Your search

This work explores the question of how professionalization of patent agency along with its accompanying discourse has affected the direction of international patent institutions and networks. Professionalization of patent agency is defined as the government regulation of who may provide patent agent services to the public through the form of professional licensing requirements. To the extent that professionalization of patent agency has created a unique discourse of patent agency, to what degree and in what respects has this discourse transformed global patent institutions? In particular, has this discourse created a form of ‘epistemic’ or ‘cultural’ capture that has the effect of delegitimizing other valid forms of discourse? Through the application of several methodologies, namely, historical analyses, doctrinal analyses and qualitative empirical work, this study attempts to create what epistemic capture theorists refer to as a capture story, which is a story of how cultural influences of a regulated industry – here, professional patent agents – come to dominate the regulatory discourse to the exclusion of other viable, competing conceptions of what constitutes the public interest. This work concludes that professionalization of agency within the patent system is interconnected with enablement as an organizing principle of the patent system as a social institution. Prior to professionalization, when agency was democratized throughout the patent system, so too was democratized enablement a guiding principle of the patent system. The formation of a unique, legitimized professional patent agent epistemic community has resulted in diminishing the democratization of enablement across the patent system as a social institution. This work discusses several of the practical and normative implications of the diminishing value of democratized enablement. Finally, this work concludes with a discussion of the future prospects of agency within the patent system.

This qualitative study examines the complex interplay between the financial regulatory landscape and financial inclusion in a post-war jurisdiction. The global debates surrounding the deployment of financial inclusion initiatives virtually center on many legal and non-legal discourses, thereby making this a significant study. This study further identified specific thematic strands which highlight how financial inclusion is regulated and administered in a post-war jurisdiction by amplifying the lived experiences of individuals that are caught between the regulatory structure of financial inclusion. In particular, this doctoral research further examines how stakeholders engaged in financial inclusion have shaped the financial regulatory landscape. By applying a local level analysis of banking practices coupled with daily lived experiences, this research aimed to explore the strengths and limitations in the delivery of financial inclusion efforts. The study employed an interdisciplinary approach, which created narratives contextualized within the jurisdiction this study was conducted. This study seeks to present theoretical and legislative developments that uncover how banking law is interlaced in policy and cultural formation using financial inclusion as an illustrative vehicle. This study is further designed to showcase theoretical and legal influences, as well as a guide in navigating this legal research project by providing original contributions of the fieldwork conducted in a post-war jurisdiction.

The legal profession throughout most of Canada enjoys the privilege of self-regulation and a (purported) monopoly over legal practice. In Ontario, the Law Society must regulate so as to facilitate access to justice and protect the public interest. Critics argue that self-regulation is anti-competitive it allows the profession to control the market for legal services, increasing the cost of services and restricting access to them and serves professional interests over the public interest. The Ontario government introduced paralegal regulation to enhance access to justice. Regulation would increase consumer choice and the competence and affordability of non-lawyer legal service providers. The Law Society agreed to regulate paralegals in the public interest. After decades of discord between lawyers and non-lawyers, paralegal regulation was implemented in 2006. Many were opposed to lawyers regulating competitors. For some, it was akin to having the fox watch over the chickens. It also confounded self-regulation the legal profession now regulating itself and others. Paralegals are licensed to provide legal services directly to the public independent of lawyers but they are regulated by lawyers. The Law Society has declared paralegal regulation a success and itself the right choice of regulator. This dissertation explores whether paralegal regulation has increased access to justice, as the government promised and Law Society claims. It examines the history of the legal profession and Law Society in Ontario and the events leading to paralegal regulation. Using both market control and the cultural history of the legal profession as theoretical underpinnings, and through the lens of access to justice, this dissertation analyzes the Law Societys exercise of regulatory authority over paralegals and undertakes empirical research of paralegal representatives at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal. This dissertation concludes that paralegal regulation has done little to increase access to justice and that self-regulation and the Law Societys manner of regulating are barriers to increased access to justice.

Negotiating Feminism traces the reflection of the feminist “sex wars” in contemporary debates about campus sexual violence reform in Canada and the United States – what Emily Bazelon has called the “return of the sex wars” on college and university campuses. Negotiating Feminism focuses on one issue in the return of the sex wars – the role of interests-based, consensual dispute resolution processes, including mediation and restorative justice, in changing the conditions that foster campus sexual violence on the ground. The political polarization of the return of the sex wars has prevented some colleges and universities from engaging with policy models that challenge the primacy of campus adjudication and other rights-based options. Complainants of campus sexual violence should be empowered to access any form of dispute resolution under law, whether rights-based or interests-based, that accords with their personal conception of justice. Empowering complainants in this way does not mean that colleges and universities should be willfully blind to the reality of substantive inequality that campus adjudication is intended to address. Yet acknowledging this reality should not require colleges and universities to essentialize about the nature of women’s injury or overdetermine the role of gendered power imbalances in producing the content of women’s interests in resolving their complaints otherwise. Feminist law and policymakers should negotiate between these competing imperatives and come together by instituting what Negotiating Feminism calls the “plural process” model of campus sexual violence reform. The plural process model recognizes that both rights-based and interests-based options can promote substantive equality for women and other historically marginalized groups – and it seeks to bring about that change.

