What a beautiful weekend! Nice walks with Seanna and Hugs, who were also good to let me go on a long paddle each day. The pack ice has broken up at Cherry Beach, so I was able to get behind the Toronto Islands again. The hands-down nicest beachfront in Toronto is off of Gibraltar Point. Nice sandy bottom, and at this time of year the water is super-clean and blue.
Shorter list this week, but here’s what I’ve gotten into.
- Ralph Losey, “Sanctions Have Been Lifted Against the ‘Qualcomm Six’ and a New Trial Ordered Where They May Now Speak Freely to Defend Themselves.” Mr. Losey does a wonderful job of dissecting the tactics behind the latest turn of events in the Qualcomm sanctions case, which appears to just be getting interesting. (e-Discovery Team)
- Tom Schreiter, “Inevitable Appeal to SCC in R. v. Harrision.“ A critical commentary of the recent R. v. Harrison decision in which the Ontario Court of Appeal held that evidence obtained through an unlawful search characterized as “brazen and flagrant” should not be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter. (The Court)
- David Ardia, “Oklahoma Curtails Online Access to Court Records.” I recently attended OBA recent seminar on Master Dash’s December 2007 decision in Moore v. Bertuzzi . It’s about our deemed undertaking rule, and affirmed that the rule clearly “opens” discovery transcripts filed on undertakings motions. Currently, there is a near-absolute bias towards openness under our Ontario regime, a bias clearly endorsed by the (very esteemed panelists). The one questioner of the night raised internet publication and searchability as as causing the end of practical obscurity and cause for concern. Like most members of the bar I favour strict limits on secret proceedings. I also question whether a near-absolute rule can be maintained. Is the Oaklahoma policy, which seems to be about sustaining openness through sustaining practical obscurity, where the answer should lie?