This month, the Ontario Court of Appeal circumscribed the discretion of class action case management judges to conditionally certify a class action in the absence of a statement of claim that discloses a cause of action. The appeal decision places new limits on the case management judge to amend aspects of an otherwise viable claim, introducing the potential for even more delay and cost for the motion for certification of a class proceeding.

A Cruel Arithmetic: Inside the Case Against Polygamy, by Craig Jones, Irwin Law, 2012, pp. 384.

When s. 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada was referred to the British Columbia Supreme Court, I wrote that I believed the law was clearly unconstitutional in its current form:

On Dec. 18, 2012, Alberta proclaimed the Property Rights Advocate Act. The act and the office it established were an immediate response to the Property Rights Task Force Report, issued in February of 2012. But the underlying principles upon which the act and office are based have a deep-rooted, pre-existing foundation in Alberta jurisprudence.

Last week I experienced a career milestone — my first reported trial decision. Daniels v. Canada is a 175-page constitutional law decision about the federal government’s jurisdiction over Métis and non-status Indians in Canada. The trial was heard in May and June 2011.

T. S. Elliot once unknowingly demonstrated insight into the legal profession when he wrote: “For last year’s words belong to last year’s language and next year’s words await another voice. . . .”

Human beings have an incredible knack for fooling ourselves when it comes to our own finances. We have a tendency to justify our own worries. So, instead of acknowledging how we feel and reflecting on our thoughts, we cut out the middle man and construct the façade of a logical-sounding argument over a vague feeling.

Honour or victory — tracing the origins of the civility movement

Do the tools of our trade include insults and ad hominem arguments? Are we in danger of neutering the litigation bar? Should lawyers follow the “great trial lawyers” or bow to the “civility movement” in Canadian law? Or should they carry on with the time-honoured view of advocacy, as captured by Justice Riddell in his 1915 decision in Dale v. Toronto R.W. Co.: “a jury trial is a fight and not an afternoon tea?”

This is in response to the article by University of Ottawa law dean Bruce Feldthusen in which he defends against the claim that the law schools have any part in the articling crisis. It may well be that this very respected dean may change his opinion with a review of the history of legal education in Ontario.

Twenty years ago I would not have thought that the founders of the Idle No More movement and the anti-rape activists in India had much in common, but along with women activists who were an integral part of the Arab Spring, as well as greater numbers of women in higher political office, it is evident both are part of a growing trend of women leading social change.

I like to consider myself as being a reasonably competent lawyer. Occasionally — OK rarely — I do receive some form of external and objective validation of that fancy. But over the Winter Solstice holiday, I received an external and objective confirmation that I suck at being a boss. In fairness to me, Good Boss 101 is not a course offered at law school or during the bar admission course when I was a student. It should be.