RSS FeedEducation Equity Award for Ontario Law Students
The following was sent to us by Western Law admin staff. Posted because it may be of interest to Ontario law students.
PURPOSE:
To encourage diversity and the attainment of equity in legal education and practice, the Law Society of Upper Canada has established an EDUCATION EQUITY AWARD funded by LexisNexis Canada Inc.
ELIGIBILITY:
To be eligible, a student must satisfy the following:
- be a member of a visible minority group, an Aboriginal person, or a person with a disability or a gay or lesbian student;
- be enrolled in either the second or third year of a JD program at a law school in Ontario;
- be in good standing at the law school (ie: maintaining a passing grades in each law school course).
SELECTION CRITERIA:
The recipient(s) will be chosen primarily on financial need with due consideration being given to academic achievement and/or devotion and commitment to community and/or university service.
APPLICATION PROCEDURE:
Contact your law school administration, as each school may have its own application procedure. The deadline for submitting an application at Western is Wednesday, April 1, 2009. Deadlines at other schools may vary.
A little more information can be found on Osgoode’s site here.
Top Tax Deductions
It’s tax time in Canada.
Here are the top tax deductions, picked by Peter Blank, Editor of The Kiplinger Tax Letter:
1.Pet food
2.Moving the family pet
3.A trip to Bermuda
4.Body oil
5.A private airplane
6.Babysitting fees
7.Breast augmentation
8.Landscaping
9.Free beer
10.Swimming pool
11.Girlfriend
Collective Licensing – a Solution to Copyright Lawsuits?
There has been increasing talk about voluntary collective licensing of media on the internet and it seems that at least some music labels are open to embracing it, albeit in limited ways. There is some opposition too.
The voluntary collective licensing solution, whereby a body collects a levy from all interested parties (in this case university students) and redistributes that money to record labels and artists, is a welcome step forward from the current (failing) strategy of litigation against those accused of copyright violation on the internet. The basic premise of the approach is what organization such as EFF have been advocating for some time, which is the legalization of distribution of copyrighted content on the internet (i.e. filesharing).
From an economic perspective, the creation of such content needs to be encouraged, so the content needs to be somehow protected…or does it? The only thing that has to be ensured is that those that create the content are fairly rewarded for it in accordance with the principles of perfectly competitive markets (most notably, no extra-normal profits). Schemes such as volutary licensing should ensure that content flows while people who create that content get fairly compensated.
If copyright holders still wish to generate extra-normal profits, they must take steps to create and market scarcities. In the past, this scarcity came in the form of on-demand performances (recordings of artists that can be viewed or heard on demand by the user). Now that these recordings may be freely distributed and copied, they are no longer scarce.
So what is scarce? Items and experiences demanded by fans and followers of given content (e.g. fans of musicians, movies, directors, actors, etc.). Merchandise (t-shirts with band logos for example), special interviews with directors, concerts, backstage access at concerts, special authentic album inserts, autographs, and other such opportunities are in great demand, cannot be copied and are entirely controlled by content owners and copyright holders.
If copyright holders were to make the bulk of their money off resources that are scarce, they may even find it profitable to give abundant content which is easily copied away for free and drum up demand for scarcities that they control. In this case, issues like voluntary licensing (and litigation) won’t even come up.
Man Not Criminally Responsible for Greyhound Bus Beheading; Victim’s Family Call for Punishment
Justice John Scurfield ruled Thursday that a man accused of beheading and cannibalizing a Greyhound bus passenger is not criminally responsible (“NCR”) due to mental illness.
Vince Li’s trial lasted only two days and heard from two expert witnesses, both psychiatrists, who testified he is mentally ill.
Both the prosecution and the defence argued that Li cannot be held criminally responsible because he was suffering from schizophrenia and believed God wanted him to kill the victim because he was a force of evil.
Li did not know the victim, Tim McLean, before sitting beside him on the bus, nor did he speak with him during several hours before the attack, which Scurfield J. described as ”grotesque”, ”barbaric”, and ”strongly suggestive of a mental disorder.”
A psychiatrist called by the prosecution Wednesday testified that Li cut up McLean’s body because he believed that the victim would come back to life and take revenge.
Having been found NCR, Li will be institutionalized without a criminal record. He will be reassessed every year by a mental health review board to determine if he is fit for release into the community.
McClean’s family are vowing to fight the law that allows those found NCR to be released into the community if they are rehabilitated. The family argues that these people should instead serve a minimum sentence in jail.
