fbpx
  • Latest News
  • Trending News
  • All
  • Latest News
  • Featured
  • Industry News
  • Legal Governance
  • Constitutional Law
  • Op-Ed
  • News Archives
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution
  • Analysis
  • Bankruptcy Law
  • Consumer Protection Law
  • Cyber Security Law
  • Family Law
  • Disability Law
  • Employment Law
  • Environmental Law
  • Estate Law
  • Housing Law
  • Human Rights Code
  • Immigration Law
  • Insurance Law
  • Intellectual Property Law
  • Privacy Law
  • Tax Law
  • Workers Compensation Board
The Rise of Facts in Public Law IV: Facts as Constitutional Causes of Action

The Rise of Facts in Public Law IV: Facts as Constitutional Causes of Action

May 10, 2022
More than 10,000 Canadians received a medically-assisted death in 2021: report

More than 10,000 Canadians received a medically-assisted death in 2021: report

August 13, 2022
Quebec Superior Court suspends Bill 96’s translation requirement until constitutionality determined

Quebec Superior Court suspends Bill 96’s translation requirement until constitutionality determined

August 12, 2022
The Ontario government has given Maggie an ultimatum: the disabled teen can lose her funding or her independence

The Ontario government has given Maggie an ultimatum: the disabled teen can lose her funding or her independence

August 12, 2022
FBI took 11 sets of classified material from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home while investigating possible Espionage Act violations (US)

FBI took 11 sets of classified material from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home while investigating possible Espionage Act violations (US)

August 12, 2022
Ontario class action settlement reclassifies volunteers as employees, setting new precedent

Ontario class action settlement reclassifies volunteers as employees, setting new precedent

August 11, 2022
Availability of Judicial Review in SABS Disputes

Availability of Judicial Review in SABS Disputes

August 10, 2022
Are masking policies still valid?

Are masking policies still valid?

August 10, 2022
Justice Canada releases commission report on impact of lack of legal aid in family law disputes

Justice Canada releases commission report on impact of lack of legal aid in family law disputes

August 9, 2022
Harmonized sales tax part of maximum amount of attendant care benefits owed by insurer: court

Harmonized sales tax part of maximum amount of attendant care benefits owed by insurer: court

August 8, 2022
New rules coming next month to help Canadians with cancelled and delayed flights

New rules coming next month to help Canadians with cancelled and delayed flights

August 3, 2022
Stephen King set to testify for govt in books merger trial (US)

Stephen King set to testify for govt in books merger trial (US)

August 2, 2022
New law program in Quebec to begin next fall, a first in 50 years

New law program in Quebec to begin next fall, a first in 50 years

August 2, 2022

Defence lawyers threaten job action over Legal Aid Alberta funding

August 1, 2022
The Impact of the Lack of Legal Aid in Family Law Cases

The Impact of the Lack of Legal Aid in Family Law Cases

July 29, 2022
SCC rules that when someone is required by their partner to wear a condom but do not, they could be guilty of sexual assault.

SCC rules that when someone is required by their partner to wear a condom but do not, they could be guilty of sexual assault.

July 29, 2022
Big Plastic suing feds over single-use ban — again

Big Plastic suing feds over single-use ban — again

July 29, 2022
Tim Hortons offers coffee and doughnut as proposed settlement in class action lawsuit

Tim Hortons offers coffee and doughnut as proposed settlement in class action lawsuit

July 29, 2022

NBA investigating Philadelphia 76ers for possible tampering

July 29, 2022

#MeToo didn’t end sexual harassment in the workplace and vigilance remains a must

July 29, 2022
The SCC has refused to hear the appeal to declare the renewal of the state of health emergency by the Quebec government invalid

The SCC has refused to hear the appeal to declare the renewal of the state of health emergency by the Quebec government invalid

July 28, 2022
Federal privacy commissioner investigating controversial ArriveCAN app

Federal privacy commissioner investigating controversial ArriveCAN app

July 28, 2022
Kraken, a U.S. Crypto Exchange, Is Suspected of Violating Sanctions (US)

Kraken, a U.S. Crypto Exchange, Is Suspected of Violating Sanctions (US)

July 26, 2022
Ontario court certifies class action on former patients’ anxiety from notice of risk of infection

