They have done away with the nightmarish scenes from George Orwell’s 1984. They have done away with the unnerving language of insidious dangers around the corner. They have even done away with hypothetical scenarios involving round-the-clock surveillance of each other. The decision that the nine justices on the United States Supreme Court reached last week [...]

Back in November of 1992, a Crown Attorney named Donald Angevine applied for an appointment to the Ontario Provincial Court. In the weeks that followed, he was interviewed first by the Judicial Appointment Advisory Committee (JAAC)—designed specifically to limit the appearance of political influence—and subsequently by the Judicial Council. According to Angevine, the Judicial Council [...]

Much to the disappointment of Canadians, hockey does not really find its way into the news in the middle of summer. However, earlier in July, a decision was handed down by the Ontario Court of Appeal that answers a question of national importance: whose beer advertisements will dominate hockey ads? The lawsuit pit two of [...]

On October 7, 2010, Mr. Hassan Rasouli underwent brain surgery at the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre to remove a benign tumour. A number of “complications” occurred after the operation, however, and Mr. Rasouli contracted a severe case of bacterial meningitis. Within 10 days of the operation, he was breathing through a mechanical ventilator. To this [...]

During a November oral argument about a California law that would restrict minors from buying violent video games, Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito squared off on constitutional originalism. These two United States Supreme Court justices debated whether the ratifiers of the First Amendment would have included portrayals of violence in video games as [...]

A trial judge is not required to itemize every conceivable issue, argument or thought process in his or her reasons.  Trial judges are entitled to have their reasons reviewed based on what they say, not on the speculative imagination of reviewing courts.  Here, the trial judge expressly stated that he relied only on the DNA [...]

“We trust that AT&T won’t take it too personally,” wrote Chief Justice Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) regarding the outcome of a case concerning corporate privacy rights. Flowing from a spate of privacy cases at SCOTUS (most notably, Snyder v. Phelps covered by fellow Contributing Editor, Alysia Lau here and our Amici Curiae [...]

The state may withhold so-called “secret evidence” in court proceedings, even if it means an alleged criminal may walk free. In a decision which delicately balances individual liberties with the state’s obligation to protect society by preventing the disclosure of information that could pose a threat to national defence/security, the SCC  has pleased both the [...]

The Court had a busy semester covering cases appearing at various levels of courts in Canada and abroad. You might have noticed that we’ve covered fewer major SCC decisions appearing on the docket (aside from a quick burst over the holidays) and more decisions at the appeal and Federal court levels. There is a fairly [...]

On June 28, 2010, the US Supreme Court released its reasons in Bilski et al. v. Kappos, No.08-964 545 F. 3d 943 (PDF link) (“Bilski”). The case was widely followed, in particular, by intellectual property firms, as a decision widely favouring business method patents could have had serious ramifications on the patenting practices of future [...]