Home » 2014 » February

The Federal Court Orders Teksavvy to Release Customer Identities to Film Production Company

On 20 February 2014, the Federal Court of Canada ("FCC"), in Voltage Pictures LLC v John Doe, 2014 FC 161, ordered that Teksavvy Solutions Inc. ("Teksavvy"), an Internet Service Provider, must release the names and addresses of 2,000 customers who allegedly downloaded copyrighted films. Voltage Pictures LLC ("Voltage"), a film production company that produced the Oscar-winning film The […]

Is the Right to Strike Protected by the Charter? A Review of R v Saskatchewan Federation of Labour

Normal 0 Since 2001 there has been considerable turmoil at the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC") surrounding collective bargaining rights under the Charter. During this period, two significant decisions have appeared to shift the Court towards recognizing a constitutional right to collective bargaining. As a result, a trial judge in Saskatchewan took the audacious step […]

The European Commission Secures Modest Concessions from Google in Latest Anti-trust Battle

Google, as part of a settlement with European competition regulators, has conceded some ground in the European search market by agreeing to display competitor results in its search results. These concessions will be the most significant that Google has made in response to an antitrust inquiry to date. The proposed settlement still requires approval from […]

SCC Continues to Navigate the Tension Between Labour Relations and Privacy: Bernard v Canada

Last November, the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC") decided that Alberta's Personal Information Protection Act, SA 2003 c P-6.5, which, inter alia, had the effect of preventing unions from filming individuals crossing a picket line, was an unjustifiable violation of the constitutional right to freedom of expression (for more, see the commentary by Avnish Nanda and […]

Mandatory Minimum Sentence for Drug Offences Struck Down by BC Provincial Court: R v Lloyd

After finding the mandatory minimum sentence for drug possession for the purpose of trafficking (contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c 19 [CDSA]) violated s. 12 of the Charter (R v Lloyd, 2014 BCPC 8 (CanLII) [Lloyd]) in January 2014, Galati J. of the Provincial Court of British Columbia has […]

What R v Big M Drug Mart Can Teach the US Supreme Court about Corporate Religious Freedom

Late last year, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (“Obamacare”) contraception mandate, with oral arguments to take place in March. At issue in Sebelius v Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. [Hobby Lobby] and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v Sebelius [Conestoga Wood], which will be consolidated […]

Supreme Court Confronts the Use of "Fashionable" Correctness Review: McLean v British Columbia

Ever since the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC"), in Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, [2008] 1 SCR 190 [Dunsmuir], developed a "more coherent and workable" framework for judicial review of administrative decisions, lower courts have had difficulty applying the SCC's standard of review analysis. Misapplication generally involves a lower court undertaking a correctness review where a reasonableness standard is […]

SCC Clears the Air in Family Feud, Clarifies Tort of Unlawful Interference Too

Lillian Schelew and her four sons, Jeffrey, Michael, Bernard, and Alan, have been involved in residential real estate leasing since the 1970s. Jamb Enterprises Ltd ("Jamb") was owned by the four brothers equally, and Bram Enterprises Ltd ("Bram") was owned by four brothers equally with Lillian Schelew holding a separate class of preferred voting shares. […]

A Very Long Limitation Period for Unjust Enrichment Claims: McConnell v Huxtable

Normal 0 Statutes of limitations are intended to add clarity to the litigation process but, ironically, sometimes have the opposite effect. Ontario's Limitations Act, 2002, SO 2002, c 24, Sch B [Limitations Act], was meant to reduce the multitude of different limitation periods with the aim of having a two-year limitation on most types of actions. […]