Physics and the Law

April 19th, 2012 No Comments Author: Andrea Sanche

Although perhaps less interesting than this super-cool graphic depiction of the scale of our (known?) universe, a recent news story from California, suggested how one physics professor applied physics to his traffic ticket. The physics professor convinced the court that there was no merit to a police officer’s charge that he had failed to stop at a stop sign. Of course, as you might imagine, other scientists have weighed in on whether the professor’s math was actually accurate. Nevertheless, this story creates an interesting link between physics and the law; who would have thought?

 

Read More »

SCC: When does a court have jurisdiction over a dispute?

April 18th, 2012 No Comments Author: Andrea Sanche

The long-awaited (by some!) decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in (what we call in Ontario) Van Breda was released today. I have been trying to read it in a comprehensive manner, but I have been doing so in between various assignments, so for now, I alert you to the case and can provide some overview. The case concerned, as written by the Honourable Justice LeBel, ” the elaboration of the “real and substantial connection” test as an appropriate common law conflicts rule for the assumption of jurisdiction”. Thus, in Van Breda, the question was: if an injury takes place in Cuba, can the plaintiff commence their claim in Ontario. There were various facts that seemingly made answering this question more complicated in the case. The Supreme Court confirmed that Ontario does have jurisdiction to hear Van Breda. The Court also wrote that the “real and substantial connection” test is the starting point. Whether there is a “real and substantial connection” depends on various “presumptive connecting factors” . These are facts such as whether (a) the defendant lives in the province; (b) the defendant carries on business in the province; (c) the tort was committed in the province; and (d) a contract connected with the dispute was made in the province. The Supreme Court stated that other facts can become “presumptive connecting factors” if they have certain features.

I should get back to work and will provide more detail once I have digested the case. Alternatively, another one of our litigators will take the reins and provide more insight.

 

Read More »

Lottery Group Play: Get It in Writing!

April 4th, 2012 No Comments Author: Sam Sasso

Today, I was on the Bill Good radio show talking about office lottery pools. If you’re in an office lottery pool, it’s very important that the agreement and rules are reduced to writing. Group play forms and tips are found on most provinces’ lottery corporation’s websites, including Ontario and British Columbia. Filling out these forms and following the recommended tips can prevent a lot of problems in the event the pool wins big.

 

 

Read More »

Commonality is in the Eye of the Beholder

March 21st, 2012 No Comments Author: Sam Sasso

If you’re dealing with a certification in a class action case, you will want to check out the recent decision of Justice Shaughnessy in French and Karas v. Smith. In French, Justice Shaughnessy certified a class action relating to investment advisors who allegedly used the same leveraging scheme with their clients. The class action was certified despite the fact that the appropriateness of any investment usually requires an analysis of that individual’s investment objectives, an analysis which may be contrary to the common issues test under section 5(1)(c) of the Class Proceedings Act. It is doubtful that this will be the last decision in this case.

Read More »

We Feel Fine: A Fascinating Monday Diversion

March 19th, 2012 No Comments Author: Andrea Sanche

If March Madness isn’t a diversion enough, check out this interesting art project, entitled “We Feel Fine”, created by two artists, one of whom is a consulting assistant professor of computational and mathematical engineering at Stanford University. The project searches the web for sentences starting with “I feel” and plots these feelings in this beautiful space-like flurry of world-wide comments. It is described as a project which “continuously measures the emotional temperature of the human world through large-scale blog analysis”. Amazing stuff.

Read More »

Court Administration System Challenged

March 19th, 2012 No Comments Author: Andrea Sanche

In a decision dated March 14, 2012, the Honourable Mr. Justice D.M. Brown, in his words, told “a little story” about problems encountered by those using the justice system in Ontario. It’s worth the read, and reflects the frustration felt by litigants, lawyers, and clearly the court, in dealing with a paper-driven system that is well past its prime. Let’s hope that this spurs the powers that be to expedite delivery of an electronic or web-based file management system.

