We’re once again inspired by the badass ways in which some law students are taking on their institutions. Earlier this month, the Dean of the Faculty of Common Law at the University of Ottawa sent out an email to all the students at the law school warning them that a student Research Assistant had filed a grievance that was against the interests of all other students. As a result, the Dean wrote, there would be less research positions available to everyone this summer. Two Stewards from CUPE local 2626, the Teaching and Research Assistant’s union, then responded to the Dean, . . . [more]

The Law Commissions of Scotland, England and Wales have proposed a clarification of British law about unfair terms in consumer contracts, to ensure that that law applies to end-user licence agreements for software and online services (EULAs).

Canadian jurisdictions do not (so far as I know) have legislation with ‘unfair terms’ in the name, while the UK has implemented the EU Directive on Unfair Terms. (French courts held a decade ago that online contracts, notably the AOL (2004) and Tiscali (2005) subscriber agreements, were subject to the comparable French law – and invalidated a large proportion of the . . . [more]

Across Canada, there is a trend in human rights law to increase protections for transgendered individuals. On March 20, 2013, Bill C-279 to protect the right of the transgendered and make it illegal to discriminate against transgender Canadians under the Canadian Human Rights Act passed third reading in the House of Commons (149-137 vote).

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.

Tomorrow’s Lawyers
Richard Susskind
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013

Excerpt from Chapter Six, edited by the author.

 

To what extent can lawyers’ work be undertaken differently – more quickly, cheaply, more efficiently, but to higher quality – using alternative methods of working? That is a key question of the day. Lawyers have . . . [more]

When did sentencing policies shift from merely being questionable, misguided or ill-advised to becoming downright absurd?

For many years now, the blunt hammer of mandatory minimum sentencing has been gaining traction in repeated Criminal Code amendments. Long a feature of only the most heinous criminal act imaginable – murder – mandatory minimums leaked into the broader sentencing framework in the battle against drunk drivers imposing minimum licence suspensions followed by mandatory jail stints for repeat offenders. Since then, they have been invoked in an ever-growing array of anti-crime objectives including the war on drugs, to battle the scourge of gun . . . [more]

Mr or Ms Executive, in the ONCA’s reasons for judgment released today, to keep your mouth shut about the state of confidential negotiations.

Here’s a link to the reasons on the ONCA  and some excerpts.

[1] This appeal is from the judgment of Justice Edward P. Belobaba dismissing the appellant’s application for an order that the respondents disclose the identities of confidential sources for a story written by the respondent Sinclair Stewart and published by the respondent the Globe and Mail Inc. The appellant, whose sole officer, director and shareholder is Jeffrey G. MacIntosh, holder of the Toronto Stock Exchange

. . . [more]

I’ll leave the substantive comments on the validity and merits of the decision to those with the expertise. I’ll say only that I suspect the Harperite law & order types involved in the appointment of Justices Moldaver and Karakstanis expected them to line up on the gov’t’s side and not the civil liberties side.

  . . . [more]

I heard Josh Linkner speak yesterday at a TechAlliance event. He talked about 5 growth traps for business, and as I reflect upon his message, his 5 traps are things that lawmakers fall into constantly.

1. The over correct. Going overboard to correct problems.
2. The money trap. Throwing money at problems rather than creativity.
3. Religion over science. Vision is important, but you can’t ignore the data.
4. Complexity. Using your own technical language rather than making it simple.
5. Gorging. Trying to do too many things and not knowing when to say no.

  . . . [more]

It’s no secret that public perception of lawyers is generally poor. This was highlighted for me again when I came across the recent post 15 Things Your Clients Are Sharing About You on Twitter. While some of the clients quoted said positive things about their lawyers, many repeated a variation of the oft-heard refrain: Too expensive, too shifty and too incompetent.

Jordan Furlong recently wrote here on Slaw about the Ontario Bar Association’s proposal to enhance the image of Ontario lawyers through another marketing campaign. He concluded that the problem of poor image is a consequence of the way . . . [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 the week of March 19 – 26:

1. Meads v. Meads 2012 ABQB 571
   

   [1] This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant. As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given by others) often fall into

. . . [more]

This feet dragging cannot be continued any longer.

The new situation derives from an application that resulted . . . [more]

Access to justice is a common debated theme, most notably how to get the necessary resources to improve the accessibility to and of our judicial system. It was with interest that I read today’s article from UK’s The Guardian entitled: “Foreign lawsuits may face higher UK legal fees: Justice secretary Chris Grayling says he wants to ensure that those who litigate in British courts pay their fair share.” This other article, published two weeks ago in the same newspaper, also provided some additional concrete figures and examples of foreign lawsuits being adjudicated in the UK (many of these made headlines . . . [more]