Omar Ha-Redeye will be speaking on a panel about Law and Cyberspace at the 21st Annual Conference of the Black Law Students Association of Canada (BLSAC) in Windsor, Ontario, from February 16-19, 2012.
Omar Ha-Redeye will be judging the UCLA Cyber Crimes Moot Court Competition in Los Angeles, California, from April 6-8, 2012.
The nationwide competition is possible through the support of the Society for the Policing of Cyberspace (POLCYB) and Norton by Symantec.
Rules of the competition are available here.
Omar Ha-Redeye is launching two new websites for 2012:
The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the maxim of statutory interpretation expressio unius est exclusio alterius in the motor vehicle collision personal injury case of Kusnierz v. The Economical Mutual. The case dealt with interpretation of the Statutory Accidents Benefits Schedule (SABS). See further discussion on Slaw.
Kusnierz v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company
Other resources include:
Omar Ha-Redeye’s column in the Lawyers Weekly covered the changing legal landscape in the year in review focus.
Interviews include:
(From Left): Guy Rosario, Justice Harvey Brownstone, Omar Ha-Redeye
Guy Rosario and Omar Ha-Redeye were featured on an episode of Family Matters with Justice Harvey Brownstone on December 6, 2011 on CHCH in Ontario, and December 9 and 10 on CHEK in B.C.
11. Online Security & Privacy
Omar Ha-Redeye
Guy Rosario
In today’s world everyone, even children, have daily multiple internet connectivity, in the form of social networking, banking, shopping and a variety of other transactions. And the experts tell us this is just the beginning of the huge potential that the internet has to impact the way we live our lives and conduct our businesses. How safe and secure is our confidential information that is stored online? Every once in a while we hear about major corporate databases being hacked, and mass breaches of online security. We are told that identity theft is one of the fastest growing crimes. What can we do to protect ourselves from these risks?
Check out the outtake video from the episode:
On December 6, 2011, RobFord.ca was redirected to the Toronto Star website.
For a background of the dispute between Mayor Rob Ford and the Toronto Star see below or here and here.
John Honderich
Chair of Torstar Corp.
Rob Ford
Mayor of Toronto
Honderich: If our local democracy is to flourish, it is essential Torontonians be well informed and conversant on all local issues.
Ford: I have no respect for the Toronto Star whatsoever. If people want to read a paper, pick up the Globe, Post or Sun. That’s what I encourage people to do.
–
Honderich: We have the chief magistrate of the city . . . using the tool of blackout to prevent the city’s largest newspaper from receiving notification of public events, briefings or announcements from his office.
Ford: This is so ridiculous. We might have sent out five press releases. And at City Hall there’s a press gallery. You send only one press release, everybody gets it. It’s like one big family.
–
Honderich: Mayor Ford has no obligation to speak to or be interviewed by the Star. That is entirely his choice.
Ford: The bottom line is, I won’t give them an interview. I do not want to talk to them. If they want to trash me, and do whatever they continue to do, that’s up to them, that’s their prerogative.
–
Honderich: The ban has been in place ever since Ford won the mayoral race more than a year ago. It stems from Ford’s rage over a piece the Star ran during the campaign about his conduct as a football coach.
Ford: Until you apologize for what you wrote I’m not talking to you. And let’s leave it at that.
–
Honderich: Candidate Ford was furious and filed an immediate notice of libel, which is entirely and appropriately his prerogative. But he never followed up, as required, and his suit has now lapsed.
Ford: You don’t make up stories that are not true about me coaching football and ever since that — and everybody knows it’s not true.
–
Honderich: The Ford freeze recently went a step further. The mayor’s staff was holding a briefing on arts funding and other members of the City Hall press gallery were told about it privately. In this case, they were also specifically asked not to tell the Star about it.
Ford: I’ll give you an example. We invited everyone. My press secretary, Adrienne Batra, is leaving us today, it’s her last day, so we had a big party for her two nights ago, and we invited every single media outlet, every councillor — this is the only media outlet that didn’t show up.
–
Honderich: This conduct cannot be allowed to continue unchallenged. The issue is far too important.
Ford: It’s not even worth talking about.
CP24 gives the background,
The site was last used when Ford was a city councillor in 2010. The domain name has since been taken over someone else, unknown to the Ford camp.
The Auditor General of Ontario released the 2011 Annual Report today, including a review of the Auto Insurance Regulatory Oversight.
Auditor General Insurance Regulation Dec 2011
See more on Slaw.
The Ontario Court of Appeal released the decision today in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc v Flesch, which reformulated the analysis for Rule 20 Summary Judgments.
The three instances where summary judgment can now be granted are:
[50] …the motion judge must ask the following question: can the full appreciation of the evidence and issues that is required to make dispositive findings be achieved by way of summary judgment, or can this full appreciation only be achieved by way of a trial?
[51] We think this “full appreciation test” provides a useful benchmark for deciding whether or not a trial is required in the interest of justice. In cases that call for multiple findings of fact on the basis of conflicting evidence emanating from a number of witnesses and found in a voluminous record, a summary judgment motion cannot serve as an adequate substitute for the trial process. Generally speaking, in those cases, the motion judge simply cannot achieve the full appreciation of the evidence and issues that is required to make dispositive findings. Accordingly, the full appreciation test is not met and the “interest of justice” requires a trial.
Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc v Flesch
For more, see Simon Chester’s post on Slaw.
Altaf Nazerali, a Vancouver-based promoter and investor, applied to the Supreme Court of British Columbia and won an ex parte injunction against Mark Mitchell, Patrick Byrne, Deep Capture LLC, High Plains Investments LLC, Godaddy.com Inc., Nozone Inc., Google Inc. and Google Canada Corporation.
The injunction was unusual because it also prevented moving the domain to another server or transferring the content, and also compelled Google to remove cached versions.
Read more on Slaw.
Additional commentary on Pragmatism Refreshed, IP Practice, Gary Weiss and Deeth Williams Wall. Surrounding information available here, here and here.
A copy of the Notice of Claim, including some of the allegations of defamation, below:
Law is Cool Slaw Canadian Health Law
