scholarly journals Privacy, Corrective Justice, and Incrementalism: Legal Imagination and the Recognition of a Privacy Tort in Ontario

2013 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas DC Bennett
Keyword(s):  
Detailed Analysis ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Corrective Justice ◽  
Judicial Activism ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Incremental Development ◽  
Privacy Laws ◽  
The Law ◽  
Court Of Appeal

This article considers the nature of common law development as exemplified by the recent privacy case of Jones v. Tsige. The author focuses on Jones, in which the Ontario Court of Appeal recognized the novel privacy tort of “intrusion upon seclusion”. Using a detailed analysis of the case as its basis, the article explores issues which have much wider significance for the judicial development of privacy laws: the process of incremental elaboration of the law, the moral impulses at work within it, and the relevance of imagination to its operations. By drawing out these discrete issues and analyzing the role that each plays in Jones, the article offers a framework for examining such questions in future privacy cases. Moreover, this article argues that the judgment in Jones brings valuable clarity to the analysis of the process of common law development. In particular, the essay concludes that the novel privacy tort recognized in Jones is the result of a legitimate incremental development rather than an instance of undue judicial activism.

In search of a privacy action against breaches of physical privacy in Hong Kong

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 225-247
Author(s):  
Jojo YC Mo
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Private Information ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
Confidential Information ◽  
Canadian Province ◽  
Privacy Laws ◽  
The Law

The focus of privacy laws in Hong Kong has always been on the use and dissemination of personal or confidential information, but a person’s privacy can also be intruded by unwanted watching or listening irrespective of whether information is collected or used. Despite an attempt to introduce two privacy torts by the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong in 2004, there is no timetable as to when these two statutory torts be introduced. Recognition has been afforded for intrusions upon seclusion or solitude in a number of jurisdictions including New Zealand and the Canadian province of Ontario. In England, an intrusion tort has not been separately recognized, but the decision in Gulati v MGN confirmed that damages may still be awarded for an action for misuse of private information in instances where there is no disclosure or publication of the wrongfully acquired information. This article looks at the possibility of developing a common law action of privacy in Hong Kong which affords protection regardless of whether private information is acquired or published by drawing insights to the developments in New Zealand and England.

The Right to Indemnity between Master and Servant

1956 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. Jolowicz
Keyword(s):  
Cold Storage ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Married Women ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
Legal Principle ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Court Of Appeal

The proposition that a master, who has become liable for an injury caused by a servant acting in the course of his employment, can recover an indemnity from the servant is one which has been stated on a number of occasions, but until the recent case of Romford Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. Lister no clear authority could be cited in support. It is true that the master's rights against his servant have been canvassed in at least three modern cases, but in all of them the common law position has been obscured by the application of the Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act, 1935. In Romford Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. Lister, however, by what those interested in legal principle can only regard as a happy chance, it was necessary for the Court of Appeal to deal with the matter independently of the Act.

Discretion and Security: Excluding Evidence under Section 78(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

1990 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 80-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
C.J.W. Allen
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Rule Of Thumb ◽  
The Common ◽  
Political Compromise ◽  
The Law ◽  
Law Of Evidence ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
The Way

Among rules of law Karl Llewellyn noted at one extreme the “rule-of-thumb, in which the flat result is articulated, leaving behind and unexpressed all indication of its reason”. At the other extreme was “the way of principle, in which the reason is clearly and effectively articulated, and that articulation is made part of the very rule”. The vice of principle, he observed, “can be a vaporish vagueness, and the techniques of its effective formulation are not easy to isolate for communication and use”. Partly for this reason, partly perhaps because of its origin in a last-minute political compromise, section 78(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 at first confounded attempts to predict the manner of its application. One commentary suggested that it was “of no practical use”; there were dicta in the Court of Appeal to the effect that it did “no more than to re-state the power which judges had at common law before the Act of 1984 was passed”. A leading work on the law of evidence expressed the view that the sub-section was “cast in terms of such vagueness and generality as to furnish little guidance to the court”. There has been some development since those early days. It now seems clear that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is to be regarded as a codifying Act which has to be looked at on its own wording. Section 78(1), therefore, does not merely re-state the position at common law. It is also clear that in its operation it overlaps section 76 and, through section 82(3), some of the common law. Section 78(1) may be applied in a variety of situations, with or without the presence of some element of impropriety in the way in which the evidence was obtained. Basic questions about its operation nevertheless remain.

