Archive for the ‘injunctions’ Category

« Older Entries

The Gloaming of International Human Rights in Canada?

November 1, 2012

I prevously blogged about  Bill C-10 (short title: Safe Streets and Communities Act), an omnibus criminal law statute, which received Royal Assent on March 13, 2012 —which includes the “Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act” ["JVTA"] —creating a specific cause of action for victims of terrorism, enabling them to sue for loss or damage as a result of actions punishable under the Criminal Code. This part also amends the State Immunity Act (“SIA”) lifting state immunity of foreign states that sponsor terrorism or terrorist activity, but does nothing to improve the prospects for access to justice to Canadian victims of torture and war crimes.

Recently, the Quebec Court of Appeal in Islamic Republic of Iran c. Hashemi, 2012 QCCA 1449 (CanLII) upheld state immunity for torture of Canadian citizens abroad. See my previous post here.

Today, the Supreme Court of Canada denied an application for leave to appeal in Association canadienne contre l’impunité v. Anvil Mining Limited (Québec C.A., January 24, 2012) (34733). The Canadian Centre for International Justice (CCIJ) issued a press release describing the Court’s decision denying leave as the “end of any judicial relief in Canada for victims of the Kilwa massacre”. The CCIJ adds: (more…)

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in impeachment defences, injunctions, international human rights, international law, international litigation, jus cogens, Mareva | Leave a Comment »

Donald K. Anton, “Public International Law and International Civil Litigation: From Ecuador to the United States and Back (Twice) – Chevron v. Donzige”

November 29, 2011

Donald K. Anton (Australian National University (ANU) – College of Law) has posted “Public International Law and International Civil Litigation: From Ecuador to the United States and Back (Twice) – Chevron v. Donzige”, Precedent, forthcoming. Here is the abstract:

This brief note examines the public international law issues arising in the widely publicized case of Chevron v. Donziger. In 1993, Amazonian indigenous communities and remote farmers sued Texaco in the United States, its home jurisdiction, seeking redress for damages caused by Texaco’s operations. From 1993 to 2002 Texaco, and later Chevron when it acquired Texaco, fought to have the case dismissed and moved to Ecuador as the more appropriate forum to try the case. Ultimately, the US action was dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds. However, the dismissal was conditioned on promises by Chevron to accept jurisdiction in Ecuador and satisfy any judgment rendered by an Ecuadorian court. While the action in the US was ongoing, Chevron apparently removed its assets from Ecuador, ensuring that the Ecuadorian plaintiffs would be unable to enforce and collect any judgment in that country. The case was re-filed and tried in Ecuador and was hotly contested for approximately eight years. On 14 February 2011, the Provincial Court of Sucumbios awarded the Ecuadorian plaintiffs $8.6 billion in damages, with $5.6 billion going toward environmental remediation. Anticipating the worst, Chevron took pre-emptive action back in the US, and filed a complaint against the Ecuadorians and their lawyers alleging fraud and conspiracy and seeking injunction enjoining the enforcement of the judgment. On 7 March 2011, the US Federal District Court in the Southern District of New York granted the preliminary injunction, which purported to enjoin the Ecuadorians from seeking to have the Ecuadorian judgment recognised or enforced anywhere in the world outside of Ecuador.

A copy of the article may be downloaded at SSRN here.

Related articles

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in conflict of laws, environmental law, Federal, federal courts, Federal Jurisdiction, federal law, forum non conveniens, injunctions, International, international dispute resolution, international human rights, international law, international litigation, public international law, United States | Leave a Comment »

David Rolph, “Corporations’ Right to Sue for Defamation: An Australian Perspective”

October 6, 2011

David Rolph (University of Sydney – Faculty of Law) has posted “Corporations’ Right to Sue for Defamation: An Australian Perspective”, Entertainment Law Review, Vol. 22, pp. 195-200, 2011/Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 11/51. Here is the abstract:

As the United Kingdom undergoes defamation law reform, it might be useful to consider recent Australian developments. Across Australia, since 2006, corporations have had the right to sue for defamation severely curtailed. After five years of operation, it is possible to make an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of this reform. This article analyses recent cases in which corporations have been forced to rely on alternative causes of action, which previously would have been dealt with as defamation claims. It argues that the reform is sound as a matter of principle and policy but that the particular form of the legislative provision requires refinement. In addition, this article points out that there have been unintended and undesirable consequences to this reform.

Download a copy of the paper via SSRN here.

Related articles

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Australia, defamation, free speech, Freedom of expression, freedom of speech, injunctions, media | Leave a Comment »

Permanent Injunction Granted in Landmark Ontario Libel Judgment

August 5, 2011

“The defendant, J. Robert Verdun (“Mr. Verdun”) has engaged in a deliberate, concerted and relentless campaign over a number of years to injure the reputation of the plaintiff, Robert M. Astley (“Mr. Astley”).  And he has done so with malice.  That was the clear and unequivocal verdict of the jury.”

The Honourable Madam Justice Chapnik, Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Astley v. Verdun.

Back on May 30th, 2011, Michael McKiernan of Law Times reported on a “Landmark ruling in libel suit“  :

A jury has awarded $650,000 to a director of the Bank of Montreal after finding renowned shareholder rights activist Robert Verdun had defamed him.

The award to Robert Astley, who is also chairman of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, included $400,000 for aggravated damages. That makes it one of the largest aggravated damages awards in Canadian history, lawyers believe.

The civil jury rejected Verdun’s defences to eight statements on May 20, finding all of them were defamatory and that he had acted with malice.

The verdict brings an end to a five-year legal battle between the two men over Verdun’s opposition to Astley’s appointment to the Bank of Montreal board.

On June 14th, 2011, in Astley v. Verdun, 2011 ONSC 3651 (CanLII), Madam Justice Chapnik granted the plaintiff, Astley a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, Verdun from disseminating, post on the Internet or publishing, in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, any statements or comments about the plaintiff. (more…)

Tags:, , ,
Posted in defamation, Defamation Law, injunctions, internet, internet defamation, libel | Leave a Comment »

Ryan M. Vassar, “Litigation Parallelisms: A Comment on Parallel Proceedings and Anti-Suit Injunctions Spanning the Parallels and Meridians”

May 24, 2011
South Texas College of Law

Image via Wikipedia

Ryan M. Vassar, Student-at-law (South Texas College of Law) has posted “Litigation Parallelisms: A Comment on Parallel Proceedings and Anti-Suit Injunctions Spanning the Parallels and Meridians”. Here’s the abstract:

The globalization of trade and commerce carries with it the difficult task of resolving disputes involving parties transacting business across state and national borders. When transactions occur over jurisdictional boundaries and a dispute arises between the parties, which yields litigation in multiple locations, what factors should a court consider in determining whether it is proper to grant a request to enjoin one of the parties from proceeding with litigation in the foreign forum?

This comment discusses the current trends in the law regarding parallel proceedings and anti-suit injunctions between intra-national and international jurisdictional lines. Specifically, this comment discusses (1) cases within the Sixth and Ninth Circuit courts where parallel proceedings and anti-suit injunctions were at issue, (2) whether these courts have elected to follow the majority or minority of jurisdictions in the application of the standards required to grant an anti-suit injunction, and (3) how those courts applied these standards.

You may download a copy of the article from SSRN here.

Tags:,
Posted in anti-suit injunctions, conflict of laws, injunctions, international law, international litigation, jurisdiction, parallel proceedings | Leave a Comment »

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,587 other followers

%d bloggers like this: