Mondor was charged with accessing child pornography. At trial, the Crown sought to admit purchase orders/invoices as business records for truth of their contents. Mondor was alleged to be a customer of AZOV Films, a film company that had a website promoting the interests of “naturalists.”
When Electronic Evidence is Real Evidence
In considering the admissibility of electronic evidence, Justice Greene refers to “Electronic Evidence in Canada,” by Graham Underwood and Jonathan Penner:
- “Good faith” is an implied term in all contracts: Supreme Court
- A few CanLII Connects contributions on SCC decision creating new contractual responsibilities
- More on contract law: 2249778 Ontario Inc. v. Smith (Fratburger), 2014 ONCA 788 (CanLII) – Standard of Review, Contractual Interpretation, effect of mixed fact-and-law analysis, applying Sattva principles
- Promissory Estoppel – “A promise, whether express or inferred from a course of conduct, is intended to be legally binding if it reasonably leads the promisee to believe that a legal stipulation, such as strict time of performance, will not be insisted on.”
- Police reading patrons’ text messages on casino surveillance cameras = wiretapping
- Illegal “horseplay” – When cheating is evidence of intent to defraud – R. v. Riesberry, 2014 ONCA 744.
- Written reasons released in R. v. Smith, 2014 ONCJ 595 (CanLII) – Analysis of s. 24(2) , s.8, s. 10(b)
- 407 ETR – When does limitation period commence, for unpaid invoices? Some clarity, some fog: 407 ETR Concession Co. v. Ira J. Day
- Alberta Court of Appeal – Collective agreement provides exclusive forum for dispute resolution
- Flirting with frivolity: Immigration lawyer accuses woman of defamation; judge finds “being upset” is not worth $125,000 in damages
The case is G.M.K. v. Lakefield College School, 2014 HRTO 1581 (CanLII). Adjudicator Paul Aterman, Vice-chair, held that the legislative purpose in allowing applications to be brought on behalf of another is undermined when a fee is charged:
“Although the Code is silent on the question of whether a fee can be charged, I think that it should not be interpreted in a manner that allows a fee to be charged to the person on whose behalf the application is brought when, if that person had brought the application on their own, they would have done so at no cost.”
The Claimant is a former student who was expelled. Through his litigation guardian, the former student alleges discrimination with respect to services because of place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin and disability. Affordable Immigration and Paralegal Support filed an application with the Tribunal on G.M.K.’s behalf.
Section 34(1) the Code allows another person to bring an application on behalf of another who believes their Part I Rights have been infringed, and if the claimant consents. The adjudicator determined that the Legislature did not intend the section to be used “as a vehicle for public interest litigants to launch applications in the absence of a delegation of authority to do so from a claimant who alleges a violation of their Code rights.”
- Despite Charter breach, evidence from cell phone search on arrest allowed
- Disclosure of private communications engages Constitutional Rights
- Wynne questions if federal prostitution law respects Charter rights
- Service by Twitter? Rules vary on using social media for alternative methods of service
- Coroner’s jury says inmates need privacy to discuss mental health issues
- Possible 9-1-1 call mix-up: Families of Sudbury boating tragedy want Coroner’s Inquest
- No reasonable driving standard for rural vs. urban drivers: OCA
- B.C. revokes Trinity Western’s law school accreditation
- Artificial Intelligence will cause “structural collapse” of law firms by 2030
- Man who died after driving flaming truck into law office had dated one of its clients
- “Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act” receives Royal Assent
- Beefing-up paralegal education: curriculum and other changes coming in 2015
- Gate Gourmet Canada Inc. Fined $58,000 After Worker Loses Fingers
- Lawyers Say the Darnedest Things
- Can you fire an employee for their nasty tweets and Facebook posts?
- Can You Be For Fired For Doing “The Chicken Dance” at work?
Go Virtual: Lawfactory Solutions
Working from home by choice, or saving on overhead costs when just starting out… a new service provides virtual legal practice management solutions.
Paralegal Al Ricci, a former technology executive, started Lawfactory with one goal in mind: make it easier for solo and small practitioners to leverage technology so they can spend more time with clients, while keeping expenses down. The new business launches Sept. 2.
“Technology, when implemented effectively and efficiently, can have a real impact on a person’s access to justice,” Ricci noted.
After a 17-year career in software and productivity solutions, Ricci returned to school in 2012 to pursue his interest in the law. Even before he graduated, Ricci saw the need for a service that combines the cost-saving features of virtual office space with leading technology solutions.