• Lord Bridge says that Kerr LJ (in the Court of Appeal) in finding for the seller had in fact misinterpreted what Lord Fraser had said about The Canada Steamship v R [1952] 1 All ER 303 in the Ailsa Craig case! This is an excellent paragraph for demonstrating the way in which judges argue about other cases, following, distinguishing, overruling or stating the precedent or a case erroneously. • Lord Bridge decides the common law point in favour of the sellers in agreement with Lord Denning in the Court of Appeal. • Lord Bridge turns to discuss the ‘statutory’ issue. We now begin to understand the reference to ‘the Act’ in issue (2) as set out by Lord Bridge at Appendix 1, p 310, para 2. • The modified s 55 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 is set out. • The Sale of Goods Act 1979 was a statute that was pure consolidation. (This means that it merely collected together the existing law and put it in one place.) • Modified s 55 preserves the law between 18 May 1973 (the date that the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act came into force) and 1 February 1977 (the date that the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 came into force). • Section 55, sub-ss (1), (4), (5) and (9) are set out. Students need to study s 55 carefully to ensure that they understand what it is providing for and that they can follow the discussion of it by Lord Bridge. So, let us stop here for a moment… for a statutory diversion.

2012 ◽  
pp. 105-105
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
The Way

scholarly journals The Tortious Liability of Directors and Officers to Third Parties in Common Law Canada

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon O'Byrne ◽  
Yemi Philip ◽  
Katherine Fraser
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Corporate Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Directors And Officers ◽  
Court Of Appeal

The law regarding the tortious liability of corporate directors and officers to third parties remains conflicted. One line of authority, adopted in Alberta, provides that liability is rare in the context of torts committed in a corporate capacity, and it largely closes the door on liability for ordinary negligence. A competing line of authority, however, contends that tortious liability is common. Signalling a different approach, Justice Slatter of the Alberta Court of Appeal provides a policy-based stance that accounts for the importance of both tort law and corporate law principles to the question of liability for ordinary negligence. Beyond offering balance, Justice Slatter’s approach has the benefit of aligning with pronouncements from the Supreme Court of Canada regarding directors’ and officers’ liability in negligence to third parties. This article outlines the current authorities in the area, concluding that Justice Slatter’s judgment provides a clear and principled way forward.

scholarly journals EXTRA-CURIAL STATEMENTS BY A NON- TESTIFYING CO-ACCUSED, THE CANADIAN SUPREME COURT AND CHANGE IN SOUTH AFRICA

Obiter ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
BC Naudé
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
Law Of Evidence ◽  
Court Of Appeal

In S v Ndhlovu (2002 (2) SACR 325 (SCA)), the court opened the door to the admissibility of extra-curial statements made by a non-testifying accused against a co-accused as hearsay in terms of section 3 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act (45 of 1988), if the interests of justice so require. However, first the Supreme Court of Appeal and later the Constitutional Court rejected such an approach.It is beyond the scope of this comment to repeat the arguments in favour of a discretionary approach for such statements, but it is submitted that there is scope for disagreement with the findings of both courts.Whitear points out that the provisions dealing with the admissibility of hearsay in the Law of Evidence Amendment Act (45 of 1988) were not declared unconstitutional by any court. The Supreme Court of Appeal found that section 3 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act (45 of 1988) could not be used to admit the extra-curial statement of an accused against his co- accused because the interests of justice would never allow this. The Constitutional Court found that section 3 did not override the common-law rule prohibiting the admission of extra-curial statements against a co- accused since this would amount to unfair discrimination against an accused implicated by such admissions or confessions. Significantly, because it is stated in section 3 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act (45 of 1988) that section 3 is subject to the “provisions of any other law”, the court decided that the common-law prohibition should prevail.Previously, however, the Supreme Court of Appeal has held that the “other laws” referred to in the Law of Evidence Amendment Act (45 of 1988) are alternative ways for admitting hearsay, and do not preclude the admissibility of hearsay in terms of section 3, even where there is another law that prohibits it. The court also referred with approval to S v Ndhlovu (supra) where it was explained that the very purpose of section 3 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act (45 of 1988) was to “supersede the excessive rigidity and inflexibility – and occasional absurdity – of the common law position” by allowing for the admission of hearsay when the interests of justice so require. The admissibility of out-of-court statements by an accused against a co- accused is also dealt with differently in the United Kingdom (our relevant common law) today. Section 114(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act of 2003 makes it possible to admit the out-of-court statement of an accused against a co-accused as hearsay. However, the court in R v Y (supra par 57−62) did mention that this does not mean such statements should routinely be admitted without a consideration of the relevant factors mentioned in the Criminal Justice Act of 2003 and that, in the majority of cases, it will not be in the interests of justice to admit such statements, especially those made during police interviews.Even though, under South African law, it is not currently possible to present evidence of an extra-curial statement made by an accused that also implicates a co-accused, the recent judgment by the Canadian Supreme Court in R v Bradshaw (2017 SCC 35) provides insight into how this could possibly happen in future. It is thus useful to consider the Supreme Court’s decision.

