From: Adam
Parachin <aparachin@osgoode.yorku.ca>
Sent: Wednesday
9 October 2024 14:36
To: obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: Re:
Canada's Chief Justice
For those interested, here is a thoughtful and provocative op-ed
on point from yesterday.
Judicial decisions and extrajudicial commentary will always
attract criticism on doctrinal and philosophical grounds. This
thread is populated with people who have made gainful careers of that very
enterprise.
But this is different. In my legal career, I cannot think of
an extrajudicial comment that is so massively out of step with the methodology
of problem solving practiced by lawyers from Main St to Bay St and legal
academics of all stripes. This is not a principled disagreement over the
best interpretation of any authority or line of authorities but a comment that
goes to the very approach to discovering the better view of the law.
Any lawyer, articling student or even law student who channeled in
their work products the identical dismissive posture to pre-1970 SCC
authorities - that they are of "minute" value due solely to their
vintage - would face criticism up to and possibly including (in the case of
lawyers) allegations of malpractice.
_________________________________________
Adam Parachin | Associate
Professor
Osgoode Hall Law School, York University
4700 Keele Street, Toronto, ON, Canada
M3J 1P3
3041C Ignat Kaneff Building
T 416.736.5803
From: Moore, Marcus <moore@allard.ubc.ca>
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 10:46 PM
To: Angela Swal <aswan@airdberlis.com>;
Matthew Hoyle <MHoyle@oeclaw.co.uk>;
Mitchell McInnes <mmcinnes@ualberta.ca>;
obligations@uwo.ca <obligations@uwo.ca>; Me <mmoore@post.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Canada's Chief Justice
They don't make 'em like
they used to.
Notice of
Confidentiality:
The information
transmitted by this message is intended only for the person or entity to which
it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any
review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of the
information without the sender's consent is prohibited. If you received this in
error please contact the sender immediately by return email and immediately
delete this transmission including all attachments.
From: Angela Swan <aswan@airdberlis.com>
Sent: Friday, October 4, 2024 7:46 AM
To: Matthew Hoyle <MHoyle@oeclaw.co.uk>;
Mitchell McInnes <mmcinnes@ualberta.ca>;
obligations@uwo.ca <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: Canada's Chief Justice
|
[CAUTION: Non-UBC
Email] |
Well,
that s a relief! Jakub Adamski and I are in the final stages of editing a
new edition of our Contracts text. If we ditch all the cases more than 5
say 6, to be on the safe side years old, it will be a very much shorter
book! What we could say to explain the law is, of course, another thing
altogether.
I
am reminded of a story I heard many years ago. A Court of Appeal judge is
said to have said, Though the learned judge s language is far from clear, I
cannot believe he meant what he appears to have said .
|
Angela Swan, O.C. (she/her) |
|
Counsel |
|
T
416.865.4643 |
|
Aird & Berlis LLP |
|
This
email is intended only for the individual or entity named in the message.
Please let us know if you have received this email in error. |
From: Matthew Hoyle <MHoyle@oeclaw.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, October 4, 2024 8:48 AM
To: Mitchell McInnes <mmcinnes@ualberta.ca>;
obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: Re:
To me
that appears to be a repudiation not only of the entire doctrine of
precedent and stare decisis, but of the entire judicial method.
I cannot
fathom how a judge in any legal tradition could say that.
Matthew
Hoyle
Barrister
One Essex
Court
This
message is confidential and may be privileged. If you believe you have received
it in error please delete this email and immediately inform the sender.
Regulated
by the Bar Standards Board.
From: Mitchell McInnes <mmcinnes@ualberta.ca>
Sent: Friday, October 4, 2024 1:41:15 PM
To: obligations@uwo.ca <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject:
Steven
Elliott wrote: "The CJ s comment cannot have been made with private law in
mind."
That's
what I thought when I initially heard about the story. But it turns out that
the Chief Justice did have private law in mind. He is quoted in one
of Canada's newspapers as saying:
"The judicial landscape has changed completely, and a decision five years old is often, in commercial or civil matters, already a very old decision. To make a long story short, I am simply telling you that the legal interest in these historical decisions is very minimal"
Mitchell
--
Mitchell McInnes
Faculty of Law
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2H5
Disclaimer
The
information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It
is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive
it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this
information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been
automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email security and cyber
resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security
awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential capabilities.
Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity,
human error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a
more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website.