Your search

Some cryptocurrency advocates are promoting the use of stablecoins as a common currency, arguing that this new currency could help the cost-of-living crisis and promote economic equality – particularly for young people. Law professor, money expert and SCP Fellow Dan Rohde is not convinced that crypto can help address economic inequality. In this explainer, he breaks down what stablecoins are and aren’t, and how to think critically about their promises.

Authored By: Pascale Chapdelaine (Ph.D, LLB)Dr. Pascale Chapdelaine is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Windsor. Thank you to the organizers and participants at the Festschrift Workshop held on December 15, 2023 at the Faculty of Law of the K.U. Leuven in honour of Dr. Geertrui Van Overwalle coinciding with her celebration as emeritus professor. In particular thank you to Esther Van Zimmeren, Amandine Léonard and Arina Gorbatyuk for inviting me to contribute to this Li

Authored By: Professor Wissam Aoun, Associate Professor & Member of Windsor Law  LTEC Lab and Caitlyn Massad, JD Candidate at Windsor Law1. INTRODUCTION Pharmascience Inc. v. Janssen Inc.[1] is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) this coming October. In Pharmascience, the SCC will revisit the decades old prohibition against patenting of methods of medical treatment. The case revolves around a fact pattern common to several recent ‘skinny label’ cases. What one sees in ‘skin

Supporters of the recently enacted bubble zone by-law in Toronto argue that the law is necessary to protect individuals, who are entering and leaving places such as synagogues and religious schools, from harassment and intimidation by protestors. While very little was said in these debates about the protection of “captive audiences” from speech they find objectionable, this concern is, I think, implicit in the claim that the speech of protestors, and more particularly pro-Palestinian protestors, is harmful.

On the anniversary of the Nakba, Asians in Canada must reaffirm solidarity with Palestinian brethren

A decade after the Toronto G20 summit, two mass class actions brought against the Toronto Police Service (TPS) by people caught up in kettles and/or imprisoned at a temporary detention center have been settled. After a detour to the Supreme Court of Canada – the TPS unsuccessfully attempted to have the lawsuits dismissed – a settlement which includes $16.5 million in financial compensation, expungement of arrest records, and “a public police acknowledgement regarding the mass arrests and the conditions in which protesters were detained” has been reached. The settlement still needs to be approved by Ontario’s superior court in October 2020, but there is no doubt that it is a victory – a rare example of police being held at least somewhat accountable in the aftermath of social movement repression. Beyond the TPS’s “acknowledging” of their misdeeds, however, it is worth thinking through the potential impact of this settlement – and especially the specifics of the TPS’s “commitment to detailed changes regarding policing of future public demonstrations” – on street protest and broader organizing in Toronto.

Until recently, parties to a contract did not owe any obligations of good faith towards each other in Canadian common law jurisdictions. There was no obligation of good faith in the negotiation process, none in the performance of contractual obligations, and only limited such obligations in contract termination.[1] There was, for example, no obligation not […]

Each year, over 100,000 Ontarians seek justice from Tribunals Ontario. This group of people —the size of a small city— includes tenants, landlords, motor vehicle accident victims seeking insurance benefits, people denied disability benefits, and those who believe that their fundamental human rights have been infringed. This group of 100,000 is significantly larger than the […]

National Newswatch: Canada's most comprehensive site for political news and views.

Beyond the immediate compromised situation into which Canada stumbled over arms sales, Canada should also have been able to play a more constructive role in the security dynamics in the region over the last decades.

Moving people into community will protect health, free up valuable resources, and reduce overcrowding for those who remain inside institutions—all part of preventing the spread of COVID-19

By: Joshua Sealy-Harrington PDF Version: (Dis)Proving Racism: A Rebuttal to Klippenstein’s Critical Review of the Law Society of Ontario’s Report on Challenges Facing Racialized Licensees Document …

The TWAIL Review (TWAILR) is intended as the first continuous publication dedicated to the TWAIL network and to furthering its aims.

By: Joshua Sealy-Harrington PDF Version: Confusing Equality with Tyranny: Repealing the Statement of Principles Matter Commented on: Law Society of Ontario Statement of Principles Tomorrow, the Law…

In the era of smart phones, creepshots, and sexual photos taken and shared without consent, the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R v Jarvis will be sure to shape the cultural landscape of what is now known as image-based abuse. The Court’s upcoming decision will determine when and where a person will be criminally liable for taking pictures of women and girls without their knowledge, for his or her sexual gratification. In this three-part blog post, we discuss three central issues that aros

By: Joshua Sealy-Harrington and David Rennie PDF Version: Making Sense of Aboriginal and Racialized Sentencing Cases Commented On: R v Laboucane, 2016 ABCA 176 (CanLII); R v Kreko, 2016 ONCA 367 (C…

By: Joshua Sealy-Harrington and Marita Zouravlioff PDF Version: Trinity Western Decision Fails to Clarify Approach to Balancing Conflicting Charter Rights Case Commented On: Trinity Western Univers…

In R v DLW, 2016 SCC 22 the Supreme Court of Canada split on whether the criminal offence of bestiality requires “penetration.” The majority judgment held that bestiality requires penetration and, on that basis, held that a dog licking a vagina is not bestiality. In contrast, the dissenting judgment held that bestiality does not require penetration and, accordingly, held that a dog licking a vagina is bestiality. In this post, we first summarize the factual and legislative background in DLW and the reasons of the majority and dissenting judgments. Second, we critique the majority judgment for: (1) its unpersuasive reliance on judicial deference; and (2) its overstated claim that “buggery” (the precursor to bestiality) had a clear meaning. Lastly, we critique both the majority and dissenting judgments for their reliance on: (1) imprecise sexual terms which fail to bring clarity to bestiality law; and (2) an unimaginative privileging of cisgender, procreative heterosexuality that perpetuates harmfully conservative understandings of human sexuality.