A series of lawsuits involving Mathews, Dinsdale & Clark and Adrian Jakibchuk, a former associate of the firm, was settled on June 7. The case emerged after Jakibchuk alleged inappropriate behaviour by David Cowling. More information on the background to this lawsuit was available here on Slaw when it was first launched.

Although the details of the settlement remain confidential, Christina Cheung of Precedent shares some information they have obtained:

Pleadings obtained by Precedent in the Jakibchuk lawsuit indicate that MDC paid an undisclosed sum of money to Cowling in order for him to drop his lawsuit and leave the

. . . [more]

For whatever this is worth, for those who need to care (or do, regardless of need).

These propositions are written for the Canadian lawyer whose knowledge of the relevant Canadian law is such that a Superior Court (or equivalent) judge would consider that lawyer competent to prosecute or defend an “ordinary” personal injury or property damage action. As such, they presume a certain level of knowledge.

Comments are on for a limited purpose. I will attempt to clarify any of these propositions if the manner in which I have stated the proposition is not sufficiently clear, bearing in mind what . . . [more]

Following our previous Slaw post, were we commented on the June 15 British Columbia Supreme Court ruling that struck down the Criminal Code ban on physician-assisted suicide. Without being surprised, on July 14, 2012, we learn that the federal government has decided to appeal that decision.

On this very date less than half a dozen summers ago I was lucky enough to be part of a group of volunteer roadies setting up a rock and roll concert in a big field in a small town. Steppenwolf with John Kay was to be the headliner, followed by a string of other bands. The air was hot, the buzz building, the Patrón Tequila folks had arrived, things that needed doing were getting done, and even lowly gofers like me were touching the electric hem of showtime excitement.

This would have been enough of a kick for me, at . . . [more]

Few people welcome the experience of arguing in court over intensely personal issues. Fewer people would pay a single nickel for the experience. With the very odd exception, ordinary people appear in court because they have no real choice in the matter. A mother fights for the custody of her infant son out of concern for his safety. A factory worker seeks wrongful dismissal damages to pay his mounting bills. A disabled man resists eviction from his subsidized apartment to avoid homelessness. And yet in spite of these common scenarios and the human need to correct actual or perceived injustice, . . . [more]

This is a post in a series appearing each Friday, setting out some articles, videos, podcasts and the like that contributors at Slaw are enjoying and that you might find interesting. The articles tend to be longer than blog posts and shorter than books, just right for that stolen half hour on the weekend. It’s also likely that most of them won’t be about law — just right for etc.

Please let us have your recommendations for what we and our readers might like.

. . . [more]

I’ve finally got around to updating the Google Custom Search Engine that powers Slaw’s Canadian Law Blogs Search — found in the right sidebar very near the top. It now searches all 359 glorious Canadian law blogs listed in Stem Legal’s Lawblogs.ca. Many apologies to all the new (and not so new) bloggers who waited far too long to be included. I’ll try to develop a method for a more continual updating.

I’ve also removed the options that were initially available — date range, number of results — because Google no longer honours these requests for Custom Search Engines . . . [more]

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/07/12/scc-gives-wide-interpretation-to-fair-dealing-in-copyright-saga/ . . . [more]

While lawyers and academics will surely be allocating a significant amount of short term resources to analyzing the SCC’s pentology of copyright decisions issued this morning, a quick look demonstrates a vindication of fair dealing, online innovation, technical neutrality and general common sense.

In brief and lacking any nuance, the Court’s decision in Entertainment Software Association v. SOCAN, 2012 SCC 34 seems to imply some interesting developments in copyright law:

Online distribution of video games should not be impeded with additional tariffs for musical works embedded in the games simply because the games are sold ‘by means of telecommunications’. The . . . [more]

A recent US Court of Appeals decision has caused some concern in banking circles. Here is a blog description with a link to the case, Patco Construction v People’s Bank. Essentially the court held that the business customer’s losses from online fraud had been caused by negligent security practices at the bank, so the bank was liable for them.

As the blog entry (by a noted electronic security expert) points out, while consumers have traditionally been protected in dealings with their banks (so the banks have devised a number of security measures to protect against loss), business clients have . . . [more]

This post isn’t about anything legal, but it’s summer, and this is an interesting story. (Or at least I find it interesting – I should disclose that I’m on the board of Orchestra London.)

Christine Newland, principle cellist of Orchestra London, borrowed in 1976 to buy a cello for $12,000. According to an online inflation calculator, that’s about $48,000 in today’s money. She knew it was a special instrument at the time, but had no idea how special until recently. Turns out that it was made in 1730, and is a twin – made from the same tree – . . . [more]

The course reader, that photocopied bundle of readings for a course, and now its more recent iteration, the digital e-reserves, have proven to be hot spots for “fair use” legal entanglements with copyright law in the United States. In the 1990s, the big cases were Basic Books Inc. v. Kinko’s Graphic Corporation (1991) and Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Service (1996) which put an end to royalty-free photocopying for class use of copyrighted materials, for, the courts rule, the course readers were being sold for a profit and were competing against the original books (with 5-30% of the . . . [more]