scholarly journals Equity, Notice and Fraud in the Torrens System

1969 ◽  
pp. 106
Author(s):  
G. J. Davies
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Land System ◽  
Land Transfer ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Title Registration

The Torrens land system has been adopted in many jurisdictions, including Australia, Canada and New Zealand, as substitute for the old common law and equity system of land transfer. The various Torrens Acts of these juris dictions contain sections purporting to eliminate the equitable doctrine of notice. The author suggests that although these sections are virtually identi cal their application has varied. The courts of Australia, the Supreme Court of Canada and the courts of Saskatchewan have applied the sections literally to allow registration of transfer to defeat an unregistered interest even though at the time of contracting to purchase the transferee knew of the un registered interest and that his registration would defeat or prejudice it. On the other hand, the courts of New Zealand, British Columbia, Manitoba and Alberta have viewed notice, at least when accompanied by an intention to defeat prior unregistered interest, as sufficient in itself in some cases to constitute fraud upon that interest. The author contends that the sections were intended to keep fraud and notice distinct and that the doctrine of notice should be eliminated in order to achieve security of title. Registration under the Torrens system was intended to provide ultimate protection against other interests. Where it is not possible to effect registration immediately upon the acquisition of an interest, as is generally the case, the caveat pro visions of the various Acts are intended to be and should be utilized to pro tect that interest, thus eliminating the need for the protection provided pre vious to the Acts by the doctrine of notice.

scholarly journals Progressive Homes Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada

2013 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 697
Author(s):  
Peter Bowal
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The Other ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
General Contractor ◽  
General Insurance ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The Supreme Court

The unanimous judicial decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Progressive Homes Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada resolves divergent appellate judicial holdings, in British Columbia on one hand and Ontario and Saskatchewan on the other hand, on the issue of an insurer’s duty to defend its insured general contractor in the ensuing litigation under commercial general liability (CGL) policies in cases of defective construction workmanship.

scholarly journals Du Maintien des Appels a la Cour Supreme du Canada en Matiere de Droit Civil

1969 ◽  
pp. 144
Author(s):  
Gérald A. Beaudoin
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Common ◽  
Le Canada ◽  
Article Analyse

L'auteur de cet article analyse la question du maintien des appels en droit civil la Cour Supr&me. Dans le contexte fSdSral canadien, il se declare favorable au maintien de ces appels. II trouve plus d'avantages que de disavantages. Le Canada ayant deux systdmes de droit privi, il convient que le plus haut tribunal du pays se prononce en ces matidres il s'agit d'une richesse pour notre pays. 11 moyen d'assurer la purete" de Vun et de Vautre systdme. The author of this article analyses the question of the retention of the civil law appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada. He is in favour of such appeals in our federation. We have in Canada two private law systemss one inspired from the Common Law of England and the other from "le droit civil" of France. It is appro priate for our highest tribunal to render judgments in both systems. This is great advantage for our country. Steps may be taken to assure the purity of both systems.

scholarly journals Consultation with Aboriginal Peoples: Impacts on the Petroleum Industry

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tony Fogarassy ◽  
KayLynn Litton
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Petroleum Industry ◽  
The Other ◽  
Aboriginal Peoples ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Company Limited ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The One ◽  
Court Of Appeal

The duties of consultation and accommodation with Aboriginal peoples affected by resource development were, until 2002, primarily the responsibility of the Crown. The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in two related decisions involving the Haida Nation on the one hand and the Crown and Weyerhaeuser Company Limited on the other, has placed these duties squarely on to the shoulders of industry. Where the Crown fails to discharge its duties of consultation and accommodation, resource tenures such as permits, licenses or leases may be invalid and activity conducted pursuant to the tenures may result in damages awarded against industry in favour of affected Aboriginal peoples. Appeals from both decisions will be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. In the meantime, the law on industry’s duty to consult and to accommodate Aboriginal peoples continues to lack certainty.

scholarly journals The Contractual Interpretation of Tipping J

2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 227
Author(s):  
Matthew Barber
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The Other ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Comprehensive Examination ◽  
The Future ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
The Way

In the Supreme Court decision of Vector Gas Ltd v Bay of Plenty Energy Ltd, Tipping J put forward an approach to contact interpretation that, while indebted to that of Lord Hoffmann, was expressed differently and promoted the use of evidence of prior negotiations. Despite not gaining the support of any of the other sitting judges, this approach was swiftly taken up in the lower courts and, until recently at least, seems to have been accepted as representing New Zealand law. This article attempts a comprehensive examination of Tipping J’s approach. It concludes that, while coherent in principle, the detail of the approach is flawed in a number of ways, especially the way in which evidence of subsequent conduct is assumed to work. The future of Tipping J’s approach is considered.

Nevsun Resources Ltd. v. Araya et al. (S.C.C.)