Howard Barbaree, Phil Klassen, and Padraig Darby, experts in the areas of law and mental health, have written a terrific commentary on this issue published in the Globe and Mail. In it, they argue that “Canada should be proud that it has developed a thoughtful, balanced and fair treatment system for mentally ill individuals who commit criminal acts.” The commentary is entitled, “The mentally ill who break the law deserve ‘all mercy and humanity’“.
In my own opinion, this proposed punishment, dubbed “Tim’s Law,” would be unconstitutional. It would violate a person’s Section 7 right to liberty under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
A finding of ‘not criminally responsible’, pursuant to Section 16 of the Criminal Code, is just that. A finding that the person is not a criminal.
The proposal by the McClean family is this: once released by a mental health review board, a person becomes capable of meeting the fault requirement for the past act that they commited while suffering from mental illness. The illogic of the proposed punishment is that a person who is now capable of appreciating right from wrong should be punished for what they did when they were not capable.
In common law countries such as Canada, the test of criminal liability is expressed by the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means that “the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty”. Not explicitly stated in this this phrase is the requirement that the actus reus (act) and mens rea (guilty mind) must overlap in time.
In the case of Li, if he recovers from schizophrenia and is released by a mental health review board, he will merely have the capability of having mens rea for present actions. This capability of having mens rea will obviously not overlap in time with his past actions. Therefore, the punishment proposed by the McClean family, although perhaps understandble on an emotional level, would be cruel and unconstitutional as it would be inflicted on a person who has committed no crime under law.
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 16:
No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11, s. 7:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Don’t Let Cybersquatters Steal Your Name
It would be an embarrassing surprise if you woke up one day to find that your personal website was now a dating service, or worse, selling porn or prescription drugs. Well that’s precisely what has happened to two Canadian MPs, and it highlights the importance of preemptively guarding your online identity in a situation where legal recourse will prove difficult if not futile.
As reported by the blogs Michael Geist and Canadian Trademark Blog, and now even The Sun, the domain names of two MPs have been snatched up by cybersquatters after the politicians failed to re-register them. Liberal whip Rodger Cuzner, Member of Parliament for Cape Breton-Canso, had his domain www.rodgercuzner.ca taken over by a bizarre dating-based entity. And at www.keithashfield.ca – former web home of Keith Ashfield, Conservative MP for Fredericton – one can order drugs such as the highly addictive oxycontin.
Cybersquatting, also known as domain squatting, refers to “bad faith registration of a domain name containing another person’s brand or trademark in a domain name.” Benefits for the cybersquatter come in the form of per-click revenue from ads on the repossessed site. Since 25% of all Internet traffic comes from direct navigation – i.e. people directly typing the domain name into the browser – cybersquatting can seriously damage the business and/or reputation of companies and individuals.
So what do you do when someone snags your domain? In Canada, notes Canadian Trademark Blog, one possible recourse is to try to take the name back through the Canadian Internet Registration Authority Dispute Resolution Policy. The problem for Mr. Ashfield and Mr. Cuzner, however, is that the complainant in this case must prove that his/her name qualifies as a “Mark,” and the definitions of “Mark” generally pertain to businesses and institutions, not individuals.
Another avenue of action is to go to the Uniform Domain Name Resolution Policy (UDRP) process administered by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the nonprofit organization that oversees domain name registration. This process is cheaper than legal action against the cybersquatter, but unlike legal action it cannot grant recovery of damages to the complainant. And there is the chance that the domain name in question will not be within the category of UDRP-affected top-level domain names (such as .com, .org, and some country codes).
The obvious solution to cybersquatting is to not let it happen in the first place. The plight of Mr. Ashfield and Mr. Cuzner is a reminder to regularly re-register your domain name before it’s seized by Cialis-peddling opportunists.
Comfortable in a kippa or a kaffiyeh
Published in today’s Star and reproduced here at the request of the authors.
Apartheid or no apartheid, what is going on across Canadian university campuses this week is not a mature and helpful way to promote dialogue and raise awareness.
In the standoffs that result year after year during this week, the people involved on both sides further alienate the public at large. For Osgoode Hall Law School students, this week means trying to avoid all the protests and counterprotests taking place around York University’s campus.
Thankfully, there are no protests at the law school and no posters to be found on any of its walls. The law school accommodates all of us so that everyone who walks around feels comfortable no matter his or her religion, political views or nationality.
As Osgoode students, we find the events at York to be strange. There is no discussion taking place, but rather two sides screaming at each other.
It is no surprise that these encounters frequently end with the police being called and both sides being charged by the university. It would be truly devastating if somewhere down the line these encounters result in violence or someone being seriously hurt, if that has not already happened.
At Osgoode Hall, the Jewish Law Students’ Association and Muslim Law Students’ Association may have different agendas and goals but we are all friends with each other. We do not all have to agree with each other’s views to respect one another.
