: I recently watched a movie, and one of the characters, who was bullied, made a very poignant statement. She said: “If the person who bullied me decided not to be mean, his life would not have changed... however, my life would have been profoundly different.” It struck me, that those who are unkind, would not lose anything by being kind. In fact, many benefits are derived from showing kindness to others. However, as we all know, the person who is on the receiving end of the bullying or unkindness, is affected in ways that reverberate for years, and at times, . . . [more] The post The Wellness Lawyer: “Kindness” appeared first on Slaw
: I watch a lot of hockey – but mostly on television. This year I attended a playoff game of the PWHL’s Ottawa Charge at the Canadian Tire Centre in Ottawa. It was an exciting game, but for me there was one concerning moment, when I heard thousands of people chanting, “Refs, you suck!”, after a call on the ice against the home team. As a hockey fan, I too did not like some of their calls, or non-calls, but there is a critical difference between attacking a decision and attacking the person who made the decision. Before the game started, . . . [more] The post “Refs, You Suck!”: Personal Attacks on Decision Makers appeared first on Slaw
: Earlier this year, a motion at the Ontario Superior Court paused while everyone in the room went looking for a quotation. The factum on one side quoted a decision of the Court of Appeal, and opposing counsel could not find the quoted words anywhere in that decision. He suspected the factum had been drafted with AI. The judge called a short recess, so the party who filed it could go and find the passage. [1] The citation was correct, and anyone who looked it up would have found exactly the case named. In this instance, AI produced a fake quotation . . . [more] The post Beyond Fake Cases: The Other Ways AI Is Going Wrong in Canadian Courts appeared first on Slaw
: December 30, 2022 was a momentous day in Canada’s copyright history, although it may not have been on the radar of the majority of the Canadian public. That is the date that the term of copyright protection in Canada changed to align with that of the United States, a requirement of the Canada-US-Mexico (CUSMA) trade agreement that came into force on July 1, 2020. Previously, Canada had the shortest copyright term of the three North American countries: the life of the author plus an additional 50 years. The CUSMA agreement forced the extension of that term to life plus 70 . . . [more] The post Claiming What’s Ours: Preserving the “Public” in the Public Domain appeared first on Slaw
: Introduction There are several ways of conceiving heritage conservation. For the purpose of this paper, we need to start from the premise that what we call “heritage” is a dynamic, evolving reality, and that a historic district such as “Old Québec” can undergo structuring transformations rooted in a process of heritage conservation. In Old Québec, the process of conservation —also referred to “patrimonialization”—has not received the attention it deserves. This paper aims to shed light on the process of functional requalification has undergone by Old Québec since the 1950s, within the broader context of its transformation into a historic district. It is based on discourse analysis (Berthold, 2013), supported by a diversifie body of documentation, including primary sources, such as archival documents, press reviews, geospatial and land-use data, and official reports. It is complemented by a body of scholarly literature devoted to Old Québec since the 1970s. First, we explain the sociohistorical process that l[...]
: First Consumer Review Fairness case takes on promoter’s “big bucks on Amazon” claim lfair August 6, 2018 | 11:11AM First Consumer Review Fairness case takes on promoter’s “big bucks on Amazon” claim By Lesley Fair T he marketers behind a purported money-making promotion called Sellers Playbook appear to have skipped the chapter about complying with federal and state consumer protection laws. That’s the allegation in a complaint filed by the FTC and the Minnesota Attorney General . In addition, it’s the FTC’s first case charg ing violations of the Consumer Review Fairness Act. The roots of the allegations go back to another venture sued by the FTC earlier this year: FBA Stores, also known as Amazing Wealth System and Amazon Wealth Systems. The defendants in that case ran online ads and in-person workshops that claimed to reveal the secret s of making major money on Amazon. But few, if any, of the consumers who forked over thousands of dollars and implemented their “plug-and-play systems” earn ed the kind of c[...]
: Speaking of Spokeo: Part 2 — The company’s allegedly bogus endorsements wfg-adm109 June 13, 2012 | 12:25PM Speaking of Spokeo: Part 2 — The company’s allegedly bogus endorsements By Lesley Fair The lawsuit against data broker Spokeo is the FTC’s first Fair Credit Reporting Act case addressing the collection of online info — including data from social networking sites — when used in the context of employment screening. But that’s not the only way the Spokeo settlement touches on social media. The FTC also charged that Spokeo violated Section 5 by having employees post glowing recommendations of the company’s services on news and technology websites without disclosing their true identity. Perhaps just the work of a rogue cubicle occupant? No, said the FTC. According to the complaint , Spokeo directed its employees to write the comments. Spokeo managers then edited what they wrote and had the staffers post the endorsements using account names provided by Spokeo. The purpose, says the FTC, was to give read[...]
: UT ref: UA-2026-000083-PIP In the Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber 28 October 2026 Before: Stewart Wright Judge of the Upper Tribunal Between: LC -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Anonymity Order Appellant: LC Respondents: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Tribunal: First tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) Tribunal venue: Scarborough Tribunal Case Nos: SC231/24/00181 Tribunal decision date: 29 August 2025 NOTICE: Any breach of this order is liable to be treated as a contempt of court and may be punishable by imprisonment, fine or other sanctions under section 25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The maximum punishment that may be imposed is a sentence of two years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine. It is ordered , under rule 14(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal Rules) 2008, that, without the permission of this Tribunal, no one shall disclose or publish the name, or any part of the address, of the appellant in these proceedings or publish [...]