To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Boilerplate in visa applications, duty to consult

Mark Mancini's Sunday Evening Administrative Review is available on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Substack⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

(00:00:38) Kashefi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 856 (June 6, 2024)

(00:04:10) Innu Nation Inc v Canada (Crown-Indigenous Relations), 2024 FC 896 (June 12, 2024)

(00:08:35) Way v Nunatsiavut Government, 2024 FC 886 (June 11, 2024)

To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Torts: Spectator Injuries; Hockey Puck-related Damages.

Supreme Advocacy's Court of Appeal Decision of the Week Blog is available on their ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. 

To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Civil law — Personal injury — Quantum of damages

(00:00:25) Summary

(00:01:05) Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Madam Justice Horsman

(00:01:10) I. Overview – 1

(00:03:29) II. Background – 8

(00:03:30) A. The respondent’s pre-Accident work history and personal circumstances – 8

(00:06:41) B. The Accident and its aftermath – 14

(00:08:26) III. The trial – 17

(00:08:27) A. The evidence – 17

(00:08:29) (1) The respondent’s evidence – 17

(00:14:02) (2) The appellants’ evidence – 23

(00:15:54) B. Closing addresses to the jury – 26

(00:18:32) C. The jury verdict – 30

(00:18:54) IV. On appeal – 31

(00:19:22) V. Standard of review – 32

(00:20:46) VI. Analysis – 35

(00:20:48) A. Issue (a): Is the award for loss of past income capacity wholly disproportionate and shockingly unreasonable? – 35

(00:27:43) B. Issue (b): Is the award for non-pecuniary loss wholly disproportionate as compared to judge-made awards? – 44

(00:34:18) VII. Disposition – 50

To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Courthouse closings and Charter values, appeals/JR

Mark Mancini's Sunday Evening Administrative Review is available on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Substack⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

(00:00:36) Forum des maires de la Péninsule acadienne Incorporated v Minister of Justice and Public Safety, 2024 NBKB 58 (March 28, 2024)

(00:12:02) Utano v Canada (Public Safety), 2024 FC 805 (May 28, 2024)

(00:14:41) Payne v Saskatoon Housing Authority, 2024 SKKB 92 (May 22, 2024)

To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Criminal law — Informer privilege — Open court principle

(00:00:35) Summary

(00:00:37) Facts and Procedural History

(00:03:33) Disposition

(00:03:36) The judgment of the Court

(00:13:13) Reasons for Judgment: The Court – 1

(00:13:17) I. Overview – 1

(00:17:48) II. Procedural and Judicial History – 7

(00:18:58) A. Judgment at Trial Dismissing the Motion for a Stay of Proceedings – 9

(00:19:52) B. Judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal of March 23, 2022, Entering a Stay of Proceedings for Abuse of Process, 2022 QCCA 406, 424 C.C.C. (3d) 322 (Bich, Vauclair and Healy JJ.A.) – 11

(00:24:56) C. Judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal of July 20, 2022, Dismissing the Motions for Review of the Confidentiality Orders, 2022 QCCA 984 (Bich, Vauclair and Healy JJ.A.) – 17

(00:29:39) III. Issues – 22

(00:31:43) IV. Analysis – 26

(00:31:52) A. Court Openness: A Pillar of Our Free and Democratic Society – 27

(00:36:08) B. Informer Privilege – 33

(00:36:44) (1) Rationale for Informer Privilege – 35

(00:38:29) (2) The Interests Protected by the Open Court Principle Yield to Those Protected by Informer Privilege – 37

(00:43:16) (3) Scope of Informer Privilege – 43

(00:45:59) C. Procedure Proposed in Vancouver Sun – 47

(00:53:01) (1) Judges Must Retain the Discretion to Issue a Notice to Interested Third Parties – 55

(00:57:37) (2) The Disclosure of Privileged Information to Interested Third Parties or Their Representatives Would Unduly Expand the Circle of Privilege – 60

(01:01:47) D. Review of How the Guiding Rule From Vancouver Sun Should Be Applied When Proceeding In Camera – 66

(01:02:27) (1) Named Person Was Not Convicted Following a Secret Proceeding – 67

(01:06:05) (2) How the Guiding Rule From Vancouver Sun Should Be Applied – 71

(01:16:14) E. Confidentiality Orders Made by the Court of Appeal – 84

(01:20:18) V. Conclusion – 89

(01:23:04) VI. Disposition – 93

To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Criminal law — Informer privilege — Open court principle

To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Contracts: Do Contracting Parties “Create Their Own Dictionary”?

Supreme Advocacy's Court of Appeal Decision of the Week Blog is available on their ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. 

To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Contract law – Employment law – Income Tax Act

(00:00:37) I. Introduction – 1

(00:02:33) II. Facts – 7

(00:08:22) III. The Chambers Decision – 20

(00:14:34) IV. Issues – 24

(00:15:02) V. Analysis – 26

(00:15:04) A. The RCA Contract and standard of review – 26

(00:16:04) B. The Chambers judge did not err in his interpretation of the RCA Contract – 28

(00:16:58) VI. Conclusion – 52

To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Sale of goods — Contracts — Interpretation — Exclusion clauses

(00:00:36) Summary

(00:00:37) Facts and Procedural History

(00:03:50) Held (Côté J. dissenting)

(00:03:57) Per Wagner C.J. and Rowe, Martin, Kasirer, Jamal and O’Bonsawin JJ.

(00:12:23) Per Côté J. (dissenting)

(00:19:00) Reasons for Judgment: Martin J. (Wagner C.J. and Rowe, Kasirer, Jamal and O’Bonsawin JJ. concurring)

(00:19:10) I. Introduction – 1

(00:22:32) II. Factual Background – 4

(00:29:32) III. Judicial History – 13

(00:29:34) A. Ontario Superior Court of Justice, 2020 ONSC 601 – 13

(00:36:08) B. Court of Appeal for Ontario, 2022 ONCA 265, 161 O.R. (3d) 103 – 22

(00:39:24) IV. Issues – 26

(00:39:34) V. Analysis – 27

(00:39:36) A. The Applicable Standard of Review – 27

(00:46:02) B. The Sale of Goods Act – 34

(00:55:09) C. Section 53 and Express Agreements – 45

(00:58:29) (1) Section 53 of the Sale of Goods Act – 50

(01:07:08) (2) The Modern Principles of Contractual Interpretation – 61

(01:10:25) (3) The Legal Treatment of Exclusion Clauses – 66

(01:15:52) (4) Explicit, Clear and Direct Language as Applied to Statutory Conditions and Identity – 74

(01:31:24) D. Summary of the Proper Approach to Interpreting Exclusion Clauses Under Section 53 of the Sale of Goods Act – 93

(01:37:03) E. Clauses 6 and 7 Exempt Earthco From Liability Under Section 14 – 100

(01:49:13) VI. Disposition – 115

(01:49:25) Dissenting Reasons: Côté J.

(01:49:29) I. Overview – 116

(01:54:18) II. Context – 121

(01:58:58) III. Analysis – 129

(01:59:01) A. Standard of Review – 129

(01:59:35) B. The Principles of Statutory Interpretation Apply – 130

(02:03:02) C. The Legal Standard for Ousting an Implied Condition Under the SGA – 134

(02:03:07) (1) Terms Arising Under Contracts for the Sale of Goods by Implication of Law – 134

(02:07:11) (2) Section 53 of the SGA – 139

(02:10:38) (3) The Meaning of “Express Agreement” – 143

(02:11:15) (a) Clear and Direct Language – 144

(02:18:50) (b) Language Inconsistent With the Terms the Legislature Sought To Imply – 152

(02:24:22) D. The Role of Modern Principles of Contractual Interpretation – 158

(02:33:02) IV. Application – 167

(02:48:37) V. Conclusion – 184

To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Sale of goods — Contracts — Interpretation — Exclusion clauses