Yesterday (April 27, 2020), the Ford government released “A Framework for Reopening our Province“, a three-stage process that is likely to be applicable until a vaccine is available. The Framework is based on some important principles and it includes on-going reassessment and review to ensure the spread of COVID-19 has not recurred. With this Framework in mind, as well as steps already taken elsewhere, it is worth considering the kinds of legal questions that might arise as we seek to reopen our society fully. . . . [more]

Here are excerpts from the most recent tips on SlawTips, the site that each week offers up useful advice, short and to the point, on practice, research, writing and technology.

Research & Writing

Know the Difference Between Consolidated Acts and Annual Acts
Susannah Tredwell

One question that comes up on a regular basis is “why can’t I find a copy of this act on CanLII?” One possibility is that the act is an annual statute that only amends another act (or acts), e.g. the Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2018, S.B.C. 2018, c. 48. Not all amendment acts appear . . . [more]

My heart goes out to everyone – because everyone is affected by the COVID19 pandemic in some way, personally, professionally, or both.

At the risk of seeming insensitive, this situation is both a tragedy and an opportunity. In terms of my work life, what is weighing most heavily on my mind is how we can use this opportunity to reimagine the family justice system and replace it with something new. As many have already pointed out (here and here for example), the COVID19 crisis is exposing significant structural deficiencies of Canada’s current justice system – the court system in . . . [more]

The Charter remains the bedrock of the Canadian constitution, even with concerns about the increased willingness of governments to derogate from those rights. Rights without a remedy may not have much meaning though, and and the enforcement provisions under the Charter itself state,

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
[emphasis added]

What this means in a factual context has not been extensively analyzed by the courts. . . . [more]

One Sunday each month OnPoint Legal Research provides Slaw with an extended summary of, and counsel’s commentary on, an important case from the British Columbia, Alberta, or Ontario court of appeal.

Doukhobor Heritage Retreat Society #1999 v. Vancouver Foundation, 2019 BCSC 54

KEYWORDS:   Vancouver Foundation Act; Perpetuity Act; Charitable Purpose Trusts; Gifts;

~A gift, once perfected, cannot be retracted, and s. 11 of the Vancouver Foundation Act does not require the Vancouver Foundation to comply with a direction to return a donation after it has been made. ~

Overview

The Doukhobor Heritage Retreat Society #1999 (the “DHRS”) is . . . [more]

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 Ju stice and collects, analyzes, enriches, and disseminates legal information in Québec.

CONTRAT D’ENTREPRISE : La Cour d’appel rend un jugement phare dans les nombreux dossiers portant sur la question de la pyrrhotite.

Intitulé : SNC-Lavalin inc. (Terratech inc. et SNC-Lavalin Environnement inc.) c. Deguise, 2020 QCCA 495
Juridiction : Cour d’appel (C.A.), Québec
Décision de : Juges François Pelletier, Lorne . . . [more]

There is no provision in the Model Code that specifically regulates non-adversarial advocacy. The Code has an Advocacy section (R 5.1) and it distinguishes advocacy in an adversarial process, but it does not have a corresponding section for advocacy in a non-adversarial process. There is no universal definition of non-adversarial advocacy. In 2016, I conducted empirical research on advocacy in the family law context, and drawing from that I argued that the Code needs to be updated to include non-adversarial advocacy.[1] (See here.) In that study, I talked to collaborative lawyers and family lawyers who have a . . . [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 (newest first):

• • Managing Director (Full-time) | Toronto, ON
    (Legal Information and Resource Network (LIRN)

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

In Liebreich v Farmers of North America, 2019 BCSC 1074 (CanLII), the plaintiff brought an action for wrongful dismissal against her former employer and a group of entities she claimed were jointly and severally liable. The court was required to first conclude that the plaintiff was a dependant contractor, and that several of the entities were jointly and severally liable. In addition to having to pay reasonable notice to the plaintiff, the employer’s blameworthy conduct in carrying out the termination led to an award of punitive and special damages. . . . [more]

Perhaps it is at least in part the fault of the idiot wing of the fund management business, that it seems to have become necessary for every aspiring new entity seeking to serve the legal and professional information sector to classify itself as a “disruptor” or “disruptive”. Whether or not such entities, their products and services are capable of achieving the criteria set by the fundamentalist religious cult enthusiast attributed with having identified the concept, nonetheless, to attract the funds and appear to be on message, they have to be disruptors. I find it tiresome to see commentators, as . . . [more]

The response to COVID-19 has many legal elements but it also raises ethical and philosophical issues. There is an age-old dispute in legal philosophy between “legal positivism” and “natural law”. In a nutshell (and with apologies to legal philosophers), positivism is the view that law is nothing more than the law on the books, i.e. the law that has been promulgated by duly authorized legislative authorities. In contrast, natural law espouses that law must contain some moral content, be it religious or some other higher principles (e.g. human rights). This was brought home to me by a sudden spat in . . . [more]