Archive for the ‘international dispute resolution’ Category

2014 Canadian International Law Students Conference

January 28, 2014

CILSC

I am privileged to be the keynote speaker at the upcoming  2014 Canadian International Law Students Conference, jointly presented by the International Law Society of University of Toronto Faculty of Law and Osgoode Hall Law School on Saturday, 1 February 2014 from 9:30 AM to 6:00 PM (EST). Here are the event details:

Event Details

The CILSC provides a forum for law students, academics, practitioners, and leaders in the field to exchange ideas about Canada’s international and domestic performance in public and private international law. Speakers will also touch on how to begin exploring a career in this field. For speaker bios visit www.cilsc.com

The conference has a history of attracting prominent speakers involved in the practice and study of international law. This year we are featuring speakers across five panels:

Panel 1: Litigating Foreign Cases in Canadian Courts
Panel 2: International Intellectual Property Law
Panel 3: Careers in Public International Law
Panel 4: Careers in Private International Law
Panel 5: Law and the Syrian Crisis

Schedule:

9:30-9:45 Introductions
9:45-11:00: Substantive panel 1 (Public)
11:15-12:30: Substantive panel 2 (Private)
12:30-1:30: Lunch
1:30-2:30: Concurrent Career Panels
2:45-4:00 Substantive Panel (Syria)
4:00-5:30 Reception

Ticket Information:

Online Student Ticket: $12.00

In-person Student Ticket: $10.00

For in-person tickets, Osgoode students please contact cassandrastefanucci@osgoode.yorku.ca; U of T students please contact james.rendell@mail.utoronto.ca or ws.wu@mail.utoronto.ca. These tickets will be available at the door.

Professional Tickets: $75.00

Current members of the bar who attend the conference are eligible for up to 3.75 hours of CPD credits. We will provide holders of Professional Tickets materials to be submitted to the law society for CPD credits.

If you’re interested in a career in international law or want to hear about the latest international law developments from leading academics and practitioners , this is a must-attend program.

Pottow et al., “A Presumptively Better Approach to Arbitrability”

September 3, 2013

John A. E. Pottow (University of Michigan Law School), Jacob Brege and Tara J. Hawley (J.D. Candidates, University of Michigan Law School) have published “A Presumptively Better Approach to Arbitrability”, Canadian Business Law Journal, Vol. 53, No. 3, March 2013/U of Michigan Law & Econ Research Paper No. 13-012/U of Michigan Public Law Research Paper No. 339. Here’s the abstract:

One of the most complex problems in the arbitration field is the question of who decides disputes over the scope of an arbitrator’s purported authority. Courts in Canada and the United States have taken different approaches to this fundamental question of “arbitrability” that necessarily arises when one party disputes the contractual validity of the underlying “container” contract carrying the arbitration clause. If arbitration is a creature of contract, and contract is a product of consensual agreement, then any dispute that impugns the underlying consent of the parties to the container contract implicates the arbitration agreement itself (i.e., no contract, no arbitration agreement).

The U.S. approach of “separability” dates back a half-century to a Supreme Court case that was controversial when it was decided and remains so today. The Supreme Court has added several more decisions trying to clarify its arbitrability rules within just the past few years. The Canadians too have tried to sort out this mess, seizing upon the hoary legal distinction between law and fact, also offering recent Supreme Court pronouncements. Neither country’s approach is normatively or functionally satisfying.

After discussing and critiquing the two approaches comparatively, we offer our own proposal. We too deploy legal presumptions, but in our case we focus on what we contend are the two most relevant criteria: (1) the nature of the legal challenge to the underlying container contract, and (2) the type of contract at issue. Challenges to consent in contract formation and contracts involving adhesion should be specially scrutinized by the courts before carting parties off to arbitration, whereas commercial agreements between sophisticated actors should presumptively be for arbitral resolution, even for “constitutive” challenges to the underlying contract.

 A pdf copy of the paper is available for download on SSRN here.

Successfully Navigating an International Commercial Arbitration | Toronto, ON | Oct. 3/13

September 3, 2013

OBA CIArb Successfully Navigating an International Commercial Arbitration

Why Lawyers Should Always Read the Footnotes in Judgments

June 12, 2013

The decision of Justice Newbould in Re Ghana Gold Corporation2013 ONSC 3284 (Ont. SCJ) [“Ghana Gold”] is an important reminder to always the read the footnotes in judgments. (more…)

Tanya J. Monestier, “(Still) a ‘Real and Substantial’ Mess: The Law of Jurisdiction in Canada”

May 10, 2013

Tanya J. Monestier (Roger Williams University School of Law) has published “(Still) a ‘Real and Substantial’ Mess: The Law of Jurisdiction in Canada”, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 36, p. 397, 2013/Roger Williams Univ. Legal Studies Paper No. 136. The abstract reads:

In April 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada released the most important decision on personal jurisdiction in over twenty years. The Van Breda decision was intended to clarify, once and for all, the application of the “real and substantial connection” test to ex juris defendants. The Supreme Court in Van Breda adopted an approach to the real and substantial connection test that relied on the plaintiff fitting himself within one of four presumptive factors in order to establish jurisdiction: (a) The defendant is domiciled or resident in the province; (b) The defendant carries on business in the province; (c) The tort was committed in the province; (d) A contract connected with the dispute was made in the province. The Court also left open the possibility of creating additional presumptive factors in the future. The presumptive factors approach was intended to re-orient the jurisdictional test toward objective factual connections between the forum and the cause of action and to establish a simple and predictable framework for courts to use in making jurisdictional determinations. In this Article, I comprehensively examine the new presumptive factors approach to jurisdiction adopted by the Supreme Court in Van Breda with a view to exposing its shortcomings. I argue that this approach to jurisdiction – while simple and predictable on its face – will actually complicate jurisdictional determinations for the foreseeable future. Litigants will try to find creative ways to fit themselves within one of these four factors. And courts will spend years unpacking and defining the contours of the four presumptive factors. I also argue that the Court in Van Breda failed to provide meaningful guidance on how all pieces of the jurisdictional puzzle fit together. Among the outstanding questions: How does the real and substantial connection test work in non-tort cases? How do the traditional jurisdictional bases of consent and presence fit into the jurisdictional mix? Can the forum of necessity doctrine be reconciled with the real and substantial connection test? How does the test apply to the enforcement of foreign judgments? The Court simply left these hard questions until later. In short, while the Court in Van Breda was on the right track, it got derailed – which may ultimately mean another twenty years until the outstanding jurisdictional issues are sorted out.

Download a copy of the article at SSRN here.


%d bloggers like this: