Author Archive

Kedar S. Bhatia, “Reconsidering the Purely Jurisdictional View of the Alien Tort Statute”

May 16, 2012

Kedar S. Bhatia (Student-at-law, Emory University School of Law) has posted  ”Reconsidering the Purely Jurisdictional View of the Alien Tort Statute”, Emory International Law Review, 2013, forthcoming/Emory Public Law Research Paper. Here’s the abstract:

The Alien Tort Statute is a remarkable provision. This thirty-three word statute lay dormant for nearly two centuries but now allows federal courts to hear claims for violations of the law of nations stemming from behavior anywhere in the world. Such an extraordinary interpretation was far from inevitable and remains on unsteady footing.

This article argues that the Statute should be read as purely jurisdictional, rather than as a hybrid provision granting both jurisdiction and a cause of action. In contrast to the current hybrid model, a strictly jurisdictional view of the Alien Tort Statute would provide a manageable framework for expanding the scope of the statute. Rather than requiring courts to first measure the specificity of international law and then gauge the practical consequences of recognizing a new cause of action, the jurisdictional view would require Congress to make those difficult, complex, and weighty policy decisions. A purely jurisdictional view of the statute adheres more closely to well-established views toward federal common law and also patches many of the problems that have arisen in applying the statute.

Download a pdf version of the article via SSRN here.

I Hate RSS Scrapers Who Breach My Copyright

May 11, 2012

I can’t stand Flawging or Splawging (spam law blogging), but I genuinely detest Blog Scraping, including RSS scraping.

It is more than plagiarism.

It is intellectual property theft.

The Trial Warrior Blog is a personal law blog (blawg). I devote a significant amount of time and energy in writing posts for the benefit of my readers. It is NOT commercial speech or lawyer advertising and is in no way associated with my legal practice or my law firm.

I have previously taken a stand on this issue, which resulted in lawyerlocate.ca abandoning its RSS aggregator feed.

Today I noticed that one of my posts has been redirected by an RSS feed in violation of my copyright. The only exceptions are where I have authorized or consented to have my blawg being added to a RSS feed aggregator (e.g. Canadian Law Blogs List at lawblogs.ca because Steve Matthews had the courtesy to ask first) or the exclusive, non-transferrable license granted to Newstex to syndicate my blawg, for which I receive a nominal royalty which covers administrative costs associated with operating my blawg. (more…)

Ontario Court Orders Cross-Examinations of Foreign Witnesses by Video Conferencing

May 11, 2012
Lights! Camera! Action! Hosted by Steven Spielberg

Lights! Camera! Action! Hosted by Steven Spielberg (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The recent decision in Code Inc. v. Indepedent High Electoral Commission, 2012 ONSC 2208 (CanLII) ["Code Inc."] held that video conferencing is a viable option for the conduct of cross-examinations of foreign witnesses on a jurisdictional motion.  (more…)

Your Name Here

May 10, 2012

Kendyl Sebesta over at Canadian Lawyer Magazine reports that the Law Society of Upper Canada will not be changing its name:

More than 50 Law Society of Upper Canada members showed up at the regulator’s annual general meeting last night and overwhelming showing their support to keep its 215-year-old name.

The lively debate at Osgoode Hall last night was mixed with passionate comments and bursts of laughter to discuss Federal government lawyer Thomas Vincent’s formal motion in a battle that saw traditionalists and modernists divided.

Jennifer Pagliaro at The Toronto Star further reports:

But few sitting beneath the hall’s ornate chandeliers were onboard with the proposed change.

“I am here to speak for traditions,” said Vern Krishna, former treasurer of the society, sporting a well-trimmed, snow-white handlebar moustache and round spectacles.

Krishna pointed out that the law society is the oldest in the Commonwealth, outdating even Britain’s.

“We have every reason to be proud of our organization,” Krishna said. “There is no confusion in the public mind.”

To much applause, Toronto lawyer Daniel Paul Sommers put the dissent most simply: “Changing our name will not help us do our job better.”

Thornhill lawyer Alan Silverstein pointed out that several other organizations have yet to release their grip on the historical name: Upper Canada College, Upper Canada Brewing Company and even the Jesuit Fathers of Upper Canada.

“And it never hurts to have God on your side,” he said, to the loudest laughter of the evening.

The debate had been percolating through social media for several weeks before the meeting, some commenters drawing attention to the unfortunate pronunciation of the society’s acronym “LSUC.”

According to Sebesta:

A formal vote was not taken at the annual general meeting, however, of the more than 50 members who attended, three supported the motion. Those three were Vincent, Ha-Redeye, and past Ontario Bar Association president Lee Akazaki.

During the meeting, it was estimated the cost to the law society to change its name would be between $1.4 and $1.5 million — a figure that would likely come have to come from increases to member’s annual fees.

The result is unsurprising, but disappointing; particularly after the informal poll I conducted here that garnered widespread world-wide massive viral a modicum of interest and resulted in a win for the proposed new name:

The League of Extraordinary Ontario Lawyers and Paralegals

Pagliaro adds,

 Suggestions for new names included the amusing “League of Extraordinary Ontario Lawyers and Paralegals.”

What? No credit or attribution for my poll result? Tsk. Double Tsk. Triple Tsk.

Journalistic mocking aside, I suspect that the decision to reject the motion to change the Law Society of Upper Canada’s name had less to do with the so-called “modernists vs. traditionalists” debate, and more to do with the hefty $1.4-$1.5 million price tag, which likely dampened any enthusiasm when licensees realized they would have to foot the bill through an increase in member’s annual fees.

Perhaps its time to focus on more important matters….like improving the public’s perception of the legal profession, updating the Rules of Professional Conduct to address unethical law marketing and improving equal access to justice.

Supreme Court of Canada denies leave to appeal in Mexico v. Cargill, Incorporated

May 10, 2012

A North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) ...

I previously blogged about the the Court of Appeal for Ontario decision in Mexico v. Cargill, Incorporated2011 ONCA 622 which held that the standard of review from a NAFTA trade tribunal arbitral decision is correctness.

Today, the Supreme Court of Canada denied the application for leave to appeal filed by the United Mexican States:

“United Mexican States v. Cargill, Incorporated (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave) (34559)

(The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent. /

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens en faveur de l’intimée.)

Coram: Deschamps / Fish / Karakatsanis”


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,090 other followers