Author Archives: Greg Hagen

About Greg Hagen

B.A., M.A. (Br. Col.), Ph.D. (Western Ontario), LL.B. (Dal.) LL.M. (Ottawa). Associate Professor. Please click here for more information.

COVID-19 and Cellphone Surveillance

By: Joel Reardon, Emily Laidlaw, and Greg Hagen

PDF Version: COVID-19 and Cellphone Surveillance

Matter Commented On: Premier Jason Kenney’s Address on the COVID-19 Pandemic (April 7, 2020)

Last week in Premier Kenney’s address to the province, he announced (at approximately 10:29 of the video) that a central component of Alberta’s strategy in relation to COVID-19 (and its related SARS-CoV-2 virus) could require the use of technology to enforce quarantine orders: “We will strictly enforce quarantine orders to ensure compliance, including using technology like smartphone apps.” When a spokesperson for the Alberta Privacy Commissioner’s Office raised privacy concerns about the use of a smartphone app to enforce quarantine, the Calgary Herald reported that Premier Kenney dismissed such concerns as “overblown”, seemingly because only a small group of people would be tracked and only for the purposed of enforcing a valid quarantine order. Continue reading →

Leave Granted in Fair Dealing in Education Case

Application Commented On: Supreme Court of Canada Leave to Appeal decision in Alberta (Education) v. Access Copyright

On May 5, 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal Alberta (Education) v. Access Copyright, 2010 FCA 198, in which the Federal Court of Appeal decided that it is not fair dealing under the Copyright Act for a teacher to copy copyrighted materials for distribution to his or her class. This decision has been criticized as being inconsistent with the approach to fair dealing followed in SOCAN v. Bell Canada, 2010 FCA 123, which found that streaming music previews to consumers is fair dealing, and in CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2004 SCC 13, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 339, in which the Supreme Court of Canada found that copying legal research materials for lawyers is fair dealing.

This is an important case which could clarify the law of fair dealing in education. I will be blogging on this case in due course.

Investors should be cautious about investing in viatical settlements

Cases considered: Stack v. Hildebrand, 2008 ABQB 668.

PDF Version: Investors should be cautious about investing in viatical settlements

As a result of the credit crunch, investors have become wary of risky investments. In its 2006 study, the BC Law Institute noted that, like many asset-backed instruments, viatical investments (or viaticals) are very risky investments. A typical viatical settlement occurs when an insured person sells his or her entitlement to receive a life insurance policy’s death benefit to a financial company who later sells a fractionalized portion of the entitlement to an investor. The financial company typically pays the premiums of the insurance policy. The primary risk is that the insured person will exceed his or her life expectancy. Another risk is that the financial company does not pay the premiums. Stack v. Hildebrand, 2008 ABQB 668 is a reminder that investors need to be cautious when considering investments in viaticals.

Continue reading →

Torts, Tasers and Causation

Cases Considered: Resurfice Corp. v. Hanke, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 333; Athey v. Leonati, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458  Snell v. Farrell, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311.

PDF Version:  Torts, Tasers and Causation

The recent deaths that occurred in Calgary and Edmonton following the use of a conducted energy weapon (generically referred to here as a “taser”) have once again raised the issue of the appropriate use of tasers in policing. In fact, there have been at least 20 deaths in Canada following the use of tasers. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and Amnesty International Canada have called for a moratorium on their use. The RCMP Public Complaints Commissioner called for a moratorium on their use if the RCMP cannot properly instruct its members to appropriately deploy the taser in an operational setting. It is in this context that the Alberta Solicitor General, Fred Lindsay, and the Premier of Alberta, Ed Stelmach, downplayed the possibility that the use of a taser can cause death. This post argues that, notwithstanding the opinions of these elected officials regarding causation, it is possible for police officers to be found liable in negligence as a result of using a taser.

Continue reading →

Use of a corporate name or registered trade name does not prevent liability for passing off

Cases Considered: Divine Pet Spa Ltd. v Divine Doggies Spa & Boutique Inc., 2008 ABQB 618

PDF Version: Use of a corporate name or registered trade name does not prevent liability for passing off

Charisma Snyder registered a trade name “Divine Doggies Grooming & Boutique” on July 27, 2007 and “Divine Doggies Spa & Boutique” on August 14, 2007. A later name search did not reveal “Divine Pet Spa”, either as part of a corporate name or a trade-mark, so she incorporated Divine Doggies Spa & Boutique Inc. on September 8, 2007. It commenced dog grooming services in June, 2008. As early as 2006, however, Divine Pet Spa Ltd. had engaged in significant marketing of its cat and dog grooming business in order to create goodwill in the Calgary marketplace. In Divine Pet Spa Ltd. v Divine Doggies Spa & Boutique Inc., 2008 ABQB 618, Madam Justice C.L. Kenny of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench granted Divine Pet Spa Ltd. an interlocutory injunction against Divine Doggies Spa & Boutique Inc., restraining it from using and advertising the name “Divine Doggies Spa”. This decision is a reminder that, by using its corporate name or registered trade name, a business can be liable in tort law for passing off its products or services as those of another business.

Continue reading →