Posts Tagged ‘Canada’

February 3 roundup

  • Judge blocks California budget cuts re: in-home services for disabled [Mercury News]
  • Media exploited her daughter for titillation, claims suit by mother of “Toddlers & Tiaras” star [Above the Law]
  • Narrower definition of autism ahead? [Althouse]
  • “Police Charge Canadian Blogger With Criminal Libel for Criticizing the Police” [Sullum, Popehat]
  • Prince George’s County, Maryland, wants to ban liquor deliveries; no harm linked to them, but you can’t be too sure [Ben Giles, Washington Examiner] Centers for Disease Control’s curious definition of “binge” drinking [Sullum]
  • The law of authors’ liability for inaccurate memoirs [Mark Fowler, Rights Of Writers; earlier here, etc.]
  • “Diagnosing Liability: The Legal History of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder” [Deirdre M. Smith, SSRN via TortsProf]

When companies’ hot products are stolen

Toronto lawyer Michael Deverett thinks a bad guy must have followed him home from the Apple Store; at least someone smashed his hatchback car window when he stepped away for a couple of minutes and made off with what he said was a well concealed bag of new electronics purchases worth C$2,200. The company — which gave him a store credit plus a small extra for legal fees — is also facing criticism from theft victims who say it should do more to help owners retrieve stolen cellphones. [Toronto Star](& welcome Elie Mystal, Above the Law readers)

January 23 roundup

  • Copyright violations on PIPA sponsors’ websites? [VICE] “A SOPA Analogy” [David Henderson]
  • DEA agent who mistakenly shot self loses appeal [BLT, earlier]
  • “And people say libertarians lack empathy”: AP adopts pre-emptively disapproving tone toward advances in pain control [Coyote; related, Alkon on Primatene Mist]
  • Cordray, NLRB recess picks allow President to reward key Democratic interest groups [Copland, Examiner] Litigation Lobby gunning for ban on consumer finance arbitration as Cordray priority [CL&P] Mike Rappaport on the recess appointment clause [LLL, earlier here, etc.]
  • Keystone’s just the half of it: US environmental funders push shutdown of Canada energy production [Vivian Krause, Financial Post]
  • Hot potato, or just hot business sector? “Credit Suisse Parts with Litigation Finance Group” [WSJ Law Blog]
  • Speaking of shoplifters in elected office [Harrisburg Patriot-News on Perry County, Pa. case h/t commenter A.A.; earlier on California case]

“Relationship Breakup Following Collision ‘Too Remote To Create Liability'”

Canada: The British Columbia Supreme Court has found “that a claim for damages for a break-up of a relationship following a collision is too remote for liability.” It accepted the plaintiff’s contention that the car crash had aggravated his pre-existing problems of back pain, but said the subsequent break-up of his romantic relationship was “too remote” a consequence to give rise to liability given that the couple appeared to have been at odds over “fundamental and deep-seated issues.” [Erik Magraken]

Schools roundup

  • Students respond to L.A.’s “healthful” school lunch initiative with a loud “yuck” [L.A. Times, Michelle Malkin/NRO]
  • L.I.: School suspends students for “Tebow” kneeling in hallway [Newsday]
  • “Growing number of college students asking for wiggle room with their academic workloads due to mental health issues.” [WSJ]
  • Proposal to address “learning disability” tangle: give all test-takers extra time [Ruth Colker, SSRN, see p. 126] A.D.H.D. diagnosis and the academic struggle for advantage [Melana Zyla Vickers, NYT “Room for Debate”] “Pediatrician Group Seeks to Boost ADHD Diagnoses” [Sullum]
  • Will distance technology defeat the teachers’ union? [Larry Sand, City Journal]
  • Time to repeal Maryland’s awful “maintenance of effort” law on school funding [WaPo, Baltimore Sun] Contra: MSEA, PDF.
  • French-language cops: “Montreal schools move to scan playground chatter” [Ottawa Citizen]

Food and agriculture roundup

  • Steve Chapman on FDA salt reduction initiative [Tribune/syndicated] Canada: “Health minister takes sodium-reduction plan off the table” [Calgary Herald] Flashback: FDA holds first hearing on regulating salt content in food [2007, Medical News Today] Discussion of my piece last week [Adler/Volokh, Instapundit]
  • More on McDonald’s sidestepping of San Francisco would-be Happy Meal ban [Fair Warning, earlier; background here, here, here, here, etc.]
  • “Caveat Venditor: Cottage Food Laws Great in Theory, Often Less So in Practice” [Baylen Linnekin of pro-freedom Keep Food Legal, who guestblogged at Reason last week]
  • Rather than get government out of way, left’s farm bill (“Local Farms, Food and Jobs Act”) would cut small/local/organic growers in on more USDA programs [Obama Foodorama, Linnekin]
  • Good riddance to monopoly powers of the Canadian Wheat Board [CBC]
  • Texas now allows home bakers to sell their wares [Austin Chronicle via @pointoflaw]
  • Widespread opposition to new Department of Labor proposal to ban kids from much work on farms [Nebraska Outback]

Canada: police not responsible for barroom assault

A British Columbia court has ruled against a hockey player injured when another nightclub patron hit him in the head with a bar stool, ruling that the police were under no duty of care to identify the bar in question “as a nuisance to the public, a trap for the unwary, and to take pre-emptive steps to abate the danger it represented to potential patrons”. [Erik Magraken]

“Has Amnesty International Jumped the Shark?”

Julian Ku at Opinio Juris is not impressed with the NGO’s demand that the government of Canada arrest former U.S. President George W. Bush, and neither is George Jonas, writing in Canada’s National Post. Related: John Fonte (Hudson) on his new book, “Sovereignty or Submission: Liberal Democracy or Global Governance?” [Foreign Policy Research Institute]

“Supreme Court of Canada Stands Up for the Internet: No Liability for Linking”

Sighs of relief after a decision in a defamation case (Crooks v. Newton) reported on earlier. [Michael Geist] Justice Abella:

I would conclude that a hyperlink, by itself, should never be seen as “publication” of the content to which it refers.

Adventurous litigants in U.S. defamation cases have occasionally argued otherwise. On Canada, see also proposals to criminalize links to so-called hate speech.