Ontario court certifies class action on former patients’ anxiety from notice of risk of infection

July 26, 2022
The stakes couldn’t be higher as Canada’s top court decides whether to hear climate class action lawsuit

The stakes couldn’t be higher as Canada’s top court decides whether to hear climate class action lawsuit

July 26, 2022
Professor Barnali Choudhury selected by EU as trade and sustainable development expert

Professor Barnali Choudhury selected by EU as trade and sustainable development expert

July 25, 2022

Abuse and harassment survivors ‘silenced’ by non-disclosure agreements fight for change to B.C. law

July 23, 2022
The Supreme Court decision on the ‘Ghomeshi’ amendments will help sexual assault victims access justice

The Supreme Court decision on the ‘Ghomeshi’ amendments will help sexual assault victims access justice

July 5, 2022
AFN Reaches $20 B Final Settlement Agreement to Compensate First Nations Children and Families

AFN Reaches $20 B Final Settlement Agreement to Compensate First Nations Children and Families

July 4, 2022

Why your options may be limited if your employer wants you back in the workplace

July 4, 2022

City directs contractors to reinstate Sikh security guards who lost work due to clean-shaven rule

July 4, 2022
  • ABOUT LITN
  • SUPPORT LITN
  • LEGAL, PRIVACY & POLICY
  • PUBLIC EDUCATION & RESOURCE LINKS
Friday, January 27, 2023
  • Login
  • Register for a FREE LITN account
⚖ Law in the News .com (LITN) Media 📃
  • Latest News
  • Industry News
  • Categories
    • A to C
      • Aboriginal Law
      • Access to Justice (A2J)
      • Administrative Law
      • Alternative Dispute Resolution
      • Analysis
      • Animal Law
      • Anti-Corruption Law
      • Antitrust Law
      • Arbitration Law
      • Banking and Securities Law
      • Bankruptcy Law
      • Cannibis Law
      • Civil Litigation
      • Class Action
      • Commercial Law
      • Constitutional Law
      • Construction Law
      • Consumer Protection Law
      • Contract Law
      • Criminal Law
      • Cyber Security Law
    • D to H
      • Disability Law
      • Editor’s Choice
      • Elder Law
      • Employment Law
      • Environmental Law
      • Entertainment Law
      • Estate Law
      • Family Law
      • Highway Traffic Law
      • Housing Law
      • Human Rights Code
    • I to L
      • Immigration Law
      • Industry News
      • Insurance Law
      • Intellectual Property Law
      • International Law
      • Labour Law
      • Latest News
      • Legal Governance
    • M to Z
      • Medical Law
      • Municipal Law
      • Op-Ed
      • Personal Injury Law
      • Privacy Law
      • Real Estate Law
      • Regulatory Law
      • Tax Law
      • Telecommunications Law
      • Transportation Law
      • Workers Compensation Board
  • Archives
    • 2022
      • July 2022
      • June 2022
      • May 2022
      • April 2022
      • March 2022
      • February 2022
      • January 2022
    • 2021
      • December 2021
      • November 2021
      • October 2021
      • September 2021
      • August 2021
  • About LITN
    • Who We Are
    • What We Do
    • Our Mission
    • Our Goal
    • Contact Us
    • Support LITN
      • Contribute to LITN Operations
      • Place YOUR Custom Ad on LITN
      • Engage with LITN Sponsored Ads
      • Create a FREE LITN Account
      • Subscribe to the LITN Newsletter
      • Connect, Follow, Like, Retweet and Repost LITN
    • Legal, Privacy and Policy
      • Cookie Policy (CA)
      • Privacy Policy
      • Terms and Conditions
  • Public Education and Resource Links
No Result
View All Result
⚖ Law in the News .com (LITN) Media 📃
  • Latest News
  • Industry News
  • Categories
    • A to C
      • Aboriginal Law
      • Access to Justice (A2J)
      • Administrative Law
      • Alternative Dispute Resolution
      • Analysis
      • Animal Law
      • Anti-Corruption Law
      • Antitrust Law
      • Arbitration Law
      • Banking and Securities Law
      • Bankruptcy Law
      • Cannibis Law
      • Civil Litigation
      • Class Action
      • Commercial Law
      • Constitutional Law
      • Construction Law
      • Consumer Protection Law
      • Contract Law
      • Criminal Law
      • Cyber Security Law
    • D to H
      • Disability Law
      • Editor’s Choice
      • Elder Law
      • Employment Law
      • Environmental Law
      • Entertainment Law
      • Estate Law
      • Family Law
      • Highway Traffic Law
      • Housing Law
      • Human Rights Code
    • I to L
      • Immigration Law
      • Industry News
      • Insurance Law
      • Intellectual Property Law
      • International Law
      • Labour Law
      • Latest News
      • Legal Governance
    • M to Z
      • Medical Law
      • Municipal Law
      • Op-Ed
      • Personal Injury Law
      • Privacy Law
      • Real Estate Law
      • Regulatory Law
      • Tax Law
      • Telecommunications Law
      • Transportation Law
      • Workers Compensation Board
  • Archives
    • 2022
      • July 2022
      • June 2022
      • May 2022
      • April 2022
      • March 2022
      • February 2022
      • January 2022
    • 2021
      • December 2021
      • November 2021
      • October 2021
      • September 2021
      • August 2021
  • About LITN
    • Who We Are
    • What We Do
    • Our Mission
    • Our Goal
    • Contact Us
    • Support LITN
      • Contribute to LITN Operations
      • Place YOUR Custom Ad on LITN
      • Engage with LITN Sponsored Ads
      • Create a FREE LITN Account
      • Subscribe to the LITN Newsletter
      • Connect, Follow, Like, Retweet and Repost LITN
    • Legal, Privacy and Policy
      • Cookie Policy (CA)
      • Privacy Policy
      • Terms and Conditions
  • Public Education and Resource Links
No Result
View All Result
⚖ Law in the News .com (LITN) Media 📃
No Result
View All Result
Home Administrative Law

The Rise of Facts in Public Law IV: Facts as Constitutional Causes of Action

In a draft book chapter I am working on with co-author Kseniya Kudischeva, we discuss the increased importance of factual assessments in public law. Here is the final, and fourth of four substantive parts.

May 10, 2022
Reading Time: 11 mins read
0
A A
0
The Rise of Facts in Public Law IV: Facts as Constitutional Causes of Action
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare by Email
 
PHOTO: University of Ottawa
 
  • Paul Daly ⁞ Administrative Law Matters
  • May 10, 2022
 
 
We turn lastly to a distinctly Canadian phenomenon, or at least one we believe to be distinctively Canadian. This is the use of facts to develop constitutional causes of action.

In a series of cases in the 2010s, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down regulatory regimes as unconstitutional based on trial-level findings of fact that harm had been caused to individuals in violation of the guarantee of “life, liberty and security of the person” set out in s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In each of these cases, a first-instance court found that the operation of the regulatory regimes in question caused harm to individuals in violation of the Charter right to security of the person, and on appeal the Supreme Court deferred to these findings of fact, even where they were inconsistent with binding precedent.

As s. 7 of the Charter is central to these cases, it is necessary to briefly explain the provision and the jurisprudence which has accumulated around it. Section 7 provides: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” Section 7 is disjunctive and contains three rights: life, liberty and security of the person. A violation of s. 7 requires an infringement of one of these rights. Any infringement must comport with the principles of fundamental justice. That is, if life, liberty or security of the person is infringed upon without respecting the principles of fundamental justice, s. 7 has been violated. Canadian courts have recognized many principles of fundamental justice. The most important for present purposes are arbitrariness, gross disproportionality, and overbreadth. If an infringement of one of the s. 7 rights is arbitrary, grossly disproportionate, or overbroad, this will amount to a violation of s. 7.

Any such violation can be ‘saved’ under s. 1 of the Charter, which allows for rights to be limited where it is necessary in a democratic society: a proportionality test is applied. Layering a proportionality test upon the principles of fundamental justice in s. 7 creates some complications. The general view is that s. 1 will only save a s. 7 violation in extraordinary cases. The cases from the 2010s turned out not to be extraordinary. Faced with deprivations of a constitutional right, the Supreme Court gave little weight to moral or political considerations relating to the desirability of regulating sex work or assisted suicide.

Canada (AG) v Bedford involved a challenge to Canada’s sex work laws using new social science evidence.[1] Previously, in the so-called Prostitution Reference, the Supreme Court had affirmed the constitutionality of federal anti-sex work legislation.[2] But the s. 7 challenge in Bedford succeeded: the courts struck down the criminal prohibitions on bawdy-houses, living on the avails of prostitution, and communicating in public. Notice that the legislation in question did not criminalize sex work as such – engaging in sex work was lawful, with these prohibitions designed to reduce the attraction of engaging in sex work and to diminish the risk that third parties – pimps – would profit from the activities of sex workers.

New social science evidence impacted this litigation. The applicants developed a massive record filled with 88 volumes of over 25,000 pages of evidence. The record used evidence from sex workers and experts in a wide range of social science disciplines.[3] Ultimately, the Supreme Court relied heavily on the application judge’s finding of facts. For example, the application judge had found the following:

➟ the bawdy house provision blocked the safest way to sell sex—working “in-call” from a fixed location;

➟ without communicating to engage in prostitution, sex workers lost “the ability to screen clients, an ‘essential tool’ to avoiding violent or drunken clients”; and

➟ the living-of-the-avails prohibition prevented sex workers from hiring bodyguards, drivers, or receptionists who could make work safer.

Although violent clients and pimps created the risks to sex workers’ safety, the existence of these offences actively blocked sex workers from taking steps to reduce their risks. All three laws denied fundamental justice. The living-on-the-avails provision was overbroad. Despite targeting those who exploit sex workers, the provision also captured those who could help increase sex workers’ safety and security. The other two provisions, prohibiting bawdy-houses and communicating in public, were grossly disproportionate. Taking sex work out of public view by prohibiting communication cost sex workers their screening ability—speaking with clients in public before relocating. And while the bawdy-house provision meant to reduce nuisance, this offence criminalized all sex work in fixed indoor locations, even in sex workers’ homes, pushing sex workers to the streets.

Bedford was an extremely important case. For one thing, the Supreme Court admonished the Court of Appeal for “erroneously substitut[ing] its [own] assessment of the evidence for that of the application judge”[4] rather than deferring to the application judge’s fact findings, including on social and legislative facts. For another thing, the Supreme Court held that in situations where the law has evolved or there has been a change in circumstances or evidence “that fundamentally shifts the parameters of the debate”, a trial judge may depart from binding Supreme Court precedent: given the findings of fact of the trial judge, a departure from the Prostitution Reference was justified.[5] In combination, these features of Bedford meant not only that findings of fact could support a legal conclusion that s. 7 of the Charter had been infringed but also that the same findings could justify departure from binding authority. 

Bedford thus set the stage for judicial consideration of the hot-button issue of assisted suicide. In Carter v Canada, the Supreme Courtreconsidered the constitutionality of physician-assisted dying.[6] Ms. Taylor suffered from Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS), an illness that degraded her ability to move. As her health deteriorated, Ms. Taylor wanted to choose the moment to end her life, using a doctor’s help when the time came. Ms. Taylor, joined by plaintiffs including Ms. Carter, challenged s. 241(b) of the Criminal Code, which criminalized aiding or abetting a person to commit suicide. They developed a significant factual record designed to justify a departure from the Supreme Court’s 1993 decision upholding the assisted suicide prohibition against a s. 7 challenge.[7]

As in Bedford, the Supreme Court used the trial judge’s findings, “based on an exhaustive review of the extensive record before her” to uphold the trial decision.[8] The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the provision criminalizing physician-assisted death violated Ms. Taylor’s s. 7 rights. The provision deprived Ms. Taylor’s right to life by forcing her to choose between premature suicide or losing her ability to control the manner and time of her death. The provision stripped her right to liberty by removing her autonomy over her body and medical care. And her right to security of the person preserved her quality of life from facing intolerable suffering.

The prohibition violated s.7 rights in a way that denied fundamental justice. While meant to protect the vulnerable from committing suicide in times of weakness, the evidence showed that this prohibition caught individuals outside of the protected class. The apex court relied here on the trial judge’s finding that Ms. Taylor was not vulnerable, as she was “competent, fully informed, and free from coercion or duress.”[9] Her situation, like those of the other affiants, showed that this provision prohibited physician-assisted death for “competent adults who are suffering intolerably [from] a grievous and irremediable medical condition.”[10] The Supreme Court struck down the prohibition as overbroad.

