Your search
Results 3 resources
-
It has often been asserted that, upon proof of patent validity, copyright ownership or trademark infringement, a permanent injunction will be granted as a matter of course. The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in eBay v. Merc-Exchange, concerning the activities of a patent troll, has put into question the correctness of that assertion. The U.S. Supreme Court has restored the discretionary nature of the inquiry to grant a permanent injunction in intellectual property disputes, and requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that monetary remedies are inadequate. While there is no similar and definitive statement from Canadian courts, I argue that Canadian law largely mirrors the approach now adopted in the U.S. This approach is to be preferred as the best way to match appropriate remedy to the complex policy choices engaged in regulating intellectual property. It is also an approach to remedies endorsed in other areas of law by the Supreme Court of Canada.
-
I have been asked to provide an update on equitable remedies for breach of contract. Obviously, the dominant equitable remedy concerning breach of contract is specific performance; and in what follows I have focused upon that remedy. In addition, I have provided commentary on two related topics; one, the enforcement of keep open clauses; and two, the treatment of remedy stipulation clauses. I have not covered the enforcement of contracts by injunction. This presentation has come at an opportune time; as I am currently writing the second edition of my text on Equitable Remedies (Irwin Law) some of this material is drawn from those labours.
-
In Pro Swing v Elta Golf Inc the Supreme Court of Canada made passing reference to the functions of equity’s maxims. Other courts have made similar references; indeed, judicial mention of equity’s maxims occurs quite frequently. This is surprising given the dearth of academic commentary on equity’s maxims, and that little mention of the maxims now takes place in Canadian law school curricula. In contrast, open any of the equity texts of the 1800s and significant attention is accorded to equitable maxims. This article seeks to explore whether the concept of equity’s maxims, as against the content of the individual maxims themselves, serves any real purpose today. It starts by providing an historical evolution of the notion of equity’s maxims, noting in particular that they are now largely ignored in the United States of America but still have topicality, to widely varying degrees, in Commonwealth jurisdictions. It then explores three divergent functions that have historically been served by equity’s maxims. Next, it turns to three roles that may be fulfilled by equity’s maxims today. It concludes that equity’s maxims serve a minimal function today. They do, however, preserve the distinctness of equity’s methodology from the common law and do allow some explicit dialogue on morality and ethics in those areas of private law where equity still plays a significant, determinative role.