Read More »

Hearsay? That’s what he said.

March 16th, 2012 No Comments Author: Sam Sasso

The Court of Appeal for Ontario recently released another thorough analysis of the hearsay rule in the case of R. v. Baldree. In Baldree, Justices Feldman and Blair overturned a conviction and ordered a new trial in a case where the Crown used an intercepted call as a key piece of evidence. Both Justices Feldman and Blair wrote reasons, as did Justice Watt in dissent. The application of the hearsay rule appears to be as clear as ever.

Read More »

Competitor Ruffles Canada Goose’s Feathers

March 1st, 2012 No Comments Author: Joseph Figliomeni

In a recent post I reported on the settlement of a trademark dispute between clothing retailers International Clothiers Inc. (and related entities) and Target Corp. International Clothiers now finds itself fighting a similar battle over the sale of its Super Triple Goose jackets to which Canada Goose Inc. has taken issue.

In late January, Canada Goose, the makers of trendy coats and outerwear accessories, sued International Clothiers for trademark infringement, accusing the company of making  shoddy replicas of Canada Goose parkas. Canada Goose alleges that International Clothiers has intentionally designed a logo and positioned it on jackets to mimic the Canada Goose Arctic Program design trademark. That circular logo is what distinguishes a Canada Goose jacket from others, the company says. The statement of claim goes on to allege that International Clothiers has been aware that Canada Goose objects to its Super Triple Goose jacket, but hasn’t stopped any of its “deceptive trade practices,”  and that the company has also published print ads promoting its jackets as Canada Goose products. In addition, Canada Goose alleges that International Clothiers’ Super Triple Goose jacket is in itself a misnomer. An independent laboratory analyzed the filling and found that goose feathers and down constitute about one per cent of the material, the bulk of which was actually duck feathers and down.

The allegations have not been proven in court and a statement of defence has not yet been filed, but what do you think? Would you confuse a Canada Goose jacket with a Super Triple Goose jacket?

 

Read More »

Seeds: Law and Theatre

March 1st, 2012 No Comments Author: Joseph Figliomeni

The documentary play Seeds centres on Monsanto v. Schmeiser and chronicles the 4-year legal battle between Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser and biotech giant Monsanto Inc. The play is based on the work of Annabel Soutar who, in 2004, began to research the case in which Monsanto accused Schmeiser of growing their genetically patented Canola seeds without paying the licensing fee they require.  The landmark trial not only raised questions about patent infringement and genetically modified foods before the Supreme Court, but also garnered Schmeiser, a small-town farmer, attention from around the world.

Seeds runs through March 10, 2012 at the Young Centre for the Performing Arts.

 

 

Read More »

Internet Service Providers Need Not Comply with CRTC Canadian Content Regulations

March 1st, 2012 No Comments Author: David Sherr

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision on February 9, 2012 in Reference re Broadcasting Act, 2012 SCC 4. The issue before the Court was whether internet service providers (or ISPs) fall within the scope of the Broadcasting Act, which grants the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) the power to regulate and supervise the Canadian broadcasting system. The issue was raised by the CRTC in reaction to the fact that many Canadians watch television and listen to radio on their computers through the internet, which content does not necessarily meet the CRTC’s Canadian content regulations. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the Canadian content regulations do not apply to ISPs.

The Court’s decision is centred on the lack of control exerted by ISPs over the content on the internet. Whereas television and radio broadcasters can affect control over what they broadcast, ISPs merely provide access to the broad spectrum of material available on the world wide web. The short decision is well-founded and practical. Frankly, it begs the question why the reference was brought in the first place, as ISPs do not control what is available online and the practicality of obtaining and exerting that level of control sounds, at least to this lay-person, like an administrative nightmare and one which would only raise user fees in order to limit the available content.

 

Read More »
« Older Entries
Subscribe to RSS Feed Follow me on Twitter!