2016-2017 Editorial Board
Should the Canadian Legal Profession Embrace Mandatory Pro Bono Work as a Pillar of Increased Access to Justice?
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.
Tax law demands attention to detail. This post explains how certain details in Canada's Income Tax Act subtly discriminate against LGBTQ+ communities and posits that these details – however small – are worthy of our attention.
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.
In this comment, I discuss British Columbia's Civil Resolution Tribunal. Through a discussion of its processes, I argue that online dispute resolution should be expanded throughout Canada.
A comment on Rooney v. ArcelorMittal S.A., a 2016 decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal that held that the word “or” can be construed inclusively in legislative text.
This comment considers the effect of accrediting TWU's law school on prospective LGBT law students.
This is a comment on Sabean v. Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co., one of the first decisions issued by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2017. I argue that the SCC misconstrues the nature of SEF 44 agreements and decides the matter incorrectly.
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.
Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. University of Calgary: The Supreme Court's Administrative Law Equivocality
This is a comment on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. University of Calgary. I focus on the inconsistency in determining the appropriate standard of review evidenced by the Court and the need for clarity in this area of law.
On March 6, 2017, Chief Justice of Canada Beverley McLachlin came to Saskatoon to discuss the connection between mental health and the law. This comment situates McLachlin C.J.C.'s words in a broader discussion of how individuals with mental illness interact with the criminal justice system, and endorses her view that a multi-pronged approach is needed to address underlying issues.
Thomson, Patrick A.
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.