I heard about the United States Custom Border Agency had been asking Canadians for access to their Facebook accounts and cellphones when they arrived at the border to join the women’s march on Washington the day after Donald Trump’s inauguration. When some Canadians refuse to surrender their information, they were denied entry into the US and turned away (this is in addition to those who were refused entry because they were going to the march). I was appalled to hear this, and appalled at the invasion of privacy and violation of civil and human rights – and in 2017! I . . . [more]

Below is the full text of the White House statement

Included in Trump’s reprehensible executive order “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States” was this:

Sec. 14. Privacy Act. Agencies shall, to the extent consistent with applicable law, ensure that their privacy policies exclude persons who are not United States citizens or lawful permanent residents from the protections of the Privacy Act regarding personally identifiable information.

The Privacy Act covers personal information held by US Federal agencies. This would apply, for example, to information collected about Canadians entering the United States.

This should be attracting the wrath of the Canadian privacy commissioner and the Canadian . . . [more]

After the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2015 decision in Chevron Corp. v. Yaiguaje, where the Court affirmed the ability of our legal system to hear foreign enforcement actions, the matter has returned to the Ontario Superior Court. The original stay by Justice Brown in 2013 was set aside by the Court, but the issue of the corporate separateness what not addressed until now.

A series of summary judgments, heard together, and a separate decision to amend the statement of claim further to add Chevron Canada Capital Company (“CCCC”), were recently released, shedding light on whether the corporate veil . . . [more]

To combat link rot, the Supreme Court of Canada today launched an online archive of Internet Sources Cited in SCC Judgments (1998 – 2016).

Link rot refers to broken URLs or to URLs that direct to the original site but whose corresponding document has been removed or relocated without any information about where to find it.

From the Terms of Use:

“The Office of the Registrar of the SCC, recognizing that web pages or websites that the Court cites in its judgments may subsequently vary in content or be discontinued, has located and archived the content of most

It is understood that domestic violence has been known to effect employees at work in a number of ways; a recent study shows that the problem is widespread. “Can Work Be Safe, When Home Isn’t,” (PDF) by researchers at Western University and the Canadian Labour Congress, outlines the preliminary results of a Canada-wide survey of more than 8,000 workers on how domestic violence effects workplaces. The results are startling in many ways, but unsurprising in others.

For instance: . . . [more]

Although legislation to legalize Cannabis is not set to be tabled until the spring, it seems as though the Canadian Senate wants to get the discussion going early.

In the Order and Notice Paper which sets out the agenda for the January 31, 2017, Senate meeting, the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C. has laid out a number of questions on the topic of legalization that he would like discussed. Those questions include:

(a) What are the implementation costs estimated by the federal government for a system to legalize cannabis in Canada, including a breakdown of costs in the areas of hospitalization . . . [more]

Almost exactly one year ago, I shared a decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice which created a new privacy tort (the second after Jones v. Tsige) for public disclosure of private facts.

One of the inherent limitations of the decision is that it was decided on summary judgment. The defendant failed to file a defence, and failed to appear on the motion, sending an email to the plaintiff stating, “… nor am I filing a defence so you can do what you need to.”

Here was yet another privacy tort, and one with the promise to provide . . . [more]

Orthodox Jews are no strangers to court in Canada. We have them to thank for the seminal s. 2(a) case in Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem and the infamous “ghet” case in Bruker v. Marcovitz (where arguably only one party was observant).

Civil disputes between Orthodox Jews are less prevalent though, in part given a perceived belief by some that it is prohibited. Consider Maimonides’ (Rambam) statement in Hilchos Sanhedrin 26:7 in the 12th c. CE,

Whoever has his case judged by non-Jewish laws or courts, even if their laws are the same [as the Torah]… It is as if he

On November 30, 2016, the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation released their final report which contains more than 80 recommendations to governments on how to better promote and protect public health and safety, especially among young Canadians. Particularly, the Task Force recommends: establishing a minimum age of access and restrictions on advertising and promotion; well-regulated production, manufacturing and distribution that can displace the illegal market; and that governments educate Canadians about the new system to improve the public’s understanding of cannabis, including risks such as impaired driving, for example.

Note that the Task Force prefers to use the . . . [more]

This post is by Ian Hu, claims prevention & praticePRO counsel at LAWPRO.

When a file is transferred from one lawyer to another, one danger is when nothing happens on the file due to a clumsy transfer or missing critical information. A new file that has not been looked at can be a ticking time bomb. Deadlines like limitation periods can pass by unnoticed, and Rule 48 administrative dismissal dates can be discovered too late. The resulting malpractice claim can have lawyers pointing fingers at each other. Consider the following tips whether you’re transferring a file or on the receiving . . . [more]

Dear Alice,

I suspect I’m going to regret breaking yet another of my New Year Resolutions so soon in the year but, since none of your CALE colleagues seem inclined to discuss this topic with you, here, I will.

But maybe not where and how you expected. I may be a dinosaur. I’m not that much of a dinosaur.

You wrote:

“Which means that we have to be incredibly clear and careful about articulating and enforcing the ethical boundaries on defence lawyers in sexual assault cases.”

I would modify that statement, slightly, because of its succinctness,as a reminder to all . . . [more]