The apex court also deferred to the trial judge’s fact finding when deciding that s. 1 of the Charter did not justify the prohibition violating Ms. Taylor’s s. 7 rights. Could Canada safely replace its blanket ban on physician-assisted suicide with a more permissive regime that respected Canadians’ life, liberty, and security of the person? Having heard evidence “from scientists, medical practitioners, and others who were familiar with end-of-life decision-making in Canada and abroad”,[11] the trial judge answered “yes”. Using this evidence, the trial judge concluded that a more permissive regime with proper safeguards could remove the risks of error or abuse. As the apex court affirmed, it was open to the trial judge to find that properly trained physicians could “reliably assess patient confidence and voluntariness” when they chose to die with dignity.[12] Accordingly, there was a s. 7 violation and the Supreme Court’s previous decision was no barrier to a finding that assisted suicide prohibition was unconstitutional.

In Bedford and Carter, the legal regimes in question, relating to sex work and assisted suicide, had been the subject of passionate public debate (though the extent of serious parliamentary consideration of reform is debatable). Nonetheless, despite the democratic imprimatur such regimes bear, they may be challenged in s. 7 cases and invalidated where the evidence demonstrates that the regimes cause harm to individuals. In Bedford and Carter, first-instance fact finding even allowed trial judges to break free of binding precedent.

Practical and principled difficulties again arise.

On the practical side, this approach places an important burden on applicants in constitutional cases, who must develop a detailed record. Indeed, there may be a tension between an ever-broader approach to standing — which permits public interest applicants to bring constitutional cases[13] — and the harm-based approach to s. 7 — which, in reality, permits only well-funded, high-profile organizations into the arena. And there is an ever-present risk of waste: in Bedford and Carter the challenges were successful, but there are other high-profile cases where challenges foundered for want of evidence, notwithstanding the significant resources expended by challengers.[14]

On the principled side, in determining such challenges, first-instance judges have enormous power. First, their findings of fact are entitled to deference on appeal: if a trial judge finds that a particular decision or regulatory regime causes harm such as to deprive individuals of life, liberty or security of the person, an appellate court is bound by that finding (unless the government can demonstrate that the findings were tainted by palpable and overriding error). Second, their findings of fact may justify a departure from binding precedent, even venerable decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. Decisions to depart from precedent can be appealed, of course, and an appellate court can substitute its judgment on whether the departure was justified but nonetheless, these two features place enormous power in the hands of first-instance judges.

It is questionable whether it is appropriate in common law systems for judges to perform this particular role. On the one hand, where expert evidence is tendered about the operation of a regulatory regime, judges can make findings of fact as to which body of expert evidence should be preferred. Moreover, in both Bedford and Carter a causal link between the harm suffered and the legal prohibitions challenged was established: the first-instance judges were not acting as Royal Commissions. On the other hand, it might be objected that the fact that changes in ‘legislative’ facts are established through an ‘adjudicative’ process does not make courts the proper arbiters of whether social change should lead to legal change, especially in circumstances where the necessary change could be achieved by legislative action. Indeed, significant power is also placed in the hands of the social-science researchers who provide the evidence base for such challenges.[15] Perhaps as a matter of constitutional, political or moral theory, there is something to be said for empowering trial courts in this way. But doing so is inconsistent with the ordering of common law legal systems, which funnel questions of principle to apex courts for authoritative resolution.

In this area, too, there have been responses to practical and principled difficulties. Soon after Carter, the Supreme Court of Canada rowed back from the high water-mark of the 2010s. Faced in R v Comeau with a trial judge who had departed from binding precedent based on convincing historical adjudicative facts about the intentions of the framers of the Canadian Constitution, the Court unanimously held that stare decisis binds first-instance fact finders in all but the most “extraordinary circumstances”.[16] Only where “the underlying social context that framed the original legal debate is profoundly altered” is a departure from precedent warranted[17] – even though here the evidence overwhelming favoured the trial judge’s preferred interpretation of the constitutional provision at issue, the precedent should have held. More broadly, the message to trial courts was clear: Bedford and Carter were exceptional cases, the exercises there undertaken by first-instance judges not lightly to be repeated.[18]

Ultimately, given developments in respect of systemic challenges to regulatory regimes, the only areas in which Bedford- and Carter-type challenges are feasible is where there is a distinct criminal law prohibition against a particular type of conduct and the prohibition directly causes serious physical or psychological harm. These limitations were not articulated in terms in Bedford and Carter, but they are inherent to any challenge using facts as constitutional causes of action.  As soon as there is a discretionary element in a regulatory regime, the limitations developed in the context of systemic challenges to regulatory regimes kick in, reducing the scope for first-instance judges to upset settled precedent on the basis of a detailed factual record, and alleviating the practical difficulties by ensuring an appropriately tailored evidential basis.

