Your search

This chapter explores the promise of refuge encompassed within the Canadian domestic and international refugee regime. While relying on my own lived experience as a survivor of war fleeing to what is now known as Canada, I contrast the promises of

This article explores the relationship between legal ethics and restorative justice. It is commonly observed that there exists a "decline" in professionalism among Canadian lawyers today. One of the persistent concerns is that legal ethics rules and the "standard conception" of professional role morality that underpins them, the neutral partisan, fail to strike the correct balance between client interests and the public interest. Building on this idea, this article argues that the legal profession should be reoriented around restorative justice as the moral foundation of a more progressive approach to legal ethics and professional responsibility. It translates concepts from restorative justice into ethical terms, grounding ideas about interdependence, community involvement, and public accountability into a list of restorative principles that can be readily applied by lawyers, firms, and other kinds of law practices. The article concludes by recommending a series of lawyering practices and professional regulatory measures that are consistent with taking a restorative principles-based approach. Ultimately, the article shows that restorative justice offers more than an alternative path for lawyers in criminal law settings. It constitutes a distinct set of obligations that, once implemented as legal ethics, has the potential to raise the moral consciousness of lawyers, facilitate collaboration within communities and across systems, and redefine the role of lawyers in the administration of justice, transforming conditions of law and society in a more equitable direction.

To understand common law contract doctrinal research methodology, one must first understand how contract doctrine came into existence and its enduring relevance. Historically, the common law was derived from judgments that focused upon proof of particularized facts and their fit to established writs. Contract doctrine emerged as a product of the Industrial Revolution's transformation of commercial and labor practices, the creation of new forms of property, and the new economic and social theories that shaped political discourse. In this chapter, the rise of common law contract doctrine is first described, and its enduring relevance to today's common law is articulated. This lays the foundation for an exploration into research methodology through three distinct examples: the incremental development by the Supreme Court of Canada of a doctrine of good faith performance in contract law; the interaction between legislature and courts in modifying contract doctrine concerning liability for innocent misrepresentations; and the place of party autonomy in correcting aberrant court decisions that are not in keeping with commercial realities. Through these examples, this chapter demonstrates how the common law navigates between the Scylla of certainty and the Charybdis of flexibility to keep common law contract doctrine relevant, but within what common law courts are constitutionally and legitimately able to do.

The Bank of Canada is an independent Crown corporation that sees its primary responsibility to be promoting Canada’s economic welfare by maintaining low and stable inflation. When it was first created in 1934, however, the Bank was a radically different institution—a privately owned corporation primarily meant to anchor Canada’s economy globally and manage foreign exchange. Not only was the Bank not tasked with managing inflation, but key policymakers behind its founding thought doing so would be a severe mistake. This article offers the first legal history of the Bank’s founding. It maps the enormous public debate that accompanied the creation of the Bank and the various, often contradictory visions expressed for it. The article labels these five visions: a Bankers’ Bank, a Government Bank, an Imperial Bank, an Economists’ Bank, and a Bank of the People. The article then looks at the original legal design of the Bank and argues that it largely fit the Imperial Bank model. Charting this history helps us better understand this vital organ of Canadian government, and has the potential to upset many of our accepted, contemporary notions of central banking.

Richard Moon, Howard Kislowicz, Asha Kaushal, 2022 CanLIIDocs 1392

This submission, made to the Canadian Competition Bureau's public consultation on algorithmic pricing, focuses on algorithmic personalized pricing (APP): the use of algorithms to set individualized prices based on consumers’ maximum willingness to pay. The authors argue APP represents a transformative shift in market dynamics. They analyze APP’s potential to facilitate first-degree price discrimination, and contend that the pursuit of this goal by firms, even if not fully achieved, raises significant concerns for consumer welfare, market transparency, and the normative foundations of competition law. The authors examine how well potential strategies used by firms to implement APP (collusion/coordinated competitor conduct, abuse of dominance, and deceptive marketing practices) are likely to fit within the ambit of Canada's Competition Act, particularly as recent amendments made important changes to the applicable legal frameworks. Noting that the precise ambit of the amended Act is not yet fixed, the authors argue that responding effectively to APP will require both creative interpretations of the new rules, and refined enforcement strategies and tools as competition law is adapted to a world where the incidence of algorithmic coordination and data-driven market distortions continues to increase, and with it, the erosion of consumer surplus. The submission concludes by advocating for public education, tailored enforcement guidance, and the development of consumer-side AI tools to counterbalance APP’s adverse effects on consumers and the proper functioning of competitive markets.

