Source: http://sasklawreview.ca/comments.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 09:54:27+00:00

Document:
Short-form articles published by the Editorial Board of the Saskatchewan Law Review.
To be notified of new Comments, sign up for our mailing list.
For a complete list of our Comments, see our Index of Comments.
Leave Applications at the Supreme Court of Canada: Should Reasons be Provided?
This comment explores R. v. Comeau. Although the Supreme Court of Canada’s articulation of the law regarding s. 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867 was persuasive, well-reasoned, and consistent with modern federalism jurisprudence, its application was shallow and overly deferential.
Serving Public Opinion Not Justice: Should We Care About Politicians’ Increasing Penchant For Section 33?
This comment discusses recent events surrounding the use or contemplation of use of the notwithstanding clause in Canada and its implications for civil rights.
This comment will build off the work of prior writers on the issue of electronic wills by first discussing the urgent need for electronic wills in our digital age and then consider how blockchain technology could help this cause.
This comment looks at two recent trial decisions that declared the federal administrative segregation regime unconstitutional and seeks to clarify how the trial decisions dealt with one key issue: does the Charter require firm time limits on the duration of solitary confinement?
This comment focuses on the Canadian Anti-Spam Legislation. It provides an overview of the history of the Act, the first public decision from the CRTC addressing CASL violations, and the uncertainty that continues to persist.
This comment envisions blockchain for the future of legal citation. The author describes blockchain as a potential mechanism to overcome the distrust for electronic case reporters as an authoritative source in legal scholarship.
This comment considers the Supreme Court of Canada's interpretation of s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the context of text messages stored on another person’s cell phone.
Re Wall: A Welcome Barrier to Ontario Review Board Decisions?
This comment explores the courts’ long-standing tradition of referencing the ordinary person when interpreting the word “accident” in insurance contracts.
This comment discusses the approach taken by the Supreme Court of Canada when assessing the mens rea of intoxicated defendants in the criminal justice system.
This comment discusses the risk of using joint tenancy as an estate planning tool considering the recent Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision, Dunnison Estate.
This comment discusses the phenomenon of litigation seeking the joint sharing of family dogs following a breakdown in a relationship and how the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench has dealt with this unique issue.
Ktunaxa Nation: A New and Narrower Interpretation of Religious Freedoms in Canada?
This comment looks at the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations), and the implications it has on freedom of religion in Canada.
This comment discusses R. v. Fontaine and the Court's characterization of voluntariness, conceptually and in practice.
Cryptocurrencies: A New Form of Securities?
This comment discusses when cryptocurrencies will be considered securities, the resulting prospectus requirement, and some practical implications of non-compliance with securities laws.
This comment discusses the Federal Court of Canada’s decision in Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency v. York University and highlights key vulnerabilities in the Court’s fair dealing analysis which require clarification. Such clarification would limit improper analysis in the future.
Jayme Anton discusses ROSS Intelligence and the potential impacts it could have on the legal landscape.
This comment responds to critical comments made about the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision, Canada (Attorney General) v. Fontaine. Canada (Attorney General) v. Fontaine looked at the disposition of documents related to the residential schools settlement.
Maintaining confidentiality is central to many professions’ relationships with the public, but confidential information shared with a lawyer receives far more legal protection than that shared with other professionals. This comment explores why.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.