By: Patrick A Thomson*
In R. v. Bingley, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that subsection 254(3.1) of the Criminal Code allows for Drug Recognition Experts to be qualified as expert witnesses without fully complying with the rules for admitting expert testimony set forth in R v. Mohan. This interpretation of s. 254(3.1) carries a substantial risk of wrongful conviction and is more than likely unconstitutional.
Should the Canadian Legal Profession Embrace Mandatory Pro Bono Work as a Pillar of Increased Access to Justice?
By: Jayme Anton*
Is the idea of mandatory pro bono work for lawyers an internal inconsistency? I argue that such a proposal strengthens the privileged status and service-oriented nature of the legal profession.
By: Matthew Barnes*
This is a comment on Thorsteinson Estate v. Olson, a 2016 decision from the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. I focus on the Court's decision to deny an application by Marjorie Thorsteinson's Estate to sever a joint tenancy.
By: Jonathan Milani*
In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered two decisions concerning the interplay of the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and provincial vehicle licensing regimes. In rendering its decisions, the Court altered the federal paramountcy test. I argue that the changes to the test are inappropriate.
By: Evan Hutchison*
This comment considers the effect of accrediting TWU's law school on prospective LGBT law students.