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (5) ◽  
pp. 747-810
Author(s):  
Russell Hopkins
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The Supreme Court

In a judgment delivered on February 28, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada held (by majority, 7–2) that Canadian common law does not contain an all-encompassing doctrine of non-justiciability based on foreign acts of state; and (by a narrower majority, 5–4) that alleged breaches of customary international law (CIL) arguably provide a novel cause of action in tort. The court held that claims against a Canadian mining corporation related to alleged violations at a mine in Eritrea could proceed to trial.

scholarly journals Settling the Fisheries: Pre-Confederation Crown Policy in Upper Canada and the Supreme Court's decisions in R. v. NIKAL and LEWIS

2014 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-172
Author(s):  
Peggy J. Blair
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Upper Canada ◽  
Aboriginal Rights ◽  
Fishing Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject

Although a casual reading of the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions in R. v. Nikal and R. v. Lewis might suggest otherwise, this article will argue that Court's decisions in two recent British Columbia aboriginal fishing cases do not apply in Ontario. In doing so, it will be shown that the Supreme Court of Canada relied on evidence of historic Crown policies towards aboriginal fishing rights in Upper Canada in the absence of appropriate context as to when, how and why those policies evolved. As a result, the Court wrongly concluded that fisheries could not be the subject of exclusive aboriginal rights.

The Courts

2007 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 249-250
Author(s):  
Ran Hirschl
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Court System ◽  
University Of British Columbia ◽  
The Supreme Court

The Courts, Ian Greene, The Canadian Democratic Audit Series; Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2006, pp. xvii, 182.This book is another welcome addition to the Canadian Democratic Audit Series. It sets out to assess the democratic credentials of Canada's judiciary—a most significant branch of government in post-1982 Canada. The book's approach is refreshing in several respects. Instead of the traditional focus on the well-rehearsed debate over the questionable democratic credentials of judicial review, the book attempts to evaluate the adequacy of the Canadian court system in relation to three basic tenets of democracy: participation, inclusiveness, and responsiveness. Unlike most accounts of Canadian political institutions, it pays due attention to elements of the court system beyond the Supreme Court of Canada. In so doing, Greene is able to assess more accurately whether the Canadian judiciary as a whole is living up to that set of reasonable democratic expectations.

Democracy and the Freedom of Speech: Rethinking the Conflict between Liberty and Equality

2013 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 293-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yasmin Dawood
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Campaign Finance ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Competing Values ◽  
Political Equality ◽  
Normative Claim ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The U.S

This article re-examines the distinction between the libertarian approach and the egalitarian approach to the regulation of campaign finance. The conventional approach (as exemplified by the work of Owen Fiss and Ronald Dworkin) is to reconcile the competing values of liberty and equality. By contrast, this article advances the normative claim that democracies should seek to incorporate both the libertarian and the egalitarian approaches within constitutional law. I argue that instead of emphasizing one value over the other, the ideal position is one that simultaneously recognizes the values of liberty and equality despite the irreconcilable tension between them. Rather than choosing one value over the other, or reconciling these values by redefining them, I claim that it is vital to maintain the tension between liberty and equality by instantiating the conflict in law. Democracy is better served when the law contains an explicit tension between these foundational values.After setting forth this normative framework, I then apply it to the campaign finance decisions of the Supreme Courts of the United States and Canada, respectively. I make two main claims. First, I argue that although the libertarian/egalitarian distinction is usually presented as a binary choice, the laws of a given jurisdiction often simultaneously display both libertarian and egalitarian characteristics. For this reason, I claim that the libertarian/egalitarian distinction is better conceived of as a “libertarian-egalitarian spectrum.” Second, I argue that in recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Canada, respectively, have privileged one value—liberty or equality—at the expense of the other. The U.S. Supreme Court has over-emphasized the value of liberty (most notably in its Citizens United decision), with the result that political equality is markedly undermined. By the same token, the Supreme Court of Canada’s commitment to equality has become too one-sided in recent cases (Harper and Bryan), with the result that there are significant impairments to free speech liberties. I argue that both of these approaches are detrimental to democratic participation and governance. Finally, this article offers a preliminary proposal for how courts and legislatures can allow for the conflict between liberty and equality to be instantiated in law.

scholarly journals La Cour suprême et le rapatriement de la constitution : la victoire du compromis sur la rigueur

2005 ◽  
Vol 22 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 619-648
Author(s):  
Nicole Duplé
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The Other ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Distribution Of Powers

On September the 28th 1981, the Supreme Court of Canada made public its opinion as to the constitutionaly of the Federal government's plan to repatriate and amend the B.N.A. Act. Modifications affecting provincial powers require, according to convention, the existance of which is recognized by six of the Judges, a certain degree of provincial consensus. The federal projet, contested by eight of the ten provinces, was therefore considered unconstitutional by a majority of the Judges. The Court mentioned furthermore that the federal plan, should it become law, would impinge upon the distribution of powers set forth in the B.N.A. Act. Seven of the nine Judges so deciding declared, on the other hand, that the Senat and House of Commons' resolution pertaining to the plan of repatriation and amendement was perfectly legal and that the British Parliament was, in law, the only authorized body to bring about the changes sought by said plan.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document