Subscribe by RSS

Aboriginal Economic Development Summit

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

On May 1, 2008, the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, in partnership with the Rt. Hon. Paul Martin, hosted a summit entitled “Developing Aboriginal Economies.”  The summit was a one-day symposium featuring two roundtables with a diverse group of panelists.  The goal of this summit was to provide a forum for new ideas and new approaches to economic development in Aboriginal communities.

The proceedings of this summit were recorded and can now be viewed over the web.

Visit the summit webpage to watch the webcasts.

 

Discussion of Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick

Friday, June 13, 2008

On June 4, 2008, a Roundtable was held at the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto on the Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick decision from the Supreme Court of Canada (handed down in March of 2008).  The aim of the Roundtable was to explore the implications of this decision for the development of Administrative Law, and in particular the Court's wide-ranging discussion of the standard of judicial review of administrative action, deference, and the applicability of procedural fairness to public office holders.

The background material for the Roundtable, including the Dunsmuir case, the facta filed at the Supreme Court, and some early commentaries are available for download at: http://www.law.utoronto.ca/conferences/dunsmuir.html.

Below, we have prepared a summary (in PDF format) of the themes, ideas and arguments raised during the Roundtable in the hopes that it will serve as a catalyst for further discussion and debate.  We invite comments on any aspect of the discussion which might interest readers of this blog.

 

Mutual Misunderstanding in Contract

Benjamin Alarie
Wednesday, June 11, 2008

I have just posted a new paper on SSRN, entitled Mutual Misunderstanding in Contract, which I will be presenting at a conference in Tel Aviv early next week.  The paper is still in draft form, so I particularly welcome comments, questions, or suggestions for improving it.  Here's the abstract:

The Significance of Khadr - Part II

Sujit Choudhry
Monday, May 26, 2008

In my previous post, I talked about the new ground broken by Khadr.  In this post, I want to identify and offer preliminary reflections on some important questions raised by the judgment.  First, though, full disclosure: I was counsel for the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association in the appeal.  Second, a disclaimer: these views are strictly my own.

To recall, in my last post, I wrote

Suresh established what we termed the “doctrine of constitutional complicity”, which holds that Canada is constitutionally liable for human rights abuses committed by foreign states which occur outside of Canada when (a) such abuses would violate the Charter had they occurred in Canada at the hands of the Canadian government; and (b) Canada has been complicit in the human rights abuses of the foreign state.

The Significance of Khadr: Part I

Sujit Choudhry
Saturday, May 24, 2008

Khadr is a highly significant judgment, for a number of different reasons.  For Omar Khadr himself, the Court held that he has a constitutional right to the disclosure of the interrogations conducted by Canadian officials in Guantanamo Bay, some or all of which were shared with American authorities.  For the international campaign to close Guantanamo Bay, the Supreme Court has added its voice to the chorus of informed legal opinion in stating that the regime in Guantanamo Bay – at least at the time of the interrogations – violated the Geneva Conventions, which guarantee fundamental human rights to armed combatants.

But the judgment is potentially of much wider significance. Khadr is the latest in a line of cases in which the Court has been asked to set out the precise application of the Charter in situations where Canada cooperates with foreign governments in the national security context.  Canada works with foreign governments in different ways.  For example, it may share intelligence, which foreign governments may then act upon to arrest, detain, interrogate and even torture an individual – as tragically occurred in the case of Maher Arar.  In other situations, Canadian officials may themselves be abroad – such as the CSIS officers who interrogated Omar Khadr in Guantanamo Bay, or Canadian armed forces in Afghanistan.  Canada may also cooperate with foreign governments through extradition and deportation.

Backing the BCE Bondholders - Beyond Law and Contract

Anita Anand
Thursday, May 22, 2008

On May 21, 2008, the Quebec Court of Appeal reversed the lower court finding in the BCE Inc. case. BCE proposed an arrangement in which certain bondholders stood to be disadvantaged because the level of BCE's debt would be increased.  The higher level of debt would in turn decrease the value of the existing debt as well as occasion a loss of investment grade status. The Court of Appeal held that the bondholders' interests must be considered when the board is discharging fiduciary duties.  But the Court has pushed the concept of fiduciary duties into new territory, a move that seems to stretch existing law.

The Court conceives directors' fiduciary duties broadly, criticizing the BCE board for not considering how the plan of arrangement at issue might be unfair to bondholders.  The Court relies on the SCC decision in Peoples v Wise (SCC 2004). However, Peoples in my view misconceives fiduciary duties, thus creating a potential domino effect for future decisions like BCE. The problem with Peoples is that it interprets directors’ fiduciary duties as applying to a broad range of corporate stakeholders (creditors, suppliers, consumers, employees, enivronmental groups etc.), thus watering down the duty significantly: a duty owed to everyone is in effect a duty to no one.  But the BCE board was seeking to maximize shareholder value in a change of control transaction, something that most lawyers take to be settled law. 

Education, Culture and the Knowledge Economy Conference

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

On Friday, June 6, 2008 the Centre for Innovation Law and Policy will be hosting a conference on Education, Culture and the Knowledge Economy.

This event will be held at Flavelle House (78 Queen's Park, Bennett Lecture Hall) and will be open to the public, and free of charge.

Read more

 

"Can Legal Ethics Be Taught?" Symposium Webcast Now Available

Monday, May 12, 2008

On April 4, 2008, the new Centre for Professionalism, Ethics and Public Service hosted a major symposium, "Can Legal Ethics be Taught?", that brought together leading experts to discuss the teaching of legal ethics.

All sessions from this symposium were recorded on video and can now be viewed over the web.

Click here to watch the webcast of "Can Legal Ethics be Taught?"

 

Report on "The Future of Administrative Justice" Symposium

Thursday, May 8, 2008

A symposium on "The Future of Administrative Justice" was hosted by the Faculty of Law in January 2008. It explored the future of administrative justice by bringing together academics, participants in the tribunal sector and government policy makers to dialogue about improvements to administrative tribunals in Ontario and other jurisdictions.

A 28-page report on the symposium has now been released (May 2008), which summarizes the presentations and the roundtable discussion that wrapped up the day.

The keynote address was given by Lord Justice Robert Carnwath, Senior President of Tribunals, England and Wales. Read the keynote address (PDF).

The symposium was also recorded on video, and the each session of the symposium can be viewed online from the symposium web page. The web page also includes other useful papers and background material.

Webcast: Seminar on Differing Perspectives on the Gardasil/HPV-Vaccination Program in Ontario

Friday, May 2, 2008

The Faculty of Law, with the University of Toronto's Department of Public Health Sciences and Joint Centre for Bioethics, has initiated a seminar series on "Public Health Ethics, Law and Policy."

The inaugural seminar was held on the subject of "Differing Perspectives on the Gardasil/HPV-Vaccination Program in Ontario" at the Faculty of Law on March 20, 2008. It featured the following speakers:

  • Vinita Dubey, Associate Medical Officer of Health, Division of Communicable Diseases, Toronto Public Health
  • Anne Rochon Ford, Coordinator, Women and Health Protection Working Group
  • Angus Dawson, Visiting Faculty Fellow, Centre for Ethics, University of Toronto
  • Joanna Erdman, Co-Director, International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Programme
  • CHAIR, Trudo Lemmens, Associate Professor, Faculties of Law and Medicine

This seminar is now available to be viewed as a webcast.

Click here to watch the seminar over the web.

 

Faculty Blog
Subscribe by RSS