Welcome to the online home of my friend and colleague David Cheifetz. He now resides in Vancouver, British Columbia, where he is currently attempting to avoid the fate of the ground sloth.
Some of the material in some of his posts may sound familiar to some of you. He claims he’s merely recycling (which is good) and not plagiarizing himself (which is bad) since he has permission.
For those who care, this blog now has 16 followers. If we include Cheifetz, that’s enough for 3 forwards, 6 defence, and 2 goalies. He will now be able to make historically accurate decimation jokes; even defenestration jokes.
(updated Sept, 2013; October 2013; January, 2014)
“Analogy” as defined at www.oxforddictionaries.com:
1. a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification: ..
1.3 … Logic a process of arguing from similarity in known respects to similarity in other respects: …
So, tell me again, please: Why is a raven like a writing desk?
Just published in the 2014 Supreme Court Law Review: Russell Brown, “Cause-in-Fact at the Supreme Court of Canada: Developments in Tort Law in 2012–2013″ (2014) 63 SCLR (2d) 327.
(Added Feb 11/14): I’m going to discuss the article in some detail over the next month or two.
I quote portions of the introduction and the conclusion in the next screen.
At some point this year, I might have the fortune to attempt, again, to explain the current state of Canadian tort causation law to a class of law students.
I’ll point out, again, that if one attempts to parse the statements of principle in the cases, they too often not don’t make sense. Or they’re not consistent with statements in other recent cases at co-ordinate levels. Or they’re not consistent with supposedly binding decisions of a superior court.
I’ll emphasize, again, that somehow trial and appellate judges (and juries), more often than not, make a decision that’s defensible on the evidence.
An application for leave to appeal to the SCC is awaiting decision in Hansen v Sulyma, SCC #35556; 2013 BCCA 349. The panel is Justices Abella, Rothstein and Moldaver.
If leave is granted, the Court might clarify the meaning of the Snell proposition that factual causation is a matter of common sense.
Addendum Feb 1, 2014: Leave to appeal was denied on Jan 30, 2014.
The text speaks for itself, right?
Or is it that some judges are listening, but not hearing, because (metaphorically) the speakers are wearing brown shoes?