Subscribe by RSS

Backing the BCE Board

Anita Anand
Friday, December 19, 2008

Today, the Supreme Court of Canada released its long-awaited judgment in the BCE case.  The Supreme Court had previously indicated that it would overturn the decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal but today we found out the bases on which it did so.  We also found out the current thinking from the Court on directors duties.  The gist of the Court’s decision is two fold.  First, it upheld the principle that the board owes its fiduciary duty to the corporation not to any one particular stakeholder group.  In addition, the Court held that there is a distinction between the legal considerations applicable to the oppression remedy and CBCA arrangements that the Quebec Court of Appeal had overlooked.  The Supreme Court held true to the wording of the corporate statute with perhaps one exception: it introduced the concept of the corporation as a “responsible corporate citizen”, thereby raising questions about what this term means in terms of directors’ duties generally.

What Else Do Canada and Israel Have in Common (Copyright Related)?

Ariel Katz
Wednesday, December 17, 2008

In my latest post I noted that Canada and Israel share a common copyright heritage. Here's a trivia question: What else, copyright related, do Canada and Israel have in common?

Answer below...

Answer:  The melodies of both countries' national anthems  (choose whichever term you like)

  • are inspired
  • borrow
  • build on
  • plagiarize
  • steal
  • pirate

previous popular musical works of their time.

"O Canada", composed by Calixa Lavallee in 1880, bears a great resemblance to the "Marsch der Priester" (March of the Priests), from Mozart's The Magic Flute.  Click to listen:

O Canada

 

Sunshine Cases of a Little Constitution

Ed Morgan
Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Prof. Ed Morgan has posted a new paper to SSRN entitled "Sunshine Cases of a Little Constitution." The paper can be downloaded here.

Tax-Free Savings Accounts

Benjamin Alarie
Friday, December 12, 2008

I've posted a new paper on SSRN that analyzes the new "tax-free savings accounts" that are soon to be available in Canada (they will be coming to a financial institution near you in January).  You may recall having seen one (or more) of the now ubiquitous advertisements for the accounts.  Here's the abstract of the paper:

Canada's Constitutional 'Black Box'

Lorraine Weinrib
Friday, December 12, 2008

In a commentary in the National Post, Professors Lorraine Weinrib and Lorne Sossin argue that the Governor-General's decision-making should be public and transparent in situations such as the recent request by the Prime Minister to prorogue Parliament ("Canada's constitutional 'black box'," December 11, 2008).

Last Thursday, Governor-General Michaelle Jean granted a request from Prime Minister Stephen Harper to prorogue Parliament until late-January. She thus protected the Conservative government from a confidence vote that would have likely toppled the minority government, and perhaps prompted her to invite a Liberal-NDP coalition, supported by the Bloc Quebecois, to form a government. We would like to be in a position to share with you the arguments that the Prime Minister submitted to the Governor-General and her reasons for accepting them.

Prorogation, Dissolution, and the Vicissitudes of Minority Government

David Schneiderman
Thursday, December 11, 2008

There is a disturbing trend in much of the commentary precipitated by the events of the last two weeks culminating in Governor General Michaël Jean’s decision to prorogue Parliament. Much of the commentary rightly notes that the decision to prorogue, and even to dissolve Parliament, is a prerogative and, therefore, a matter of discretion that rests solely with the Governor General. Most commentators appear to agree that this discretion enables the Governor General to actively intervene in Canadian political life, the only question remaining is in what direction. At that point, political preferences usually enter into the discussion and determine the way in which that discretion should be exercised.

Yet it should be apparent that the Governor General is expected to steer clear of political controversies and so should exercise her discretion in ways that minimize her meddling in Canadian Parliamentary affairs. The Governor General should be guided less by the dictates of political partisanship, then, and more by the principles of democracy and responsible government. The Governor General’s actions should be guided principally by considerations that do the utmost to respect the will of Parliament and, ultimately, the people. It is Parliament which, conveniently for the Governor General, is the barometer of the people’s will as expressed periodically through the electoral process.

Lessons From Our Most Recent “Constitutional Crisis”

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

On Friday, Dec. 5, 2008 the University of Toronto Faculty of Law hosted a panel discussion about the Governor-General's decision to prorogue parliament. The following is a summary of the remarks made by panelist Peter Russell.

Constitutional conventions
This has been a period of great uncertainty about some of the “unwritten” conventions of our constitution. Most of the principles and rules about operating our system of parliamentary democracy take this form. In the final analysis what these principles and rules are depends on all of us – on the people – so it is certainly good to see you who are here today and so many others concerned about these issues.

Was the Governor General's Decision to Prorogue Parliament Constitutional?

Lorne Sossin
Tuesday, December 9, 2008

On Friday, Dec. 5, 2008 the University of Toronto Faculty of Law hosted a panel discussion about the Governor-General's decision to prorogue parliament. The following is a summary of the remarks made by panelist Lorne Sossin.

In light of the presentations, questions and comments on the panel, there are three broad constitutional principles imperiled by the recent decision by the Governor General to prorogue Parliament and its fallout:

Was the Governor General's Decision to Prorogue Parliament Constitutional? Canada's Leading Scholars Weigh in on this Historic Ruling

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

On Friday, Dec. 5, 2008 the University of Toronto Faculty of Law hosted a panel discussion about the Governor-General's decision to prorogue parliament. The panel included leading constitutional scholars and politicians.

Many of the participants have expressed an interest in continuing the discussion, and will be posting a summary of their remarks from the panel directly to the faculty blog.

A webcast of the panel is now available: click here to view the webcast
Information regarding the panelists can be found here.

 

Constitutional Crisis or Democracy in Action

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

On Friday, Dec. 5, 2008 the University of Toronto Faculty of Law hosted a panel discussion about the Governor-General's decision to prorogue parliament. The following is a summary of the remarks made by panelist David Cameron.

I’ll be brief. I see no reason to take more time than Stephen Harper did in his weirdly pointless address to the nation on Wednesday night.

I will make four points, none of them on topic. When I initially agreed to speak I was told the subject would be something like “constitutional crisis or democracy in action?”, to which I probably would have answered both.

But as the planning for the session evolved, and events proceeded, the topic morphed into “Was the Governor General’s Decision to Prorogue Parliament Constitutional?” or something like that. To which I would probably answer yes and no.

However, since I expect my eminent legal colleagues to cover that topic like a blanket, I thought I would turn to something else, to some observations on the politics and implications of what the country is going through.

Four points.

Faculty Blog
Subscribe by RSS