Tour d'horizon de la Revue du Barreau canadien

Dans ler dernier volume de la Revue du Barreau canadien:

Amissi M Manirabona de l’Université de Montréal critique la décision rendue par la Cour du Québec dans l’affaire R c Laurin pour avoir exclu la déclaration rédigée par la mère de la victime décédée, jugée irrecevable dans la mesure où elle mentionnait le décès, une conséquence de l’infraction non retenue:

« Il est plus que temps que les tribunaux arrêtent de regarder la déclaration de la victime avec des lunettes instrumentalistes; ils doivent la considérer aussi dans sa dimension communicative et thérapeutique. La déclaration de la victime serait complètement vidée de son sens si les juges n’étaient pas en mesure de reconnaître son rôle propre, qui va au-delà de sa fonction instrumentale ».

Giacomo Marchisio, avocat auprès du cabinet IMK, s’interroge sur le terme « indéterminé » dans l’art 1512 CcQ qui permet à un tribunal, sur demande, d’intervenir afin de fixer un terme indéterminé, à savoir, un terme qui n’a pas été arrêté, d’un point de vue chronologique, par les parties.

Noel Semple of the University of Windsor writes about how “better access” and “better justice” should be understood as distinct but overlapping goals:

The reason why procedural reform should seek to improve access, and the reason why it should seek to improve justice, are the same reason: because both access and justice contribute to the welfare of individuals. Reducing the costs imposed by legal procedure improves the lives of people who must pay those costs. Better substantive and procedural justice make the lives of litigants go better for them, while better public justice makes the lives of non-litigants better than they would otherwise be.

Hilary Young of the University of New Brunswick interviewed 15 lawyers about their experience with anti-SLAPP litigation in Ontario and British Columbia, concluding that while most had a positive view of the new legislation, they nevertheless raised concerns relating to timelines and costs:

“Some lawyers think it would be better to leave behind anti-SLAPP law’s rigidity and just focus on the main question: whether the action should be brought. The law can only achieve its goals if this approach is taken. Otherwise the motions will always be long and drawn out. But other lawyers are skeptical of the ability to address complicated issues based on a ‘sniff test’.”

Mark Mancini of the University of British Columbia invites us to reconsider the position of habeas corpus in prison decision-making following the Supreme Court’s decision in Vavilov:

“For now, it is evident that at least some courts are not adequately considering the pathways that Vavilov opens up on habeas corpus applications. This is particularly so in reference to two aspects of Vavilov: its treatment of expertise, and its renewed focus on justification. While habeas corpus is a small piece of the puzzle, it remains an important, constitutionally-entrenched tool for prisoners to challenge state action. And it deserves judicial respect on that score.

What is the appropriate remedy when an M&A transaction fails to close because of the acquirer’s breach of contract? Jonathan Chan of the University College London (UCL) and Martin Petrin of Western University argue that that courts should award specific performance, where feasible, or alternatively loss of consideration to shareholders as the seller’s or target’s damages:

“Indeed, especially in cash out transactions, it is difficult not to view the seller’s board as acting for its shareholders with a view to negotiating the best possible deal for them. And regardless of how wide directors’ fiduciary duties are in a given jurisdiction, shareholders’ loss still provides the most reliable economic valuation of the target’s direct loss in the case of an unjustified failure to close by the buyer.”