Blog

Kenneth Jull is an adjunct faculty member at the Faculty of Law.

In the anti-corruption field in Canada, the two leading cases are Niko and Griffiths Energy, which involved fines in the $10 million range following pleas of guilty.  The newest Canadian case is Nordion Canada Inc., but this case sends a different message.  Early self-reporting in this case was explicitly acknowledged in a settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and may have been a factor in a decision by the RCMP to not proceed with any charges under the Canadian Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.[1]

The SEC Order, released on March 3, 2016, states that the Commission considered remedial acts promptly undertaken by Nordion, Nordion’s self-reporting, and their cooperation afforded  the Commission staff.  “Nordion self-reported the conduct to authorities in both the U.S. and Canada, conducted a thorough internal review, identified the illegal conduct, voluntarily produced witnesses from Canada for interviews in the U.S. and translated documents, and implemented substantial remedial measures to prevent future violations.”[2] 

It is time legal scholars and practitioners follow suit to ensure our legal disputes are resolved with the best science has to offer.

By Jason Chin, adjunct professor

This commentary was first published in The Hill Times, Monday Nov. 30, 2015.

A recent large-scale study has found that a great deal of science admissible in Canadian and U.S. courts is unreliable. 

Brian Nosek of the University of Virginia and his colleagues recently attempted the herculean task of determining if modern psychological science is reliable. To do so, they tried to replicate the results of 100 psychology studies that were already published in prestigious peer-reviewed journals.

The collaboration’s findings, published in the journal Science and now widespread in the media, were disturbing. Less than half of the studies Nosek’s team redid worked out the same way as the originals, despite copying the prior works’ methodologies. Many think the problem is just as extensive in other areas of science.

Denise Réaume, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto

In the blogosphere, we’re advised not to respond to outrageous comments. "Don't feed the trolls" we're told; "they’re only trying to get a rise out of you"; "ignore them and they'll go away". Good advice, when the troll is an angry misfit holed up in his basement, but when the troll happens to be the Prime Minister, what's one to do? It should be obvious by now that Prime Minister Harper and the Conservative Party are exploiting the niqab issue to play to their political base and attract a few votes by stoking fear and division.

One wants to respond with rational argument. The arguments are straightforward. One wants to call the Prime Minister on his hypocrisy. His government’s record of anti-woman policies is clear.

Response seems necessary, but there is reason to fear that any response, no matter how measured and sound, risks feeding the trolls. Every plea for greater understanding, every appeal to our better nature, every effort to set the record straight is used to as evidence that the “barbarians” are not merely at the gates, but have breached them. Already the Prime Troll has announced an intention to ban niqab-wearing women from public service jobs.