In this area, as in the others canvassed in this Chapter, greater judicial willingness to countenance factual assessments has created practical and principled difficulties, prompting judicial responses designed to remedy those difficulties.

 


 

[1] 2013 SCC 72, [2013] 3 SCR 1101.

[2] Reference re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (Ma.) [1990] 1 SCR 1123.

[3] See Debra Haak, “The Good Governance of Empirical Evidence about Prostitution, Sex Work, and Sex Trafficking in Constitutional Litigation Queen’s Law Journal” (2021) 46 Queen’s LJ 187 at 192 noting “expert evidence from a range of social science disciplines including anthropology, criminology, psychology, sociology, history, medical ethics, political science, and forensic psychology”.

[4] Bedford (n 68), [154].

[5] ibid [42].

[6] 2015 SCC 5 , [2015] 1 SCR 331.

[7] Rodriguez v British Columbia (Attorney General) [1993] 3 SCR 519.

[8] Carter(n 73), [3].

[9] ibid [86].

[10] ibid [68].

[11] ibid [104].

[12] ibid [106].

[13] See generally, Canada (AG) v Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society 2012 SCC 45, [2012] 2 SCR 524.

[14] See e.g. Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic v Canada, 2014 ONSC 5140.

[15] Debra Haak, “The Good Governance of Empirical Evidence about Prostitution, Sex Work, and Sex Trafficking in Constitutional Litigation Queen’s Law Journal” (2021) 46 Queen’s Law Journal 187.

[16] 2018 SCC 15, [2018] 1 SCR 342, [26].

[17] ibid [31].

[18] See e.g. Kerri Froc and Michael Marin, “The Supreme Court’s Strange Brew: History, Federalism and Anti-Originalism in Comeau” (2018) 70 UNBLJ 298.

 
  • READ PART III HERE ↗

 
GOOGLE ADVERTISEMENT

Want direct access to the latest LITN content?

Stay in the loop ➞ Subscribe to LITN instant notifications.
Receive the latest content delivered directly to your device.
Unsubscribe at anytime.

Unsubscribe from LITN instant notifications
Previous Post

Canadian Bar Association recommends simplified Child Support Guidelines

Next Post

Alberta Appeal Court says federal environmental impact law not OK

Latest News

More than 10,000 Canadians received a medically-assisted death in 2021: report
Medical Law

More than 10,000 Canadians received a medically-assisted death in 2021: report

August 13, 2022
7
Quebec Superior Court suspends Bill 96’s translation requirement until constitutionality determined
Constitutional Law

Quebec Superior Court suspends Bill 96’s translation requirement until constitutionality determined

August 12, 2022
7
The Ontario government has given Maggie an ultimatum: the disabled teen can lose her funding or her independence
Disability Law

The Ontario government has given Maggie an ultimatum: the disabled teen can lose her funding or her independence

August 12, 2022
7

Subscribe

Join the LITN Newsletter ➞ the latest news delivered to your inbox. Unsubscribe at any time.


GOOGLE ADVERTISEMENT

Instagram Feed

  • #LegalTechWoes #legaltech #legaltechpainpoints #legalinnovation  #legalops #legaloperations #legal
#legalgeek #legaltechs #legaltechnology | https://instagram.com/lawinthenews
Courtesy Mat Jakubowski ...silvertownlegal.com | @matjakubowski ... https://www.linkedin.com/in/mat-jakubowski | https://lawinthenews.com/
  • #LegalTechWoes #legaltech #legaltechpainpoints #legalinnovation  #legalops #legaloperations #legal
#legalgeek #legaltechs #legaltechnology | https://instagram.com/lawinthenews
Courtesy Mat Jakubowski ...silvertownlegal.com | @matjakubowski ... https://www.linkedin.com/in/mat-jakubowski | https://lawinthenews.com/
  • #LegalTechWoes #legaltech #legaltechpainpoints #legalinnovation  #legalops #legaloperations #legal
#legalgeek #legaltechs #legaltechnology | https://instagram.com/lawinthenews
Courtesy Mat Jakubowski ...silvertownlegal.com | @matjakubowski ... https://www.linkedin.com/in/mat-jakubowski | https://instagram.com/lawinthenews

