Insider

The Rule Against Perpetuities is a notoriously difficult area of law–able to confound even the sharpest legal minds. The C.E.D. provides a clear and concise explanation of this topic, deftly illuminating the logic behind the Rule. Behold!

D'Souza v. Linton | 2013 CarswellOnt 282 | Ontario Superior Court of Justice | Judgment: January 7, 2013

Casses v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. | 2013 CarswellBC 1094 | British Columbia Court of Appeal | Judgment: May 1, 2013

[a] long, difficult and often bloody struggle between the Crown and Parliament culminated in the victory of the Parliamentarians in the so-called “Glorious Revolution”

Rodriguez Hernandez v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) | 2012 CarswellNat 4784 | Federal Court | Judgment: December 4, 2012

In other words, these groups or individuals seek to avoid income tax obligations without any proper legal foundation.

Trynchy v. Gabriel | 2012 CarswellAlta 2022 | Alberta Court of Queen's Bench | Judgment: November 2, 2012

Emotion is an "instinctive ... feeling as distinguished from reasoning or knowledge" and is therefore subjective

Caligula, who directed an important notice be written in a small hand and posted in a dark corner of Rome so it really came to no one’s attention.

Human Rights is a rich and complex area of law within Canadian jurisprudence. One distinguishing feature of human rights legislation is its “quasi-constitutional” status, which is associated with special rules of statutory interpretation. This post provides a concise summary of those rules, as well as a discussion of constitutional aspects of human rights law, and the burden of proof on human rights claimants.

The death of Dr. Henry Morgentaler on May 29, 2013 has prompted many to revisit R. v. Morgentaler, the seminal 1988 decision in which Section 251 of the Criminal Code, Canada’s longstanding abortion law, was struck down as unconstitutional. The case is so significant in part because it represents one of the Supreme Court’s earliest attempts at defining the scope of Section 7 of the Charter, which guarantees the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. Ultimately, the Court concluded that Section 251 was a violation of security of the person. Thereafter, Canada’s legal landscape was dramatically changed. This week’s Digest of the Week contains summaries of the three majority opinions and the dissent that emerged from this landmark case.

Over the course of the three and a half years of play, one particular manoeuvre of the dealer drew frequent comments and complaints.