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]

Canadian Lawyer magazine has the results of its June survey out.

The findings show that younger associates are making less hourly rates, especially in Western Canada, largely due to the recession. And areas such as real estate and wills are not proving as profitable for smaller firms. . . . [more]

I was reading an interesting article in the Lawyer’s Weekly today on the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Morelli, [2010] SCC 8. In his article, “Reforming Search & Seizure” (sadly, not available online), Professor Benjamin Goold makes the following comment that I tripped over while reading:

Although Justice Fish almost certainly went too far when he claimed that it is “difficult to imagine a search more intrusive, extensive or invasive of one’s privacy than the search and seizure of a personal computer,” the fact remains that such a search represents a serious infringement of an

I’m a member of the eLawyering Task Force of the American Bar Association. Our purpose is to promote practising law over the Internet. When I joined in 2004, we were a marginal group within the ABA. Things have changed. Our e-mail discussion group has over 120 members. We have had people attend our teleconferences from as far away as New Zealand. A member of the ABA Board of Governors attended our most recent meeting in Las Vegas. And in the past year, co-chief Richard Granat has been profiled as a “Legal Rebel” in a recent ABA Journal series . . . [more]

One way to describe my life is as a slow movement from strict prescriptivist to not entirely relaxed descriptivist. I’m talking about, well, talking—and even more about writing. Although I still will say to myself that it’s wrong to say “between you and I,” and “presently” doesn’t mean “now,” I have managed to contain those judgments for the most part and damn near don’t even wince anymore. I long ago let go of “hopefully,” and have come to use the third person plural as a means of obscuring gender.

A little like law, English changes and it does so balancing . . . [more]

Info, info everywhere, nor any place to shelve. (With apologies to Samuel Taylor Coleridge and The Rime of the Ancient Mariner.)

In a library, information overload can mean a physical overload as well as mental. Reporting series, annual statutes, conference papers all take up shelf room; how do you know what to keep and what can safely be turfed? One of my colleagues recently called and asked if I kept a particular item on my shelves. No, I didn’t, since it was officially available online. After all, shelves do eventually fill up, and if some other organization is willing . . . [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]

Aspiring authors with an interest in digital self-publishing would be wise to review this June 3rd article from the Wall Street Journal: ‘Vanity’ Press Goes Digital. One of the big factors driving the viability of self-publication is this month’s changed revenue split with Authors by Amazon – rising from 35% to 70% for e-books priced from $2.99 to $9.99.

The article breaks down a lot of the economics involved, especially for authors with a smaller fan base:

“Some people will be tempted by the 70% royalty at Amazon,” Mr. Nash says. “If they already have a loyal fan base,

The following is the text of a Fraud Alert sent by LAWPRO to Ontario Lawyers today June 17, 2010. Lawyers in Saskatchewan were the targets of this same fraud in May, and I expect lawyers in other provinces are being targeted as well.

Several lawyers have contacted LAWPRO over the last few weeks to advise us they have been the targets of a spousal support collection scam involving a collaborative family law agreement. One Ontario lawyer was successfully duped by this fraud.

We decided to send a warning to the profession as this fraud appears to be targeting many lawyers . . . [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