Your search
Results 576 resources
-
Evaluating Ombuds Oversight in the Canadian Access to Information Context: A Theoretical and Empirical Inquiry - 1
-
Corporate and governmental wrongdoing can affect large numbers of people. Such wrongdoing has an institutional victim as well; mass harm exerts enormous pressure on civil justice systems to provide efficient but fair procedures for redress. In this context, settlement of mass disputes is easily understood as a common good. Yet settlements involving hundreds or thousands of claims, often across jurisdictions, raise concerns about the substantive fairness of the compromise reached by lawyers, and the ability of the court system to ensure meaningful oversight. Unburdening the judicial system of mass claims comes at a price; how much rough justice are we prepared to accept? As the contributions to this book illustrate, the difficulty of balancing these competing interests is ubiquitous. Canadian class action settlement practice is no exception. In this chapter, I first explore the realities of this form of litigation, and to some extent debunk the myth that class actions inevitably result in large monetary settlements. I then turn to a brief discussion of the incentives and disincentives to settle large claims, for both plaintiffs’ lawyers and defendants. In Part III, I describe and critique the judicial framework for the approval of proposed settlements.
-
This paper considers the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Jones v Tsige. In this unprecedented case, a bank customer was allowed to sue a bank employee personally for the tort of invasion of privacy after the employee surreptitiously accessed her bank account. The case is significant due to its introduction, for the first time, of an American cause of action under the tort of invasion of privacy. In order to fashion the plaintiff with the personal remedy, however, the Court has failed to consider the application of the Tournier doctrine that has established that banks owe a duty of secrecy to their customers. In so doing, it is argued that the Court has undermined an established tradition of law that provides for a better approach in analyzing the issue from a banking perspective than that used by the Court.
Explore
Author / Editor
- Ali Hammoudi (7)
- Anneke Smit (15)
- Annette Demers (7)
- Beverly Jacobs (7)
- Brian Manarin (8)
- Christopher Waters (30)
- Claire Mummé (14)
- Dan Rohde (1)
- Danardo Jones (5)
- Daniel Del Gobbo (18)
- David Tanovich (45)
- Gemma Smyth (17)
- Irina Ceric (6)
- Jasminka Kalajdzic (36)
- Jeff Berryman (30)
- Jillian Rogin (3)
- Joshua Sealy-Harrington (23)
- Kristen Thomasen (9)
- Laverne Jacobs (26)
- Lisa Trabucco (2)
- Margaret Liddle (3)
- Meris Bray (1)
- Mita Williams (5)
- Muharem Kianieff (5)
- Myra Tawfik (10)
- Noel Semple (54)
- Pascale Chapdelaine (22)
- Paul Ocheje (4)
- Reem Bahdi (17)
- Richard Moon (38)
- Ruth Kuras (1)
- Sara Wharton (12)
- Shanthi E. Senthe (4)
- Sujith Xavier (32)
- Sylvia Mcadam (6)
- Tess Sheldon (20)
- Valerie Waboose (1)
- Vasanthi Venkatesh (16)
- Vicki Jay Leung (5)
- Vincent Wong (2)
- Wissam Aoun (16)
Resource type
- Blog Post (17)
- Book (41)
- Book Section (63)
- Conference Paper (2)
- Document (3)
- Film (2)
- Journal Article (189)
- Magazine Article (22)
- Newspaper Article (5)
- Preprint (206)
- Report (8)
- Thesis (17)
- Video Recording (1)