When friends discuss politics, even such hot topics as Israel and Palestine, you are more open to listen to the other side and hear the points they are making. No megaphones, no flags, just two groups listening to what the other has to say.
Often, members of our associations have admitted that they have had to rethink certain issues and change certain opinions they held due to some of these open and collegial discussions.
Apartheid Week only seeks to divide the campus more than it already is. Whereas the JLSA and MLSA are open to working together to try to host events that speak to the students’ common goals, such as finding lawyers to come talk to our groups about difficulties maintaining our religious practices in the workforce, or issues of keeping kosher and Halal at law firms, the thought of something like this taking place at York is worrying.
Additionally, Osgoode Hall offers courses in both Jewish and sharia law. One need not be of any specific nationality or religion to attend, and it would not be considered strange if anyone took up the offer.
By learning about the history and background of the other, we see that other as a human being rather than part of an ideology, and the debate suddenly becomes more humane. The way that Israel Apartheid Week is conducted only seeks to exploit the differences between us and does not focus on any of the good that we can do together or that can be achieved by having proper discourse in a responsible, academic setting.
Until the activists on both sides of the debate realize this, nothing will be achieved and emotionally charged students will continue to yell and scream at each other while not being heard and achieving nothing.
Debate is never futile, but what goes on at York’s campus can hardly be referred to as anything resembling a debate. This only seeks to increase animosity between the two sides while ignoring the good that we can do together.
Let both sides cool off, and when they are ready to have a true dialogue, let it take place in a civil forum. Right now nothing is being gained, and so much is being lost.
We are thankful that the law school is a place where we can be comfortable walking around in both kippas and kaffiyehs, and where the two groups can talk and consider each other as friends.
We may be somewhat divided on the issue of Israel and Palestine, but we realize that there are reasonable arguments on both sides of the debate, and have tried to come to an agreeable position.
While this will not bring peace to the Middle East, it fosters an environment where everyone feels comfortable about who they are, something that is wholly lacking at York University currently.
Joseph Juda is co-president of the Jewish Law Students’ Association at Osgoode Hall Law School. Ahsan Mirza is president of the Muslim Law Students’ Association at Osgoode Hall Law School.
U.S. War in Afghanistan
Reproduced with permission of the author, produced here at the request of a reader.
HAUNTED BY BUSH’S WAR CRIMES
By Michael Haas
While additional American troops are being deployed to Afghanistan, George W. Bush’s misdeeds continue to handicap combat effectiveness there. Past disrespect to the country must be reversed by an immediate apology to the Afghan people and new orders to field commanders to follow the Geneva Conventions on the battlefield.
The U.S. war in Afghanistan began in 2001 as a war of aggression similar to the attack on Iraq. Prior to the start of that war on Oct. 7, 2001, the Taliban government in Kabul offered to hand over Osama Bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader, if the U.S. provided proof he was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
Bush deemed Kabul’s response insufficient and he attacked without adequately seeking an alternative or peaceful way to resolve differences…and the UN was not given a proper role. This attack violated Article 2 of the UN Charter that states “All members shall refrain…from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity…of any state…”
Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq attacked the United States, so neither war was based on self-defense. Preemptive war is not an accepted form of self-defense under international law.
The list of U.S. war crimes committed in Afghanistan alone documented in my book include the following:
Working on Briefs
Can Someone Say Spoliation of Evidence?
What do you call it when you destroy 92 interview tapes?
(And what do you say when you previously claimed there were only 2?)
Twilight on Eve of Copyright Suit
Later this month the double-disc DVD movie rendition of the Twilight book series will go on sale in Canada, sure to have fans swarming local retailers.
Chapters/Indigo is even hosting a special movie night, featuring contests, prizes, screenings, refreshments and trivia.
But here’s one question they probably won’t be asking that night: did the makers of the Twilight perfume (seriously) rip off the design from Nina by Nina Ricci flaco?
h/t Perez Hilton (don’t laugh)
Law School Scam?
This is hardly an endorsement, but rather fodder for discussion.
Probably produced by one of those “unsuccessful” lawyers.
Awards
Partners
sLaw- The Court
- British Columbia (Ministry of Education) v. Moore: Comparing Approaches to Comparator Groups in the Context of Anti-Discrimination Legislation
- So You Got Punched By a Cop: Disciplinary Action or Civil Suit? Issue Estoppel in Penner v. Niagara (Police Services Board), 2010 ONCA 616
- The ‘Return to Unanimity’ in Insite and Division of Powers Jurisprudence: Chief Justice McLachlin’s ‘Oversight’
- UofT
- UofC
- UofA
- LexMonitor
- blawg