scholarly journals Ignorance of the Law as a Defence to Rape: The Destruction of a Maxim

2012 ◽  
Vol 76 (4) ◽  
pp. 336-347
Author(s):  
Kenneth J. Arenson
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Sexual Offences ◽  
The Poor ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Long Line ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
Sexual Offences Act 2003 ◽  
Court Of Appeal

In DPP v Morgan, the House of Lords correctly concluded that an accused who entertained a genuine belief that a woman was consenting to carnal knowledge of her person could not be convicted of the common law crime of rape as such a belief and the requisite mens rea to convict were mutually exclusive of one another. Though England and Wales have resiled from this position by virtue of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, s. 1(b), which allows for conviction upon proof that the accused did not reasonably believe that the complainant was consenting, the Morgan principle has retained its vitality at common law as well as under the various statutory crimes of rape that exist throughout Australia, most notably the provisions of s. 38 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). Despite a long line of Victorian Court of Appeal decisions which have reaffirmed the Morgan principle, the court has construed s. 37AA(b)(ii) of the Act as leaving open the possibility of an acquittal despite the fact that the accused acted with an awareness that one or more factors that are statutorily deemed as negating consent under s. 36(a)–(g) of the Act were operating at the time of his or her sexual penetration; specifically, the court held that the foregoing factors do not necessarily preclude a jury from finding that the accused acted in the genuine belief that the complainant was consenting. This article endeavours to explain how the accused could be aware of such circumstances at the time of penetration, yet still entertain such a belief. The article ultimately concludes that such an anomaly can only be explained through a combination of the poor drafting of s. 37AA(b)(ii) and the court's apparent refusal to follow the longstanding precept that ignorance of the law is never a defence to a crime, ostensibly prompted by its adherence to the cardinal precept that legislation is not to be construed as superfluous.

Contract variation in the common law

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 196-207
Author(s):  
James C Fisher
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
The Common ◽  
Appeal Decision ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Business Exchange ◽  
Court Of Appeal

This note analyses the UK Supreme Court’s decision in Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd, a case that confirms the long uncertain ability of ‘No Oral Modification’ clauses to exclude informal variations in English law. This note argues that, while the Court was correct to reject the putative oral variation in question, the majority’s description of the law is unsatisfactory because of its detachment from wider contract law principle, and compares unfavourably with the alternative ratio by which Lord Briggs reached a concurring outcome. This note also comments on the Supreme Court’s (cursory) treatment of the portentous Court of Appeal decision in Williams v Roffey Bros, which has reformulated the law on contract variation across common law jurisdictions. The Court acknowledged, but declined to resolve, the tensions Roffey introduced in to the law on part payment of debts. While it is unfortunate that the opportunity to resolve these tensions was missed, this note endorses the Court’s ( obiter) rejection of the analysis by which the Court of Appeal below sought to extend Roffey to the part payment of debts.

NO COMMON LAW ACTION FOR UNFAIR DISMISSAL

2001 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 441-492
Author(s):  
V.K. Sims
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Maximum Amount ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Unfair Dismissal ◽  
The Law ◽  
Court Of Appeal

In view of the restrictions inherent in the law on unfair dismissal, in relation to both the parameters of making a claim and the maximum amount of damages, it is not surprising that in Johnson v. Unisys Ltd. [2001] 2 W.L.R. 1076 the House of Lords was confronted with an attempt to circumvent the statutory system. Mr. Johnson was summarily dismissed in circumstances which were held to amount to an unfair dismissal, and received the maximum amount of damages. Unfortunately for Mr. Johnson, who had been diagnosed with a stress-related illness before, he suffered a mental breakdown, and has since been unable to find employment. He claimed that the manner of his dismissal amounted to a breach of the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence; this argument was rejected by the judge at first instance, the Court of Appeal ([1999] I.C.R. 809) and, on different grounds, the House of Lords.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document