A vast literature has considered the proactive use of law as a tool by progressive social movements, but far less attention has been paid to the way activists respond to involuntary engagement with law as a result of repression and criminalization. This dissertation explores the legal support infrastructure of grassroots protest movements in Canada and the US by tracing the evolution of contemporary activist legal support through two periods. The tactic of jail solidarity and an emerging legal collective model are highlighted as the key features of the global justice organizing era (1999-2005) while in the second age of austerity era (2008-2018), I discuss evolving approaches to law collective work in various protest movements and highlight a renewed focus on anti-repression as a framing praxis of both organizing and legal support. Grounded in my own activist legal support work over more than two decades, this research rests on data arising from detailed interviews and analysis of more than 125 archival documents. I develop two areas of inquiry. First, I trace critiques of movement lawyering in the legal literature to demonstrate that those critiques are often shared by legal support organizers. Divergent opinions on the appropriate role of lawyers and norms of professional ethics in law collective practice reflect long-standing contradictions in progressive lawyering practice. Accordingly, I argue that the legal work of non-lawyer activists ought to be understood as a complementary if also sometimes disruptive model of movement lawyering. Second, I demonstrate that an analysis of radical legal support speaks to the post-arrest experiences of protesters and the impact of such repression on mobilization phenomena largely absent from the literature on state repression of social movements. I consider this dynamic through the lens of legal mobilization, arguing that the pedagogical work of law collectives, understood as a site of social movement knowledge production, plays a significant role in mediating the complex relationship between repression and mobilization. I conclude by exploring the legal consciousness of activist legal support organizers and argue that the education and organizing praxes of law collectives are evidence of a form of prefigurative, counter-hegemonic legality.

This dissertation delves into the legal and labour history of Hashemite Iraq (c. 1921-1958) to explore the role international law and its institutions played in Iraqs state formation, as well as, the imperial control of the semi-peripheral region of the Middle East. By highlighting the historical specificity of the semi-periphery in international legal history, it shows how Iraq was a laboratory for experimentation with the concept of sovereignty. A unique doctrine of semi-peripheral sovereignty was skillfully developed by the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations in Geneva and embedded in the 1930 Anglo-Iraq Treaty to ensure Iraqs independence in 1932 maintained geopolitical and imperial interests that were specific to the region, especially the extraction, production and transportation of Iraqi oil to the Mediterranean. The material effects of this international legal doctrine on the everyday lives of working class Iraqis is traced by looking at how it intersected with British imperial law, land law, the transnational law of oil concessions and pipeline agreements, criminal law and emergency law. The spaces and semi-colonial enclaves of capitalist production and trade of the oil fields in Kirkuk, the railways in Baghdad and the Port of Basra, and their corresponding governing structures are then detailed in micro-histories with the aim of analyzing the manner in which the oil, port and railway workers organized against the semi-colonial and imperial legality that was imposed upon them. The dissertation ends with an analysis of the massive 1948 Wathba uprising against the revision of the 1930 Anglo-Iraq Treaty. The Wathba, successfully prevented the re-imposition of imperialism in Iraq, and would turn into the seed of the July Revolution in 1958. It is situated here within the wider history of decolonization in the Third World to advance a novel methodological approach of the conjuncture to understand anti-colonial and labour agency in relation to international legal history. This study illustrates that undertaking a conjunctural analysis illuminates how the agency of the ordinary peoples of the Third World influenced international legal transformation. The doctrine of semi-peripheral sovereignty and all juridical forms of semi-colonialism would be unequivocally rejected through the Iraqi contribution to the drafting of the 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. This dissertation therefore reveals the unique constitutive relationship between international law, imperialism, and capitalism in the semi-peripheral Middle East, while maintaining the importance of integrating the history of class formation, agency and labour into international legal history. The material effects of this international legal doctrine on the everyday lives of working class Iraqis is traced by looking at how it intersected with British imperial law, land law, the transnational law of oil concessions and pipeline agreements, criminal law and emergency law. The spaces and semi-colonial enclaves of capitalist production and trade of the oil fields in Kirkuk, the railways in Baghdad and the Port of Basra, and its corresponding governing structures are then detailed in micro-histories with the aim of analyzing the manner in which the oil, port and railway workers organized against the semi-colonial and imperial legality that was imposed upon them. The dissertation ends with an analysis of the massive 1948 Wathba uprising against the revision of the 1930 Anglo-Iraq Treaty. The Wathba, successfully prevented the re-imposition of imperialism in Iraq, and would turn into the seed of the July Revolution in 1958. It is situated here within the wider history of decolonization in the Third World to advance a novel methodological approach of the conjuncture in relation to understanding anti-colonial and labour agency in international legal history. This dissertation illustrates that undertaking a conjunctural analysis illuminates how the agency of the ordinary peoples of the Third World influenced international legal transformation. The doctrine of semi-peripheral sovereignty and all juridical forms of semi-colonialism would be unequivocally rejected through the Iraqi contribution to the drafting of the 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. This dissertation therefore reveals the unique constitutive relationship between international law, imperialism, and capitalism in the semi-peripheral Middle East, while maintaining the importance of integrating the history of class formation, agency and labour into international legal history.

