Let me open by wishing everyone the best of the season!

We at the Law Commission of Ontario were delighted this week to hear the Attorney General announce the government’s plan to reform the family law system. The plan is to use the concept of “four pillars” to establish the fundamental changes that will allow the evolution of the system as time goes on. These are necessary reforms: increased information, greater access to legal services, more use in appropriate cases of different forms of dispute resolution and triage (ensuring that families are sent in the right direction in the system). . . . [more]

Family law matters seem to be the new flavour of the month when it comes to bad-cheque scams. In the past few weeks Ontario lawyers have sent me almost 20 different emails from fraudsters seeking help on matters involving the collection spousal and/or child support.

One message in particular is making the rounds as I have had at least a dozen lawyers send me a copy of it in the last week alone. A copy of that message follows: . . . [more]

This week in biotech was all about action at a distance. Not the quantum entanglement kind, just the plain old mucking with things indirectly kind.

In a post on recent developments in electronic medical records, two items highlighted a role for remote access: a pilot program by the American Telemedicine Association that is using phone, email and videoconferencing to resolve over 55% of issues without an office visit; and a new pacemaker that transmits data to the doctor and the patient to allow proactive monitoring and planning.

Another phenomenon one step removed — BioMS, having had to abandon . . . [more]

…with all due apologies to Van Halen. What would a Winter Olympics in Canada be without ski jumping controversy? In Calgary in 1988 the world watched as Eddie Edwards flew like an eagle. In response to that the IOC instituted minimum requirements for competitors to take part in Olympics and placed more severe restrictions on competitors qualifying for Olympic competition. In 2010, the ski jumping controversy for Vancouver is the IOC’s refusal to allow women’s ski jumping as an event in the Olympics. In a sense the restrictions that came out of the Calgary Olympiad of 1988 indirectly led . . . [more]

If you check out Steve Matthews‘ great post today, Web Law Predictions for 2010, there is one that is already starting to stand out:

I’ll go out on a limb, and predict that 2010 will be the year a law firm somewhere will declare smart phones to be a security risk, jamming transmission internally or banning usage from inside the firm.

The ABA Journal recently noted concerns raised by Sharon Nelson and John Simek of Sensei Enterprises about the use of iPhones by lawyers. The major issue is that handheld device takes screenshots of documents in order to . . . [more]

[Warning: The following missive contains attempts at humour. Reader discretion is advised.]

In the early part of the last century, one could find judges railing about “scholastic theories” of this and that. What this and that was doesn’t matter. “Scholastic” was not used as a compliment. In the mid part and last part of the century, the denigration of choice became “abstract metaphysical theories”.

The SCC has now introduced a new species of metaphysics applicable to, at least, insurance policy interpretation, and eventually , we should assume, contract interpretation generally …. DRUM ROLL PLEASE:

“law office metaphysics”.

 See Co‑operators . . . [more]

Although Dan Pinnington recently mentioned the current issue of LawPRO Magazine, he didn’t point out that we got some coverage in it too.

The section on blogs, found on page 4, gives special mention to Slaw,

Blogs also offer readers the opportunity to respond and comment, thus starting an online discussion. (Of course, this has its risks:
Readers’ comments must be monitored to ensure that offensive or defamatory material is not published on your blog.) …
Some notable Canadian law blogs include slaw (www.slaw.ca), “a Canadian co-operative weblog about any and all things legal”
and Law 21: Dispatches

A story that’s been making the rounds this week (Lawyerist –Legal Blog Watch –ABAJournal –@davidtsfraser) deserves to be passed along one more step: U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Kressel got fed up with the way lawyers wrote the proposed orders submitted to him, so he sent a memo to the whole bankruptcy bar setting out his rules for doing it right. They’re a mix of regs on proper form and injunctions about some stuff that should have been learned in grade school.

For instance, in addition to a request that documents be submitted in PDF electronically, . . . [more]

Following my Part I and Part II blog entries on Facebook’s recent privacy updates, the latest news is that the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a Complaint with the FTC yesterday over these changes. EPIC is non-profit research center based in Washington, D.C.

The Complaint alleges that Facebook’s changes disclose personal information to the public that was previously restricted, as well as personal information to third parties that was not previously available. EPIC holds that such changes violate user expectations, diminish user privacy and contradict Facebook’s own representations. It has asked the FTC to investigate Facebook, and seek appropriate . . . [more]

The people at the Law Reform Commission of Ireland have been very busy little beavers recently.

Last week, they published a consultation paper on electronic evidence. Then they brought out a report on criminal defences (self-defence, provocation, duress).

Yesterday, boom, another consultation paper, this time on search warrants and bench warrants.

In each case, the Commission has adopted a very pronounced comparativist point of view that can be of interest to Canadians, as all of the documents take a close look at what is happening in other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and the . . . [more]

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed (with costs) the appeal in Morrow v. Zhang (33311). The appellate decision concluded this about Alberta’s Minor Injury Regulation at para. 149:

The MIR, when considered with the entire scheme of insurance reforms, does not infringe section 7 or 15 of the Charter. While the legislation does make a distinction on the basis of disability, it is not discriminatory. The legislation, as a whole, responds to the needs and circumstances of those suffering minor soft issue injuries.

Background reading:

• Alberta Courts Uphold Minor Injury Cap in Morrow v. Zhang theCourt.ca August 24,

The Divisional Court of Ontario is being asked to decide whether a religious organization has the right to fire an employee who does not conform to its moral code. Christian Horizons runs a home for people with disabilities. Public funds are provided since this is a valuable service for the community. The organization has its employees sign an agreement when they start work that they will conform with specified moral rules, including that sex must happen only within a marriage between a man and a woman.

One employee signed the agreement in 1995 but about 2000 decided she was lesbian . . . [more]