In employment law circles, there is an ongoing debate about how far an employer must go in accommodating a disabled employee to reach the point of “undue hardship”. The Supreme Court has held that an employer is not created to create a position or hire an additional employee to cover for the duties of an employee – the employee must still be able to carry out the essential functions of their job. The debate has since moved to determining what exactly makes an “essential function”.

In a recent decision rendered by James McNamee, Hamilton Health Sciences v Ontario Nurses’ Association, . . . [more]

The Supreme Court of Canada launched a new design for its website a couple of weeks ago. According to Michel-Adrien Sheppard, this was in order to come into compliance with the Treasury Board Secretariat Web Standard on Usability. The content appears to have remained unchanged.

The new design for the home page is set out below, followed by an image of its previous design:

The new design is generally cleaner and more readable than the former, which, by contrast, was a bit cramped. But to my eye there’s not a lot of improvement when it comes to aesthetics. . . . [more]

April 24, 2013, marked the 150^th anniversary of the publication of the Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, a U.S. government document also known as the “Lieber Code”. Francis Lieber of the War Department, Adjutant General’s Office, prepared the Code at the request of President Abraham Lincoln. The President issued the Code on April 24, 1863, as General Orders, No. 100. Even after a century and a half, this document continues to be relevant today. Justice O’Connor cited it in the plurality opinion in Hamdi et al. v. Rumsfeld, 542 . . . [more]

Each Monday we present brief excerpts of recent posts from five of Canada's award-winning legal blogs chosen at random* from forty-one recent Clawbie winners. In this way we hope to promote their work, with their permission, to as wide an audience as possible.

This week the randomly selected blogs are 1. Official Clio Blog   2. Social Media for Law Firms   3. Library Technician Dialog   4. Rule of Law    5. Canadian Legal History Blog

Recently my friend and colleague (and fellow Slaw-yer) Joan Rataic-Lang and I spent five six weeks walking the historic pilgrimage route, the Camino Frances, which for us started in St. Jean Pied-de-Port, France, and carried us through the Pyrenees and across northern Spain–a total of 780 km. We learned many personal lessons along the way, but surprisingly we also learned many things that apply to work. I thought it time to start sharing some of what I learned.

Most days we got up at 6 am and started our walk at 7 am. Ideally we would have some yoghurt . . . [more]

Though many of us lament the problem of incivility in the legal profession, there are some who easily concede it is a natural part of the adversarial nature of law. They may go even further, citing the competitive exclusion principle in evolutionary biology as an explanation for why such behaviour is actually a norm for society, generally.

Newer research by Martin A. Nowak of Harvard University may put those assumptions into question, and may even suggest that treating each other with civility and cooperating with one another is actually our “natural” instinct. For decades some theorists have explained this as . . . [more]

Summaries of selected recent cases are provided each week to Slaw by Maritime Law Book. Every Sunday we present a precis of the latest summaries, a fuller version of which can be found on MLB-Slaw Selected Case Summaries at cases.slaw.ca.

This week's summaries concern: Resulting trusts / Costs where self-represented litigant / Property of bankrupt / Relevance of alcohol on sentencing:

At the end of my previous post on the application of the E-Commerce Act to land transactions, I mentioned ‘measures that might be useful to ensure that the change does not increase the risk of real estate fraud’. (None of this affects the *registration* of land transfers by electronic means.)

I have recently had drawn to my attention a set of technical specification for electronic signatures in land transactions adopted by OACIQ, the Quebec governing body for real estate brokers (the equivalent of the Real Estate Council in Ontario and some other jurisdictions). These are very detailed, though in principle . . . [more]

We’ve touched on Google Glass a few times at Slaw; and today I’d like to extend that conversation by highlighting a great article by Matt McGee over on Marketing Land: The Google Glass Privacy Debate: What’s Real & What’s Overblown Hype.

While Glass isn’t yet available in Canada (though it is nice to see our Privacy Commissioner quizzing Google early), I thought McGee did an excellent job clarifying some of the technological facts surrounding the product. Here are a few notable clips:

• “Photos and videos done with Glass aren’t uploaded publicly to the web, despite what some would

. . . [more]

Returning to this morning’s decision, in Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, which we gave the headline for in an earlier post, I thought it would be helpful to boil down the judgment, into twelve paragraphs, largely using the court’s own words:

1. The Bright Line rule has been confirmed – the court was not prepared to overrule Neil and Strother. So a law firm cannot accept a retainer to act against a current client on a matter unrelated to the client’s existing files. The fact that the Wallace and CN retainers were legally and . . . [more]

Recently, a private member’s bill was introduced to “remove citizenship” from terrorists, while the Canadian Collegiate Athletic Association added further restrictions to the ability of non Canadians to play varsity sports. At the same time, the City of Toronto voted to extend the right to vote to permanent residents, as opposed to restricting it to “citizens”. Are we witnessing the articulation of different conceptions of citizenship? If so, which one is appropriate, legitimate or even moral?

The private member’s bill is grounded in the belief that citizenship is a privilege that can be withdrawn by a State, unhappy with the . . . [more]

This morning, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its fourth significant decision on conflicts of interest, the scope of duties of loyalty, and the appropriate division of responsibility between courts and law societies as regulators of professional conduct. It rejected arguments for liberalizing the so-called bright-line rule, but clarified its operation.

The case reopened the “bright-line rule” and the so-called “professional litigant exception, ” formulated by former Justice Ian Binnie in R. v. Neil, and re-affirmed in Strother v. 3464920 Canada Inc. It provides:

… a lawyer may not represent one client whose interests are directly adverse

. . . [more]