Workers with temporary immigration status have become the economic reality in several countries, as these workers provide a temporally mobile, cheap workforce that is responsive to economic vicissitudes and anti-immigration sentiment. Temporary foreign workers (TFWs) in low-wage sectors such as agriculture are tied to a single employer, have no access to their family and to permanent residence, and face overwhelming barriers in accessing justice. TFWs spend years residing and working outside of their country of nationality and are unable to be self-sovereign agents either in their countries of origin (because of lack of residence) or in their countries of sojourn (because of lack of nationality). While there have been instances where TFWs were able to make individual legal claims for labor violations in the country of sojourn, collective mobilization against the TFW program itself is exceptional. Collective mobilization represents acting as (partial) citizens, as the claims resemble self-determination claims on behalf of the entire TFW collectivity. How do TFWs and their allies, against all odds, mobilize the law to make collective claims and produce citizenship from below?In this research, I critically examine Israel and Canada, countries that have very similar TFW programs in agriculture but represent two contrasting types of legal mobilization against these programs. Israel is a case of “top-down” constitutional litigation where the results were court-ordered changes to the TFW program. Canada represents a case of legal mobilization “from below” where law is used subversively as a tool for larger political action. What explains the different pathways to legal mobilization in Israel and Canada?In addition to contributing new empirical data and theoretical conceptualizations of the different ways in which the law can be mobilized, my dissertation combines legal mobilization and social movement theories to offer an analytical framework to understand what affects the type of legal mobilization. TFW mobilization is situated in two broad social movements, labor movements and migrant rights/citizenship movements. I frame legal mobilization in the TFW context as a form of anti-hegemonic, contentious collective action and show the complex interactions between the political and discursive environment (political opportunity structure), the legal environment, and the support structure for mobilization (resource organizations).I show that despite barriers to access and courts' unwillingness to overturn immigration law, the law can be collectively mobilized on behalf of TFWs. The pathways to legal mobilization depend on legal opportunities and type of resource support. Constitutional litigation is initiated by cause-driven lawyers or legal organizations, but their framing of issues is constrained. Grassroots, solidarity organizations, in contrast, use the law as a tool for the broader goals of worker mobilization and social change. With the support of such organizations, TFWs are able to articulate their demands collectively, engage in direct action and political mobilization, and demand changes to the TFW program. My comparative historical analysis of Israel and Canada shows that legal and discursive strategies, however, depend on the historical political legacies and current political and economic environments. Elite power and ideological discourses are entrenched and distributed in the context of TFW programs. Political contestation impacts constitutional challenges as well as grassroots mobilization. My dissertation further adds to citizenship theory in three ways. First, it disrupts prevalent myths about the agency of TFWs and their lack of rights consciousness. Second, it offers the possibilities for meaningful change to TFW programs and advances an agentic theory on access to citizenship. Lastly, it adds grist to the conception of “citizenship from below” through the evidence of jurisgenerative practices of TFWs.

