Search

The number of nuisance and negligence tort claims in the US against “Big Oil” companies have grown significantly in the last five years. The Netherlands case of Milieudefensie et al v Royal Dutch Shell represents the first major success of such a claim internationally. While the US cases and Milieudefensie demonstrate starkly different approaches as to how to seek accountability from Big Oil for climate change harms, the increasing judicial engagement on these issues may mean the time is right for similar lawsuits in Canada. Three Canadian common law causes of action are examined: nuisance, negligence, and unjust enrichment. Defences and arguments which stem from society’s (and any potential plaintiff’s) acquiescence and authorization to allow the defendants’ conduct may present difficult barriers to success. This paper focuses on these types of defences, and argues that the responsibility of Big Oil for climate change harms should not be completely vitiated even if governments and plaintiffs have acquiesced, authorized, and arguably contributed to our climate crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Paper explores the potential for a Canadian defense of brainwashing in the context of battered spouses who commit crimes against third parties. Part I briefly discusses a working definition of "brainwashing" and the historical basis for this potential defense. Part II discusses the juridical basis for a new defense of brainwashing by examining the theory behind the proposed defense. This leads to an examination of the established defenses of necessity, duress, automatism, and diminished capacity, which in turn moves the discussion toward the feasibility of an affirmative defense of brainwashing through the concept of superimposed intent. Part III will explore the evolution of Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS) as a model for a new defense and will examine brainwashing and the battered spouse. The paper is limited to a subset of abused women termed victims of the "sexual sadist." Part IV concludes by analyzing the case of Karla Homolka and the future of a brainwashing defense. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public support for legal recognition of same-sex marriage increased markedly in Canada over the course of the 1990s. The argument of this paper is that a sequence of Supreme Court decisions in the realm of same-sex relationship recognition—and the legislative activity that followed as a result—played a pivotal role in shaping public opinion on this issue. It is argued that the impact of these institutions was twofold. First, by framing the issue as one of equal rights, the courts and legislatures induced many Canadians to weigh equality-related considerations more heavily in the formation of opinions on same-sex marriage. Second, legal recognition of same-sex relationships directly persuaded many Canadians that such recognition was legitimate. The paper uses data from the Canadian Election Studies for 1993, 1997 and 2000. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper demonstrates that an important and overlooked guide to understanding Canadian and US Supreme Court decision making in tax cases is the "default," or the party to whom the court will decide in favour of if tax language is ambiguous. While statutory interpretation methods influence the overall manner in which courts approach tax-law decision making, the default is a more concrete guide to evaluating Canadian and US Supreme Court decisions. The paper first explores the statutory interpretation approaches referenced in Canadian and American Supreme Court tax law cases. The paper then examines the histories of defaults, including the cases in which they emerged and the rationales given for their adoption. Third, based on original research, the paper concludes that defaults have a profound effect on income tax decisions by, in Canada, the Supreme Court favouring the taxpayer and, in the United States, the Court deferring to the Internal Revenue Service. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate change-related disputes, which often include novel, complex, or politically sensitive matters, have experienced a mixed reception by the courts. Defendants both in Canada and the United States have raised the issue of justiciability-- the question of whether a matter is of the quality or state of being appropriate or suitable for review by a court--with some success in attempts to have these cases summarily dismissed. The author reviews the types of climate change cases that have been launched, examines the US and Canadian laws of justiciability, analyzes the paths in which the caselaw regarding justiciability in these countries is headed, and suggests how these developments will impact future climate change cases. This paper finds that Canadian courts may be increasingly using justiciability as a means to avoid addressing climate change issues--just as US courts may be beginning to take a more progressive approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlighting the family home's significance as shelter this paper challenges the prevailing view of the demands of the equality guarantee in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms regarding unmarried cohabitants. In Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Walsh, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the claim that it was discriminatory to restrict rules dividing matrimonial property to married couples. By contrast, on many views it is discriminatory to exclude cohabitants from a support obligation. Scholars and judges assume that Walsh upholds all statutory rules regarding married spouses and their property including measures protecting the family home as shelter. But Walsh is best read narrowly leaving open the status of the latter rules. Viewed in the light of the support/property dichotomy the regime of the family home is akin to support. For family law and policy it is analytically useful to unbundle conjugal unions' effects. Scholars' reading of Walsh may connect to procedural features of Charter litigation and attitudes towards judicial power inconsistent with the common-law tradition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]