Facebook Feed

Facebook Feed

Twitter Feed

Join the Conversation

Personal selections from a Canadian perspective. #Law in the #News #LITN @Law_In_The_News

News Categories

Latest Headlines

More than 10,000 Canadians received a medically-assisted death in 2021: report

More than 10,000 Canadians received a medically-assisted death in 2021: report

August 13, 2022
7
Quebec Superior Court suspends Bill 96’s translation requirement until constitutionality determined

Quebec Superior Court suspends Bill 96’s translation requirement until constitutionality determined

August 12, 2022
7
The Ontario government has given Maggie an ultimatum: the disabled teen can lose her funding or her independence

The Ontario government has given Maggie an ultimatum: the disabled teen can lose her funding or her independence

August 12, 2022
7

Subscribe to the LITN Newsletter

Join the LITN Newsletter ➞ the latest news delivered to your inbox. Unsubscribe at any time.

Website Powered By

DJT Design Studios logo

© 2022 Law in the News Media (LITN)

  • About LITN
  • Contact LITN
  • Support LITN
  • Legal, Privacy and Policy
  • Public Education & Resource Links
No Result
View All Result
  • Login
  • Sign Up
  • Latest News
  • Industry News
  • Categories
    • A to C
      • Aboriginal Law
      • Access to Justice (A2J)
      • Administrative Law
      • Alternative Dispute Resolution
      • Analysis
      • Animal Law
      • Arbitration Law
      • Anti-Corruption Law
      • Antitrust Law
      • Banking and Securities Law
      • Bankruptcy Law
      • Cannibis Law
      • Criminal Law
      • Civil Litigation
      • Class Action
      • Commercial Law
      • Constitutional Law
      • Construction Law
      • Consumer Protection Law
      • Contract Law
      • Criminal Law
      • Cyber Security Law
    • D to H
      • Disability Law
      • Editor’s Choice
      • Elder Law
      • Employment Law
      • Environmental Law
      • Estate Law
      • Family Law
      • Highway Traffic Law
      • Housing Law
      • Human Rights Code
    • I to L
      • Immigration Law
      • Industry News
      • Insurance Law
      • Intellectual Property Law
      • International Law
      • Labour Law
      • Latest News
      • Legal Governance
    • M to Z
      • Medical Law
      • Municipal Law
      • Op-Ed
      • Personal Injury Law
      • Privacy Law
      • Real Estate Law
      • Regulatory Law
      • Tax Law
      • Telecommunications Law
      • Transportation Law
      • Workers Compensation Board
  • News Archives
    • 2022
      • July 2022
      • June 2022
      • May 2022
      • April 2022
      • March 2022
      • February 2022
      • January 2022
    • 2021
      • December 2021
      • November 2021
      • October 2021
      • September 2021
      • August 2021
  • Public Education & Resource Links
  • About LITN
    • Who We Are
    • What We Do
    • Our Mission
    • Our Goal
    • Contact LITN
    • Support LITN
    • Legal, Privacy and Policy
      • Home
      • Cookie Policy
      • Privacy Policy
      • Terms of Use Policy

© 2022 Law in the News Media (LITN)

Welcome Back to LITN!

Sign In with Facebook
Sign In with Google
Sign In with Linked In
OR

Login to your LITN account below.

Forgot your password? Sign Up

Create a FREE LITN Account!

Sign Up with Facebook
Sign Up with Google
Sign Up with Linked In
OR

Please complete your registration below.

*By registering into the website, you agree to LITN's Terms & Conditions.
All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
⚖ Law in the News .com (LITN) Media 📃
Manage Cookie Consent
LITN uses technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information to provide the best user experience. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}
Go to mobile version