What is in a date? Well if it is April 1, people might think that you are kidding. There are some really funny items floating around the legal blogosphere today.

Why would a government ever make April 1 a coming into force date for legislation? What comes into force in Alberta today?

• Gunshot and Stab Wound Mandatory Disclosure Act (pdf)
• Sections 77 and 91 of the Alberta Land Stewardship Act (pdf)

April 1, 2007 was the in force date for the Fuel Tax Act. Sections 3 to 6, 12(a), 16 to 19, 21 to 23, 25, 31 and . . . [more]

On March 24, 2010, the Quebec government tabled in legislature Bill 94, An Act to establish guidelines governing accommodation requests within the administration and certain institutions, which received first reading that same day. The Bill would create rules on how departments or agencies of the government can provide reasonable accommodation to citizens, certain organizations and public servants. These departments and agencies include health agencies, schools, colleges and universities, and services from child care to nursing homes. To this end, the Bill defines the concept of accommodation, asserts that the government will make any compromise to respect the right to equality between women and men and the principle of religious neutrality of the state, and provides that an accommodation cannot be granted if it imposes an undue hardship on the government department or agency. If enacted, the Bill would come into force on proclamation.

The Toronto Association of Law Libraries (TALL) hosted a Publishers’ Forum at the University of Toronto Law School last week entitled “Free Access to Legislation: How Do They Do It?”

The meeting was well attended by TALL members.

Publishers making presentations to the forum included representatives for the Department of Justice Laws website, CanLII, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario website, and Ontario e-Laws.

All four of these sites and their developers are to be applauded. Although not necessarily the intent of the session, I came away with a better sense of appreciation for their hard work . . . [more]

A New York court has struck the patents held by Myriad Genetics Inc. for BRCA1 and BRCA2 which have been linked to breast and ovarian cancer in Association for Molecular Pathology, et al. v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al.

Parties including The American Civil Liberties Union, Public Patent Foundation, and Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law argued that the patents were unconstitutional. The decision challenges the famous quote about patentable subject matter from Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980),

…a person may have invented a machine or a manufacture, which may include anything

. . . [more]

Earlier today Marcia Ramírez spoke at Huron College (at the University of Western Ontario) about her pending suit against Copper Mesa Mining Corp., a Canadian mining company operating in her home in Ecuador. The plaintiffs claim that activists opposing the company there were threatened and assaulted.

You can read the statement of claim here (pdf), which requests damages against both Copper Mesa and the TSX. Earlier this year the TSX delisted the stock. The defendants are both requesting a dismissal motion.

The case is interesting given that Bill C-300 -An Act Respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, . . . [more]

At the end of the reasons for judgment in Alberta’s first electronic trial in 1159465 Alberta Ltd. v. Adwood Manufacturing Ltd.the Honourable Mr. Justice A.W. Germain of the Court of Queen’s Bench provided a schedule to the reasons for judgment in which he reflects on the process and some of the legal issues to have cropped up. It’s at page 61 of the PDF of the judgment. . . . [more]

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently released an interesting decision involving that funny-sounding concept, mootness. Indeed, the case involved a “stale” matter arising from a non-adversarial process where ultimately there was no actual lis between the parties. Not the sort of thing our legal system is accustomed to dealing with every day.

The factual framework in Mental Health Centre Penetanguishene v. Ontario, 2010 ONCA 197 was this: a person detained at the Mental Health Centre Penetanguishene (MHCP) as a person found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder had a disposition hearing before the Ontario Review Board (which . . . [more]

This week saw a series of new ideas in the world of biotech, ranging from regulatory irregularities to corporate suicide by securities. 

Health Canada kicked off the week with a novel thought: caffeine guidelines for 4-year-olds. To be fair, it was in the context of expanding the types of soft drinks that can have added caffeine; so I suppose that some 4-year-olds who have been guzzling 7-UP might have to moderate their intake (or at least watch the label). The guidelines for adults are (I hope) more relevant and are worth reviewing.

The FDA had a new idea too: . . . [more]

Officials from the Conservative Party have reportedly announced today they will try Senate reform, again. The last two attempts failed due to the 2008 election and the prorogation.

In 2006, the Senate failed to pass Bill S-4: An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, requesting reference from the Supreme Court of Canada on its constitutionality.

They key difference today? The Senate appointments earlier this year by the Conservatives give them a 51-49 majority in the upper house, using the existing system. The irony has not been lost on Canadians.

This move shouldn’t come as a surprise though to . . . [more]

The Supreme Court of Canada this morning told the Canadian legal profession of its obligations to continue to provide services when the money runs out, when it handed down its decision in the Cunningham case.

Jennie Cunningham was a lawyer working for the Yukon Legal Aid Services Society. Her client had been charged with three sexual assault offences against a six-year-old girl. Legal Aid found out that the accused was working but had not reported his income. So they dropped him from coverage. The client couldn’t pay. So Cunningham asked the Territorial Court in charge of the criminal proceedings . . . [more]

Last week, David Cheifetz collected the salient paragraphs of the SCC’s decision on R. v. Morelli (2010 SCC 8) in a post here on Slaw, but only limited discussion followed. The dissent, though, has some interesting observations that deserve highlighting, such as this one from paragraph 144:

In light of the inevitability of technological change, it is important not to needlessly handcuff the courts to a concept of possession that is limited to certain technologies or to current-day computer practices. Control has been the defining feature of possession, not the possibility of finding data files on a hard drive. To

. . . [more]

Yes. You read the title correctly.
No. I’m not crazy. Although one might argue that point considering that I am about to propose a solution to the intractable problem of impaired driving that would, if implemented, wipe out a large percentage of my practice.

When the typical impaired driving client approaches me they invariably express one or both of the following two concerns: first, they want to avoid the stigma of a criminal record and second, they want to keep their driver’s licence. As the law now stands, neither of these objectives are possible without winning the case outright. If . . . [more]