Annette Demers, Yemisi Dina, Gian Medves, 2025 CanLIIDocs 1745

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

The Supreme Court of Canada is set to decide whether methods of medical treatment constitute patentable subject matter. The concerns surrounding extension of patent protection to methods of medical treatment, argued almost entirely on the grounds of patentable subject matter, assumes that a physician carrying out such treatment is patent infringer. Canadian jurisprudence has largely taken this assumption to be true. Interrogating the historical jurisprudence supporting the prohibition on patentability of methods of medical treatment, this article demonstrates that this jurisprudence is far from clear as to whether the issue is, or should be, approached as a question of patentability or infringement. An analysis of the case law on both patentability of methods of medical treatment, and what constitutes infringing ‘use’ of an invention, demonstrates that both lines of jurisprudence share similar concepts and underlying concerns. This has generated uncertainty as to whether the issue of extending patent protection to methods of medical treatment has ever clearly been a question of patentability. Rather, examining both lines of jurisprudence side-by-side, this piece demonstrates that concerns underlying extension of patent protection to cover methods of medical treatment have historically been categorized as scope of protection concerns, rather than patentability concerns. As such, the debate surrounding patent protection and methods of medical treatment is best characterized as an infringement issue.

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

Supervision has been described as the "beating heart" and the "core" of clinical legal education. Yet lawyers who supervise law students in clinical programs have challenging and poorly understood roles within Canadian legal education. This article analyzes interviews with lawyers who supervise students in Canadian law-school affiliated legal clinics. Supervising lawyers describe the tensions between their roles as lawyers, supervisors and mentors, university and/or non-profit employees, social justice advocates, members of law societies, and clinic team members. These tensions often exist within an environment of lower pay, poor job security, substandard treatment by colleagues, inadequate training, and other aspects that paint a bleak picture. Despite these challenges, supervising lawyers describe intense satisfaction and inspiration derived from their work with students, clients, and the community. This article sheds light on the pedagogies employed by clinicians, their conditions of employment, and their roles in legal education more broadly. We conclude the article with our reflections about how law schools, clinics, and the legal profession can respond to the need to better support the vital work of supervision in clinical legal education.

Toronto’s new bubble zone anti-protest bylaw is both more and less dangerous than it may appear at first glance. Less because the bylaw’s enforceability and constitutionality are shaky, more because this provision needs to be understood as an example of the lawfare being wielded against pro-Palestinian solidarity and other left movements.

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.

The goal of this article is to better understand the potential of tribunals to improve access to justice in Canada. It begins by defining “tribunals” and “access to justice”, the key concepts of this article. Because tribunals and trial courts are functional alternatives for the resolution of many legal disputes, the article first reviews the merits of trial-level courts in this regard. It then turns to tribunals, reviewing some objective evidence of tribunal excellence in creating access to justice. Four key attributes of tribunals make them advantageous alternatives to trial-level courts for the accessible and just resolution of many types of legal dispute. First, tribunals are specialized instead of having general jurisdiction. Second, tribunals apply teamwork to dispute-resolution, instead of assigning all responsibility to individual adjudicators. Third, healthy forms of accountability are easier to establish in tribunals than they are in courts. This includes accountability of individual members to the tribunal and accountability of the tribunal to the legislature that created it. Finally, tribunals can be designed for maximal performance in creating access to justice, by contrast to courts which, for good reasons, resist design or reform efforts coming from outside themselves. The final Part of the article argues that tribunals can advance access to justice not only by taking on dispute-resolution work that courts would otherwise do, but also by offering authoritative legal vindication of rights that would otherwise be abandoned, or resolved in a completely privatized way. The tribunal promise of accessible adjudication can also be expected to improve the quality of settlements, in terms of upholding parties’ substantive legal rights.

The Civil Rules Review (CRR) has proposed a thorough rewrite of Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure. The goal is to make civil litigation speedier, more affordable, and less complex. The CRR's April 2025 Consultation Paper makes dozens of reform proposals, affecting every major phase of the litigation process.   This short paper argues that the leaders of Ontario's civil justice system should take the time to look before they leap. To implement changes by the end of 2025, as proposed by the original Terms of Reference for the Civil Rules Review, would be dangerously and unnecessarily premature. The consultation phase (currently just 10 weeks) should be extended, and a methodologically rigorous empirical evaluation should be conducted. This evaluation should be informed by a solid theoretical understanding of civil litigation’s benefits and costs; the middle section of this paper briefly sketches such a theory.