University of Calgary Faculty of Law ABLawg.ca logo over mountains

Category: Access to Justice Page 2 of 17

The 2019/2020 Year in Access to Justice on ABlawg

By

On October 27, 2020

In Access to Justice

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: The 2019/2020 Year in Access to Justice on ABlawg

Event Commented On: Access to Justice Week 2020

The Canadian Bar Association’s annual Access to Justice Week in Alberta runs from October 26-31, 2020. The schedule of events is here.

This post considers some of the major access to justice issues that have been featured on ABlawg in the past year. I start with a final follow up on the four challenges for access to justice I identified in the 2017/2018 post, and I then comment on other recent developments.

Read More

Furthering Expression in the Public Interest: SCC Provides Interpretation of Ontario’s Anti-SLAPP Legislation

By

On October 26, 2020

In Access to Justice, Civil Procedure, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Daniella Marchand and Nafisa Abdul Razak

PDF Version: Furthering Expression in the Public Interest: SCC Provides Interpretation of Ontario’s Anti-SLAPP Legislation 

Case Commented On: 1704604 Ontario Ltd. v Pointes Protection Association, 2020 SCC 22 (CanLII)

Last month, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released their decision in the Pointes Protection case, dismissing 1704604 Ontario Ltd.’s appeal and upholding the Ontario Court of Appeal’s (ONCA) decision. This commentary follows up our first post regarding the ONCA’s decision on 1704604 Ontario Ltd v Pointes Protection Association, 2018 ONCA 685 (CanLII). In our previous post, we advocated for the enactment of a similar provision in Alberta as exists in Ontario, relying on the analysis set out by Justice David Doherty and the arguments made by various interveners as to the necessity of anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) legislation. For background on the previous proceedings, please see our other post titled “Is Now the Time to Consider Anti-SLAPP Legislation in Alberta? A Reflection on Pointes Protection”.

Here, we continue to recommend the introduction of similar anti-SLAPP legislation in Alberta. In Pointes Protection, the SCC provides a detailed analysis of Ontario’s anti-SLAPP legislation, perhaps expecting that this decision may guide the development of similar legislation in other provinces and territories. In this post, we will examine the test as interpreted by the SCC, and how this framework presents a novel opportunity for adoption of anti-SLAPP legislation to the Alberta legislature.

Read More

R v Theriault: A Case of Epistemic Injustice

By

On October 20, 2020

In Access to Justice, Criminal, Equality, Youth and the Law

By: Brynne Harding

PDF Version: R v Theriault: A Case of Epistemic Injustice

Case Commented On: R v Theriault, 2020 ONSC 3317 (CanLII)

On the morning of Friday, June 26, 2020 – among more than 20,000 other people – I tuned into the YouTube live stream on which Ontario Superior Court Justice Joseph DiLuca gave his judgment in the criminal trials of Michael and Christian Theriault (R v Theriault, 2020 ONSC 3317 (CanLII)). The brothers, one of whom is a Toronto police officer, stood accused of assault and aggravated assault on Dafonte Miller, a young Black man, who lost his eye in their clash.

Const. Michael Theriault was acquitted of aggravated assault and attempting to obstruct justice in the case, and was convicted only of the lesser charge of simple assault. His brother Christian Theriault was acquitted of all charges. On August 6, 2020, it was announced that the Crown has appealed the acquittals.

The Theriault acquittals unsettled me – persistently, in the weeks to follow. The accused were acquitted of aggravated assault, despite strong Crown evidence, and fact findings of the court, that the two grown white men had gratuitously and violently beaten Miller, a Black teenager. Nearly as unsettling was the fact that the trial judge had insisted, capably, and with sophistication, that he understood what he called the “racialized context” of the encounter (at para 11). The objective of this post is to explore the apparent contradiction in Theriault between the verdicts, on one hand, and Justice DiLuca’s claim that he considered the racialized context, on the other. This post does not purport to be an appellate brief for the Crown, although some argument relates to potential legal and factual errors in Theriault.

Read More

Right to Know Day: You Have the Right to Know That Access to Information in Alberta is Terrible

By

On October 6, 2020

In Access to Justice, Privacy

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: Right to Know Day: You Have the Right to Know That Access to Information in Alberta is Terrible

Statement Commented On: Right to Know Day: Minister Glubish, September 28, 2020 

Last Monday was apparently the beginning of ‘Right to Know Week’, “which aims to advance and celebrate the public’s right to access information from governments.” This is also the 25th anniversary of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSA 2000, c F-25 (FOIP). I have complained about the serious problems with FOIP before (here, here, here, and here). The timelines for record delivery are routinely ignored, absurdly high fees are charged for spurious reasons, the administrative review body is about a year behind, and the redactions are so vague and broadly worded that government bodies can hide almost whatever they want. In short, if the government wants to lie or cover something up, FOIP is an ineffective tool to stop them.

This post takes a lighter tone and discusses some of the hilarious abuses of FOIP I’ve seen from my work with the FOIP requests.

Read More

The Expansion of Unconscionability – The Supreme Court’s Uber Reach

By

On July 23, 2020

In Access to Justice, Contracts, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Jassmine Girgis

PDF Version: The Expansion of Unconscionability – The Supreme Court’s Uber Reach

Case Commented On: Uber Technologies Inc v Heller, 2020 SCC 16 (CanLII)

Contracts of adhesion, or standard form agreements (SFAs) are oftentimes unfair. They are drafted by the stronger parties. Their provisions are dense and difficult to understand. The party signing does not have a say in their contents – they are take-it-or-leave-it agreements. They are usually lengthy and cannot feasibly be read in the short time it takes the parties to transact. Some of the more onerous terms are deeply embedded (hidden?) in the document. The contracts more often than not limit the liability of the drafting party at the expense of the other party. They ensure occupiers are not liable for negligence, including their own. And the list goes on.

We are not powerless against these contracts – common law and equitable doctrines protect weaker parties from harsh or onerous provisions. Is this enough? Probably not. Certainly the Supreme Court of Canada thought more should be done to protect weaker parties against SFAs in the case of Uber Technologies Inc v Heller, 2020 SCC 16 (CanLII). But instead of leaving this job to the legislature, as it should have, it expanded the reach of the doctrine of unconscionability without providing any substantial guidance or principles, thereby furnishing lower courts with an enormously powerful weapon to use against SFAs.

Read More

Page 2 of 17

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén