Comments for The Court

Comment on Intrusion on Seclusion in Jones v Tsige: The Role of Courts, the Value of Privacy, and the Difficulty of Erecting Fences by Blair Mitchell

Blair Mitchell — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:36:43 +0000

Thanks Great summary.

Comment on Mabior and D.C.: Does HIV Non-Disclosure Equal Rape? (Part 1) by Mike H

Mike H — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:10:30 +0000

I think it’s a little misleading to use “rapists” as an analog. Where is the rapist section in the Criminal Code? Sexual assault (instead of rape), was deliberately adopted because the section captures a range of behaviours, some of which are less than what we imagine might be rape. A sexual assault framework fits less poorly with non-disclosure of HIV status than does a binary rape framework. I don’t think this fundamentally changes your wonderful article, but I would be more convinced by a less political and more accurate analysis.

Comment on Mabior and D.C.: Does HIV Non-Disclosure Equal Rape? (Part 1) by Justin Dharamdial

Justin Dharamdial — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:03:07 +0000

“…determine whether and when people living with HIV are to be treated as rapists under Canadian law.”

I think the more appropriate comparison is between rapists and people living with HIV who don’t disclosure during sex. Yours, obviously sounds better as a rhetorical device though.

Great piece!

Comment on Catalyst Paper Corp v North Cowichan: Reasonable Enough by Xena fan

Xena fan — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:08:00 +0000

Amazing!!!! Very informative.

Comment on A Decision Is Rendered In GPS Tracking Case, But With No Decisiveness by Lester M. Paredes III, Esq.

Lester M. Paredes III, Esq. — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:50:06 +0000

There are some really interesting questions left unresolved – What if the government had placed the GPS on the license plate, as suggested at oral argument?

That begs the question, what is being searched? Is it the car or the person? If it is the car, then why did the Court fail to apply the long-standing exception to the warrant requirement for automobiles? Was it really because the State failed to raise the argument at the lower level?

I like the new direction the Court seems to be going with respect to digital privacy, I do not like the idea of waiting on Congress or the legislature to muster a super-majority for a remedy and I love Justice Sotomayor’s concurring opinion. Digital information is no less private than a home and deserves no less protection.

Comment on Leering v. College: Patients With Benefits by Tom R.

Tom R. — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:51:39 +0000

I lost the only Chiropractic Doctor who was ever successful in treating my chronic injuries.
I hope the vindictive woman feels justified.
I hope the courts will eventually find wisdom.
Was the relationship consensual?
Was she under duress to live or sleep with the doctor?
This is a perfect example of the law being misused to destroy a persons life.
A better title for this article would be ‘revenge of a woman scorned’.

Comment on Canada’s Assisted Suicide Debate: Alive and Well by Margaret Dore

Margaret Dore — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:57:52 +0000

For a different view of the issue, see “The Carter Case and Assisted Suicide: A Recipe for Elder Abuse and a Threat to Individual Rights,” at http://www.epcbc.ca/p/carter-case.html

Comment on Prospects for cooperation in the Reference Re Securities Act, 2011 SCC 66. by Justin Dharamdial

Justin Dharamdial — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 03:28:26 +0000

Mike,

It’s good to point out that the Court did recognize that the prospectus, continuous disclosure, and take over rules are replicated in the proposed Securities Act.

The Court was only silent on the practical question of what aspects of these subsets of securities regulation would fall to the provinces or the federal government. It gave us a standard from which we are meant to figure out this question, but it is my submission in this post that that standard does not take us too far.

Comment on Cooperative Federalism & The Securities Act Reference, 2011 SCC 66 – A Rocky Road by Andreas Klopp

Andreas Klopp — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 20:50:49 +0000

While is it true that this opinion leaves the door open for a securities regulation regime sculpted through provincial cooperation, I don’t see the major storyline here as a tacit commentary on Canada’s broken federalism. The big winners after this opinion are those provinces (B.C. and Quebec) who have been arguing for years that provincial matters are so markedly different across Canada that a national regulator would overstep, in many instances, the local nature of securities regulation. The court applied the GM test and agreed that a national regulator was way out of scope. Further, they suggested that national jurisdiction was only valid in very limited circumstances.
I see this judgment as reaffirming Federalism as it is in a post-1949 era – one that accommodates overlapping jurisdiction – but not going any further.

Comment on Prospects for cooperation in the Reference Re Securities Act, 2011 SCC 66. by Mike Jackson

Mike Jackson — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:10:02 +0000

“ Prospectus requirements, continuous disclosure obligations, and takeover rules are some crucial subsets of securities law that the Court failed to address.” The Supreme Court of Canada is not silent on the prospectus requirements, continuous disclosure obligations and takeover rules.

In paragraph 100 of its decision, the Supreme Court of Canada specifically references prospectus, continuous disclosure and take over rules by reference to Parts 6, 8 and 9 of the government’s proposed Securities Act. Following the enumeration, the Court states at paragraph 101, “The effect of these provisions is in essence to duplicate legislative schemes enacted by provincial legislators exercising their jurisdiction over property and civil rights under s. 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867.”

Paragraph 116 of the decision indicates: “On the contrary, the fact that the structure and terms of the proposed Act largely replicate the existing provincial schemes belies the suggestion that the securities market has been wholly transformed over the years. On the basis of the record presented to us, we conclude, as discussed below, that the day-to-day regulation of securities within the provinces, which represents the main thrust of the Act, remains essentially a matter of property and civil rights within the provinces and therefore subject to provincial power.”