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. R. v. Acheampong, 2018 ONCJ 798

[72] The racialized context of the excessive use of force in this case also weighs in favour of a measurable reduction in sentence. While I accept that the actions of the police officers in this case were in no way influenced by any element of racism, there remains a perception of two armed white police . . . [more]

[See the full text article for this summary on the SSRN, using the same title]

Law societies are not trying to solve the A2J problem, but instead provide “alternative legal services”[1] that merely help that majority of the population that cannot afford legal services learn to live with the problem. That is inevitable because of the operative concept of a bencher[2] and the institutional culture of our law societies, i.e., they do only that which is compatible with that concept and with what they have always done, which does not include the affordability of . . . [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.

Technology

Speed Up Your Computer by Dealing With Energy Hogs
Luigi Benetton

Are you reading this post on a computer that has slowed down significantly? To the point that you want to replace it? Before you whip out your credit card, try a few simple things on your computer. You might make it more useable without spending a dime. I’ve already posted two ways you can improve your computer’s . . . [more]

As more scholars are looking at doing statistical of case law, I wanted to give some advice on how to do that given the way court decisions are written and published.

The first thing to understand about a dataset of case law is that it is not representative of a sample of all the matters that appear before the courts. Jury verdicts and many oral reasons in various areas of law are never written down, so they are not distributed to CanLII and other publishers. This is particularly common for routine issues in areas law like criminal, family, or small . . . [more]

This is an important decision for everyone who comes across equitable relief in their practice.

In March 2017 a divided panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Moore v. Sweet overturned a finding of unjust enrichment on the ground there was a “juristic reason” for the enrichment. The decision was appealed. On 23 November 2018 the Supreme Court of Canada, splitting 6-2, applying precisely the same legal test, found there was there was no “juristic reason” for the enrichment, and restored the unjust enrichment remedy awarded at first instance.

The facts of the case are simple.

During their marriage . . . [more]

The potential of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) has long been touted by many of us as part of the solution to the access to justice problem in Canada, especially for low-intensity disputes.

The first province to introduce ODR was B.C. in 2012 with the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (the “Act”), followed soon after by Quebec’s Plateforme d’Aide au Règlement des Litiges en ligne (PARLe). The success of ODR internationally means that it is a question of time as to when it comes to Ontario, especially with the introduction of programs like joint divorce applications online.

A few features of the . . . [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 Justice and collects, analyzes, enriches, and disseminates legal information in Québec.

PÉNAL (DROIT) : Les conséquences très graves, à la fois financières et sociales, d’un système organisé de collusion dans l’adjudication de contrats de travaux publics requièrent l’imposition de peines qui démontrent que de tels systèmes ne seront ni banalisés ni tolérés par les tribunaux; en l’espèce, les peines d’emprisonnement dans . . . [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):

• Lawyer Opportunities (Contract Roles) | Toronto, ON
  (Caravel Law)
• Manager, Community and Content (Full-time) | Canada-Wide/Location Independent
  (CanLII)
• Assistant Professor or Associate Professor (Full-time) | Ottawa, ON
  (University of Ottawa)
• Assistant Professor/Director of the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian

In early October, the governments of Canada, Mexico and the United States announced the USMCA trade agreement to replace NAFTA. The agreement anticipates several changes relating to intellectual property touching on copyright, patents, data protection, trade secrets and anti-counterfeiting.

Some of the changes have been controversial and seen as significant concessions by Canada to the United States. One article in the Financial Post, was titled, “Canada ‘caved’ on intellectual property provisions in USMCA trade deal, experts say”. Jim Balsillie, who has been vocal on innovation in Canada, was quoted in a statement as saying that, “Provisions in this . . . [more]

1. Employment Standards and Labour Relations law changes

On November 21, 2018, the Ontario conservative government gave third reading to Bill 47, Making Ontario Open for Business Act, 2018, effectively rolling back many employment and labour law changes brought in by the previous Liberal government Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, 2017 (introduced as Bill 148). Bill 47 although passed is awaiting royal assent to become law. Most of the provisions will come into force at a later date, on January 1, 2019. To summarize certain key employment standards provisions: . . . [more]

War is the means by which nation states have sometimes resolved their differences. Litigation is the means by which people in our society sometimes resolve their differences. In both cases, there is value in prescribing the rules of engagement.

As wars between sovereign states have become less common and wars between sovereign states and insurgencies have become more the norm, the traditional rules of war seem to have become less relevant. This is presumably because rules that work to govern combat between traditional armies don’t effectively address asymmetric disputes where conventional militaries face off against “guerrillas”, “terrorists” or “freedom fighters” . . . [more]