Canada rendered judgment today, granting application for appeal in PHS Community Services Society v. Canada, the case of the Insite supervised injection site in B.C. I attended the hearings in Vancouver at the Court of Appeal last summer and posted my notes here on Slaw.

The 2-1 ruling, released in January, upheld the trial level decision allowing the clinic to remain open.

Coverage of the case is available at The Globe, CBC, and the Vancouver Sun. . . . [more]

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has ruled on the Conrad Black case in a decision released today.

Black had argued that the “right to honest services” was stretched to fit the crimes and was originally intended for public servants. They relied on Yates v. United States in seeking the verdict to be set aside when it is impossible to tell what ground a jury was selected when there are several grounds for conviction. The government’s positions was that the jury were given proper instruction regarding honest services fraud and the conviction should stand. The Court . . . [more]

As you might know, investigations against Google Street View are now underway in Canada, the United States and at least 17 other countries. The investigations aim to determine whether Google engaged in “unfair and unlawful collection of data” as well as “invasion of privacy and individual liberties”.

The Ottawa Citizen recently ran a series on the capital’s crack cocaine problem.

An article that ran on Saturday, June 19, 2010 as part of the series examined the city’s Drug Treatment Court that works to divert small-time drug offenders away from jail and into addiction treatment programs:

Offenders in Drug Treatment Court are always facing jail for the petty theft that feeds their habit. After a rigorous assessment, they are accepted into the program and begin treatment with Rideauwood Addiction and Family Services. First they are required to plead guilty to any charges they face.

Addicts in the

. . . [more]

First year property law profs everywhere are surely revising their casebooks as a result of Barclays Capital et al. v. Theflyonthewall.com, a case decided in March by the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York, particularly now that Google and Twitter have filed amicus briefs in the on-going matter. The nub of the story, which is nicely expounded in a series of Ars Technica Law and Disorder columns (1, 2, 3), is that The Fly, in the business of promulgating market information and rumours, would as a matter of routine obtain and . . . [more]

The Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and the Canadian Civil Liberties Union (CCLU) are in court today seeking an injunction against the police from using LRADs (Long Range Acoustic Devices), also known as sound cannons, against G8/G20 protesters in Toronto.

The police claim that they will be used for broadcasting messages, but they are also capable of emitting loud noises for crowd dispersal.

A press release from the CLC can be found here, and the factum by Paul J. J. Cavalluzzo and Michael D. Wright of Cavalluzzo Hayes Shilton McIntyre & Cornish is available here through the CCLA.

The factum . . . [more]

Unfortunately for them, polar bears currently don’t have a vote in a jurisdiction that matters enough to anyone in power.

Jocelyn Stacey and Shaun Fluker (University of Calgary – Faculty of Law) have posted The Polar Bear is Not a Species at Risk in Canada (Contrary to what the Rest of the World Thinks): When is a Decision Not to List Unreasonable in Law? on SSRN.

 Here is the abstract:

There is general scientific and ethical consensus that the polar bear species is in peril and in need of protection if it is to avoid extinction. However Canada has

. . . [more]

Sympathy is not evidence upon which a jury may find in favour of a litigant.

After a two-week trial in a medical malpractice claim, the jury found cause-in-fact [factual causation] was established on the balance of probability. However, the trial judge ruled that there was no evidence whatsoever to support the finding. The judge dismissed the action.

Salter v. Hirst, 2010 ONSC 3440 (Ontario Superior Court) is a reminder to lawyers and litigants of the expensive consequences of not having the necessary evidence and of not asking the necessary questions, even if one has a tragic injury, a sympathetic . . . [more]

Bill C-32, the Act to amend the Copyright Act, has a lot of provisions, mostly aimed at balancing the interests of creators of copyrightable content with those who consume (or work with) that content.

Probably the most controversial provision involves ‘digital locks’, i.e. technical protection measures that are designed to prevent people from using the works in ways that the owner does not want. The Act makes it an offence to ‘break’ those locks for any purpose at all.

Some of the attacks on the locks rule have been a bit exaggerated, claiming that there should be no protection — . . . [more]

This is an early take on today’s Supreme Court of Canada decision in Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v. Criminal Lawyers’ Association.

The Court unanimously held that the Ontario Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act does not violate section 2(b) of the Charter for its failure to offer a “public interest override” of the law enforcement and solicitor-client privilege exemptions to the public right of access to government information. This is the narrowest finding in a judgement that could give the public a new means of accessing government information.

FIPPA gives the public a presumptive right of . . . [more]

The United States Supreme Court released its judgment in City Of Ontario, California, et al. v. Quon et al. today, deciding that when police officer Quon’s employers examined his pager records, they did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights, because although he had a reasonable expectation of privacy, as the jury determined the employer’s examination was for the legitimate, work-related purpose of deciding whether the current character limit in the contract with the provider was adequate.

An interesting excerpt from the judgment of the court, delivered by Kennedy J., which I have not had the time to digest:

The Court

. . . [more]

Monday’s release of the Queen’s Birthday Honours List in Canberra splendidly elevates Graham Greenleaf to membership in the Order of Australia (General Division). See the Commonwealth Gazette No. S 84, Monday, 14 June 2010

The official announcement cites that it is: “For service to the law through the development of free electronic access to legal information, and as a leader in the protection of privacy.”

Since we neglected to recognize Austlii’s first place showing in the Australia and New Zealand Internet Best Practice Awards, sponsored by auDA and InternetNZ, the Internet domain name administrators for Australia and New . . . [more]