The residential school legacy is one of the darkest chapters in Canadian history. From the mid-1850s to 1996, thousands of Aboriginal children were taken from their homelands and placed in residential schools. Taken against their will, many dreaded attending these schools. Some attended for as long as ten to fifteen years, only to be strangers in their own communities upon their return. In the past thirty years, survivors began disclosing the loneliness, confusion, fear, punishment and humiliation they suffered within these institutions, and also reported traumatic incidents of sexual, physical or emotional abuse. These childhood traumas still haunt them today. This dissertation examines the four compensation processes (Litigation, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Independent Assessment Process and the Common Experience Process) used by survivors to determine whether the compensation payments made to them assisted in reconciliation of their residential school experience. To complete an analysis of the processes, twenty-four residential school survivors from Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia were interviewed about their experiences with one or more of the compensation processes. The study begins with a historical overview of the residential school legacy and continues with the residential school healing movement that initiated and finalized a negotiated settlement agreement for all living survivors. This dissertation provides a unique perspective to the residential school legacy by using a cultural framework, Anishinabe teachings and concepts to share the voices of residential school survivors. The pivotal Anishinabe teaching within this study comes from The Seventh Fire Prophecy. This prophecy states that: “If the New People will remain strong in their quest, the Waterdrum of the Midewiwin Lodge will again sound its voice”. In this dissertation the residential school survivors are the New People. As the dissertation unfolds the author utilizes various Anishinabe concepts to illustrate how the compensation processes failed to assist the New People to reconcile with their residential school experience. This study presents a medicine wheel understanding of reconciliation and the Residential School Legacy. It concludes with an important message to the second and third generation survivors to continue the reconciliatory efforts that the New People introduced. It is crucial that the children and grandchildren of the New People begin the reconciliation process not only for themselves but for the next seven generations.

Drawing on the fields of human rights and public health, this research explores the covert administration of medication: the concealment of medication in food or drink so that it will be consumed undetected. Adopting a rights-based approach, it explores multiple understandings of the impact of the practice on inpatients' rights-experiences. Relying on critical approaches, it also explores the practice's underlying socio-political-legal structures. The common themes of policies, protocols or guidelines that govern its practice in Ontario are identified. Focus groups and individual interviews were held with three groups of stakeholders (nurses, legal experts and psychiatrists), relying on fictional clinical scenarios. Few policies, protocols or guidelines govern the practice in Ontario's psychiatric settings. The practice impairs access to knowledge by patients and substitute decision-makers. It also precludes healthcare practitioners' access to information about side effects and underlying reasons for medication refusal. It may interfere with therapeutic relationships and patients' meaningful recovery as they transfer from hospital without knowledge of the fact of the covert medication. It may be characterized as autonomy restoring since patients may become capable of making treatment decisions after having received the medication surreptitiously. Covert medication reflects an inflexible approach to capacity determination; it is distinguishable from approaches that imagine capacity as able to be fostered with support. It is primarily concerned with the management of "risky" inpatients in the short-term. The practice relies on a faith that medication will be effective, deferring to medical decision-making. While covert medication is understood to have "something to do" with rights, there is confusion about how those rights play out on the ground. Institutional silences underlie and reinforce the practice. This research will support the development of effective, safe and appropriate approaches to treatment non-adherence that maximize patient dignity. Most pressing, this research concludes that the covert administration of medication warrants an overt discussion.

This paper argues that the principles articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Gladue and re-iterated in R. v. Ipeelee are being interpreted and implemented at the bail phase in a manner that exacerbates, rather than ameliorates the systemic failures of the criminal justice system in its dealings with Aboriginal people. Aboriginal people are grossly over-represented in Canadian prisons including those being detained in remand custody. It is now settled that the principles expressed in Gladue are applicable outside of the context of sentencing and in many jurisdictions have been found to be applicable to judicial interim release proceedings. Reviewing the existing bail jurisprudence involving Aboriginal accused persons, I uncover the ways that Gladue is being applied and misapplied. I also consider how the current crisis in the bail system in Canada disproportionately impacts Aboriginal people and how judicial consideration of Gladue and bail has not alleviated this crisis. The paper concludes with a proposal for a more robust framework for the interpretation of Gladue in judicial interim release proceedings.

Is litigating the best interests of a child a contradiction in terms? This portfolio dissertation asks this question with regard to child custody and access disputes, in which separated parents contest for the rights and responsibilities of parenthood. It is axiomatic that children's interests are doctrinally supreme when their parents litigate about them, but do civil procedure and settlement practices in these cases also put children first? The dissertation responds to this research query using quantitative and qualitative empirical methodology. It draws both on a statistical analysis of reported cases and on the author's interviews of family law professionals in Toronto and New York City. The empirical findings are contextualized in a review of the relevant doctrine and scholarship from the legal and mental health disciplines. The first two articles make positive and normative claims about custody and access litigation in developed common-law jurisdictions; the remaining three focus on the settlement-seeking procedures which family courts apply to these cases. The Conclusion to the Portfolio draws from the articles to argue that, while litigating the best interest of a child is not a contradiction in terms in every custody or access case, the contours of the existing system are more reflective of adult interests and resource constraints than they are of children's interests. A family court is necessarily a civil justice system in the common law tradition, and can therefore only ever be a weak and inefficient servant of children's interests. However, the Portfolio does call for a cost-neutral procedural reform in the shape of a "grand bargain" between judges and parents. If parents yield power to judges within the adjudicative courtroom, and if judges in turn yield power to parents within the settlement-seeking conference room, the system will be brought more in line with its noble aspiration to pursue the best interests of the children involved.