This submission is part of a column swap with the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) bimonthly member magazine, AALL Spectrum. Published six times a year, AALL Spectrum is designed to further professional development and education within the legal information industry. Slaw and the AALL Spectrum board have agreed to hand-select several columns each year as part of this exchange. 

A recent Law.com article by Dan Clark highlighted a startling finding: “General counsel are increasingly looking for law firms that can collect and deliver data so corporations can improve their decision-making about risks and spending. But they are often . . . [more]

Although litigation is frequently characterized as adversarial, some of the realities in the criminal justice system are slightly more nuanced. Crown counsel represent the public’s interest, and not that of a victim or complainant. Obviously the public has an interest on those impacted by a crime, but Crown counsel do not directly represent those parties or those interests.

In 1954, Justice Rand explained this in the Supreme Court of Canada decision, Boucher v. The Queen, 1954 CanLII 3 (SCC), as follows,

It cannot be over-emphasized that the purpose of a criminal prosecution is not to obtain a conviction,

Every week we present the summary of a decision handed down by a Québec court provided to us by SOQUIJ and considered to be of interest to our readers throughout Canada. SOQUIJ is attached to the Québec Department of Justice and collects, analyzes, enriches, and disseminates legal information in Québec.

PÉNAL (DROIT) : Les objectifs visant à renforcer la protection de la santé des jurés et à favoriser le déroulement efficace et ininterrompu du procès constituent une «raison valable» au sens du pouvoir de dispense des candidats jurés prévu à l’article 632 c) C.Cr. et justifient la sélection d’un jury . . . [more]

One Sunday each month we bring you a summary from Supreme Advocacy LLP of recent decisions at the Supreme Court of Canada. Supreme Advocacy LLP offers a weekly electronic newsletter, Supreme Advocacy Letter, to which you may subscribe. It’s a summary of all Appeals, Oral Judgments and Leaves to Appeal granted from August 20 to October 20, 2021 inclusive.

Appeals

Courts/Media: Publication Bans
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Manitoba, 2019 MBCA 122, 2021 SCC 33 (38992)

The Court of Appeal here had ordered a continuing publication ban in its judgment on the merits without a hearing to . . . [more]

Parenting coordination can be difficult work. The people for whom parenting coordination is a cost-effective alternative to litigation, because no one provides this sort of service for free and parenting coordination gets expensive quickly, tend to be overly invested in their dysfunctional relationship with the other parent; they usually prefer the all-or-nothing gamble of conflict over the humiliation of compromise, and happily see every disagreement as the perfect hill upon which to die.

I understand that resolving disputes about family law matters is trying and capable of triggering strong emotional responses, especially when a dispute concerns children and decisions about . . . [more]

The UK-based legal information provider, Justis, as was, but now rebranded vLex, having been acquired by the Spanish-based company of that name, seems to me to be one which has been a model of its kind; the acquisition was made in 2019, using, for the purchase, part of a £4.2m loan. Originated as Context, in the mid-1980s, partly in consequence of Thomson having sold Eurolex to Lexis, it has survived changes in ownership. However, it appears to have retained consistency of purpose, a focus on sophisticated and evolving technology and closeness to core markets around the world. . . . [more]

Each Friday, we share the latest job listings from Slaw Jobs, which features employment opportunities from across the country. Find out more about these positions by following the links below, or learn how you can use Slaw Jobs to gain valuable exposure for your job ads, while supporting the great Canadian legal commentary at Slaw.ca.

Current postings on Slaw Jobs:

• Litigation Legal Assistant (Full-time) | Chilliwack, BC
  (Waterstone Law Group)
• Junior/Intermediate Solicitor (Full-time) | Vancouver, BC
  (Owen Bird Law Corporation)
• Law Librarians (Full-time) | Kingston, ON
  (Queen’s University)
• Corporate Tax Lawyer (Full-time) | Vancouver, BC
  (Thorsteinssons LLP)
• Senior Conveyancer (Full-time)

Written by Daniel Standing LL.B., Editor, First Reference Inc.

Generally, a contract in restraint of trade is where one party agrees to restrict their liberty in the future to freely carry on trade with others who are not parties to the contract. Restrictive covenants can take different forms, depending on their purpose. For example, non-competition and non-solicitation covenants aim to prevent a departing employee from setting up a competing enterprise with their former employer. A non-acceptance clause may purport to restrain someone from accepting business from a client of a former employer, and a confidentiality clause normally aims to prevent . . . [more]

We know that change is hard, especially when (as it usually does) it involves changing the behaviour of human beings. Can we argue or persuade our way through this kind of change?

According to transformation expert Greg Satell, the answer is a resounding NO!

First, some background. Legal professionals are taught that success depends on sound and logical arguments to persuade the other party(ies) or a decision-maker of the rightness of the client’s position. Most of us are also firmly connected to the need to be “right”. While this approach may suit our adversarial system, it can create a . . . [more]

Each Wednesday we tell you which three English-language cases and which French-language case have been the most viewed* on CanLII and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about.

For this last week:

1. Lavallee et al. v. Isak, 2021 ONSC 6661

[34] To succeed on a defence of justification, a defendant is required to adduce evidence showing that the statement was substantially true. The burden is on the defendant to prove substantial truth of the “sting” or main thrust, of the defamation: Bent v. Platnick, 2020 SCC 23, 449 D.L.R. (4th) 45, at . . . [more]

INTRODUCTION

In this post, I propose that the concept of bona fides, or acting in good faith, be applied to the conduct of constitutional actors. It is not unreasonable to expect that constitutional actors act in good faith towards one another. In this sense, I argue, the bona fides principle is a fundamental element of the rule of law that could serve to invalidate government action, depending on various factors which I discuss below, including the relevance of other principles and rules. A judicial conclusion that an actor had not acted in good faith might, in the balance, result . . . [more]