Insider

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.

The “internet”, also known as the “world-wide web” is a bi-polar electronic Leviathan that has erupted on the world scene in the past two decades.

What's the difference between "referred to" and "considered" in KeyCite?

R. v. J. (A.) | 2013 CarswellBC 610 | British Columbia Provincial Court | Judgment: January 30, 2013

"[F]ile slack”, or unallocated space ... occurs after a file is deleted.

Amnesty International is an international non-governmental organization committed to the advancement of human rights across the globe.

Blue Mountain Resorts Ltd. v. Bok | 2013 CarswellOnt 1337 | Ontario Court of Appeal | Judgment: February 7, 2013

Factums and books of authorities are supposed to have buff covers:

Hincks v. Gallardo | 2013 CarswellOnt 109 | Ontario Superior Court of Justice | Judgment: January 7, 2013

[The secured creditor bank] says that the Debtor and its related corporation ... (the “Related Party”) were involved in a scheme [similar to the commonly known scheme of “cheque kitting”] whereby cheques drawn against the [bank] account were matched by fictitious deposits of cheques drawn on the Related Party's account.

[CRA] bulletin 1C73-21R9 ... [which] seems to be implicitly contending that “meal” and “lunch” are two different concepts ... [was] simply incorrect.