The name of Dwight Opperman will be familiar to older members of the Slaw community – he was the former head of the West Publishing Company, who presided over the sale of the premier US legal publishing company to Thomson.

Back in 1996 he sold West for $3.4 billion. According to Wikipedia, in 2002, Forbes 400 ranked Opperman as the 239th richest person in the United States – and I’m willing to wager that no-one else (before or since) has made quite as much out of legal publishing. He started out as the son of a railroad worker, whose . . . [more]

I occasionally like to draw attention to the wealth of information that can be found in law commission reports.

When I help people with research or do a training session, I like to remind them that law reform bodies often deal with important public policy issues that are not on the government agenda but may nevertheless require critical analysis and potential reform. And judges who often need to address difficult or novel legal issues do refer to law reform publications in their judgments [a simple caselaw search in CanLII for the expression “law reform commission” produces close to 1700 . . . [more]

I recently wrote a post that sparked a firestorm of comments; most felt that I had overstepped myself for daring to suggest that the Law Society of Upper Canada ignores obvious conflicts in connection with its operations. This week we have another LSUC conflict issue.

Canadian Lawyer Magazine has reported on the ongoing proceedings between LSUC and Joseph Groia. As you are aware, Joseph Groia was found guilty of misconduct by a LSUC disciplinary panel last summer and he is appealing that decision.

The panel that will hear the appeal is comprised of 5 benchers – one of which . . . [more]

You’ll have to skip to about 3/4 of the way through this piece to find out why the title of this piece is what it is.

Once upon a time, but not so long ago, Canadian tort law contained a test for proof of factual causation in tort known as the material contribution (to injury) test. For those who might have forgotten, or never knew, that test seemed to have been affirmed, in Canadian tort law, by the Supreme Court in Athey v. Leonati [1996] 3 SCR 458, 1996 CanLII 183. A unanimous 7-member panel (Lamer C.J. . . . [more]

In the interest of full disclosure I begin this piece by confessing to being a “Senate Junkie,” as a dear friend described my interest recently. I began reading Senate Debates and committee proceedings when I was in Grade XI, at the North York Central Library and continued following the work of the Senate in great detail for more than 30 years, and, more generally in the last decade or so. Sadly, the current debate about the Senate is so ill-informed that I am mildly afraid that I will be disqualified on the ground of knowing what I’m talking about. Whether . . . [more]

Each Thursday we present a significant excerpt, usually from a recently published book or journal article. In every case the proper permissions have been obtained. If you are a publisher who would like to participate in this feature, please let us know via the site’s contact form.

Commercial Debt Collection in Canada: A Legal Handbook
David Franklin
Toronto: Canada Law Book, 2012

Preface

Familiarize yourself with all books of law and, for as long as you are a merchant, familiarize yourself with the Birka code. If you are familiar with the law, you will not be the victim of injustice

Here’s a sad bit of reading — seven paragraphs of an appellate judgment concerning children handed down by an excellent bench (Noah v. Bouchard, 2013 ONCA 383).

[1] The appellant Johnny Bouchard appeals from the order of the Superior Court of Justice dated April 5, 2012, dismissing the appellant’s claim for custody of the parties’ two children, Tyler (age 10) and Nicholas (age 8). The application judge ordered that the custody and access arrangements in existence at the time of trial pursuant to the earlier order of Judge MacKenzie of the Ontario Court of Justice should continue

One of the fears we often hear from business people and lawyers who are reluctant to put “final and binding” arbitration clauses in contracts is: “What if the arbitrator gets it wrong?”

The recent decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Creston Moly Corp. v. Sattva Capital Corp., 2012 BCCA 329 (CanLII) offers an object lesson in how the courts may still be too eager to review arbitration decisions and may even get the result “wrong” in situations where the arbitrator actually “got it right”.

The case involved a dispute over the payment of a finder’s fee in . . . [more]

I had written previously about legislation to amend the Electronic Commerce Act to remove the exclusion on land transactions. The government’s bill to do so has now passed, as part of the budget legislation for 2013 (schedule 5).

The amendments will come into force on proclamation. The government has been talking and will continue to talk with stakeholders about measures that might be useful to ensure that the change does not increase the risks of real estate fraud. (If you have suggestions about such measures, feel free to mention them here.)

The Ontario Real Estate Association was enthusiastic about . . . [more]

Later this month, I’ll be speaking to a group of women on the topic of representing yourself in legal proceedings. The focus of my presentation will be on what you need to know and can expect from the courts if you’re choosing to represent yourself.

In preparing for that presentation, I’m on the lookout for comments from courts across the country on what is expected of the self-representing litigant and conversely, what won’t be tolerated from a self-representing litigant. For example, in the recent decision in Delichte v Rogers, 2013 MBQB 93 (CanLII), the Court plainly and strongly criticized . . . [more]

It’s a big week at the Supreme Court for our professional and personal communities. As most of us are already aware, tomorrow the SCC will hear arguments in the Bedford case and will ponder the criminality of certain acts related to sex work, namely communicating for the purposes of prostitution, being found in a common bawdy house and living off the avails of prostitution.

At the heart of the decision are questions of constitutionality, specifically whether these three Criminal Code provisions violate section 2 and 7 of the Charter. Both the Government of Ontario and the Government of Canada maintain . . . [more]

Much has been written about the NSA / Prism communications monitoring scandal over the last few days, including Simon’s recent post. Many things are unclear, and there are more questions than answers, but these things are clear to me.

Some people defend or trivialize it by saying that actual phone conversations and emails are not being monitored – just metadata. Metadata simply means data about data – it doesn’t mean that it is innocuous or public. The phone “just metadata” being tracked is equivalent to looking at one’s phone bill – numbers called, duration, etc. That definitely contains personal . . . [more]