University of Alberta Faculty of Law Blog

Not quite another fine mess - the but-for mantra

A pre-Hallowe'en thought:

Provincial trial and appellate judges will tell you, because the SCC has told them to tell you (and because the law texts tell them), that the but-for test is the primary method (in Canada) used to establish factual causation.

Resurfice 2007 SCC 7, para. 21 (internal quotation marks omitted) : "the basic test for determining causation remains the but for test".

Resurfice 2007 SCC 7, para. 22 (internal quotation marks omitted):  "[t]he general ... test for causation is the but for test, which requires the plaintiff to show that the injury would not have occurred but for the negligence of the defendant”. 

One problem with this mantra is that it is right and wrong. 

 

 

Knowledge is power...

http://i.imgur.com/MYdia.jpg

Sorry, this is too good not to share.

First they came for some guy's space rock, and I said nothing ...

There's a good property law exam fact pattern in here somewhere.

Note from a 3L

In the course of law school, so it is hoped, one comes to recognize that which is relevant.  An attendant-although-often-overlooked facet of that realization is that there are those questions which are, by their very nature, so lascivious, self-serving, and lacking in prescience that they should not be asked. Bifurcating and sorting these questions is, to many, obvious.

However, there do remain those that, having not the poise nor elegance to internalize the extemporaneous, proceed with queries too remote, too bafflegab-ilish, and entirely too useless to merit anyone's reasonable attention.

To those persons, I ask politely: stop.  There is not, nor ought there ever be, a vocation whose aim is solely to inquire ad tedium into the foundations of tangential minutiae.  And, if there were, I am certain that these persons would be willing to contribute, ad nauseam.  But, as this is not our world's state of affairs, I ask instead that these persons kindly evince a more modest demeanor, consider the utility of subjecting their peers to an errant, meandering strain of brain-droppings, and please, in the future, ask their questions once the rest of us are dismissed.  

A Real American Hero for 2010

One guy who refuses to let the terrorists win:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/10/20/pilot-refuses-full-body-scan-says-tsa-doesnt-make-travel-safer/

A New Name for Campus Security Services

See below.  (You may assume that the Orwellian parallels are too obvious to bother pointing out in a comment).

 

To:       All Staff, NASA, AASUA, GSA, SU, PDF Office

From:  Philip Stack, AVP Risk Management Services

Re:      Time for a New Name for Campus Security Services

Date:   October 15, 2010

 

Like the University itself, Campus Security Services (CSS) has evolved a great deal over the past couple of decades. As peace officers, its members have a widening range of responsibilities to help protect the University and its burgeoning and diverse learning community. Working closely with City law enforcement and other emergency responders, and employing increasingly sophisticated techniques, the organization’s officers are equipped to respond to crime of all sorts, from theft and fraud to acts of violence.

For these reasons and more, “security services” is no longer an accurate reflection of the organization’s responsibilities and status. This November, therefore, CSS plans a transition to a new name: University of Alberta Protective Services.

Christine O'Donnell pulls a Palin

In the Delaware Senate debate tonight, Christine O'Donnell was asked to name a recent Supreme Court case she disagreed with:

What's the biggest IT security worry for your business and how are you addressing it?

Don't miss Justice Binnie's sharply worded dissent in Sinclair, released this week. Some excerpts from the headnote here:

What now appears to be licenced as a result of the “interrogation trilogy” — Oickle, Singh, and the present case — is that an individual (presumed innocent) may be detained and isolated for questioning by the police for at least five or six hours without reasonable recourse to a lawyer, during which time the officers can brush aside assertions of the right to silence or demands to be returned to his or her cell, in an endurance contest in which the police interrogators, taking turns with one another, hold all the important legal cards.



Communication between solicitor and client is the condition precedent to the lawyer’s ability to assist. The advice will only be as good as the information on which it is based. In the case of s. 10(b), the lawyer cannot function effectively in an informational vacuum without the possibility of even a general idea of the unfolding situation in the interrogation room. Until aware of that situation, the lawyer may be in no position to render — and the detainee may not receive — meaningful assistance beyond what could be accomplished by a recorded message: “You have reached counsel. Keep your mouth shut. Press one to repeat this message.” In this case, the evolving situation produced information S’s lawyer needed to have to do his job.

The criminal justice system might well work more smoothly and efficiently from the crime‑stopper’s perspective if we had no Charter, but so long as we do have a Charter, s. 10(b) like other Charter rights should be given a broad interpretation consistent with its purpose. If it takes time to work out its proper amplitude so be it.

TypePad Conversations » Answer this question!

Lawyer jailed for not reciting the Pledge of Allegiance

In Mississippi:

It started out as a normal day in court.

"I was laying my material out to get prepared for trial," said attorney Danny Lampley.

But that normal day quickly turned into a jail visit for Lampley.

"I tried to explain to him that it's a personal matter to me. I don't have to answer to anybody about a matter of that kind," Lampley said.

But Lampley says the explanation wasn't enough.

"At that point, he had the deputy take me into custody," said Lampley.

The court documents state Lampley refused to stand and say the pledge. But he says it didn't happen that way.

"He said please stand for the pledge. Of course, we were all standing anyway because the judge had just come in," said Lampley. "It's a matter of courtesy. I remained standing with my hand by my side."

Lampley says he waited for everyone to finish the pledge. The attorney says when it was over, the judge asked him to say it, and when he did not, the judge held him in contempt.

The 49-year-old Oxford lawyer was booked into the Lee County jail and stayed for about five hours until the judge ordered him released.