I understand. It’s killing me that I haven’t had the opportunity to add much to the site in some time.

Unfortunately, I see now that my 18 credit hour schedule is not going to be as friendly as I had initially thought. The internships are taking up a significant amount of time, and the reading for three of my classes is much longer (and in one case, much more technical), than I’ve previously had. I’m not complaining by any measure, but more time is being taken up than I expected.

And let’s not forget that I’m still married, and I need to be spending some time with my wife. (I made a sacred vow to her, not to this site :).)

What does all of this mean for LoaLS?

It means that updates this semester are going to be sporadic at best. My substantive classes have to get first priority (which paid off with 3 A+’s, 2 A’s and a Moot Court championship last semester). I also need to ensure that I’m spending time with my wife.

So is LoaLS dead?

Not at all. I’ll put up what I can this semester and over the summer. Next year I will only have to take 12 credit hours each semester (although 1 hour of that may be Moot Court board). That will help me clear out the backlog and potentially start bringing in new content from other sources. Additionally, I hope that my grades and resume will enable me to get a job nailed down by early in the fall, so I don’t have to spend a significant number of hours job-hunting.

So sorry if things go / remain silent. The silence won’t last forever :).

- Neil

I am a 1L at the University of Pittsburgh, and avid LoaLS reader.   As I told Neil in my e-mail, the resources he has have been extremely helpful to me in my first year.  Neil is letting me post here about the 2008 Webby Awards and JURIST, the site I write for.  JURIST was nominated this year for a Webby in the law category.

As a Webby Award nominee, JURIST is also eligible to win a People’s Voice Award. I am writing here to ask you to vote for JURIST. JURIST is up against the ABA Journal, a Goliath to JURIST’s David.  However, with help from the law student online community like LoaLS readers, I believe JURIST can win the award.

Voting on Webby nominees is open to the public from April 8th to May 1st. To vote for JURIST, go to the “People’s Voice” voting site by clicking here. Register (you may need to scroll down), get the activation code that will be sent to your e-mail account, then log in to the People’s Voice site, click on the “Website” grouping, scroll down to “Society” and vote in the Law category. The process takes just a couple of minutes. It’s easy.

Headquartered at Pitt Law, JURIST is powered by a team of some 45 law student reporters, editors and web developers led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts who volunteer their time and talent to the project, working with leading legal experts from around the world to provide up-to-the minute legal news, primary source research and analysis as an educational service to the public and the legal community.

Please feel free to e-mail me with any questions: josh at joshcamson dot com.

Thanks to Neil for letting me post here!!

Josh Camson

I have sent them an email, and hope to get this resolved shortly.

Unfortunately, time I spend fixing the site is not time I can spend recording. This is getting quite frustrating…

- Neil

Update: Podango has fixed things are their end, and hopefully this weekend I’ll be able to start recording and posting new content.

So last semester is over, and a new semester is about to begin. You may have noticed a few episodes up, but they are taking time to get up (and often don’t work if you go to listen to them).

Here’s what’s going on. The back-end Content Management System I use was taken over by another organization. Since that hand-over, technical problems have begun occurring. The CMS team sent out an email apologizing to the entire user base regarding these problems, but they have not yet all been resolved.

These technical problems slowed me down quite a bit over winter break, when I hoped to clear out the episode backlog. I’ve also been slowed down because I’m recording Copyright Law first. (It’s not that I don’t understand the material, the opposite in fact. I’m being much more careful and re-recording episodes if I’m not completely satisfied with them.) I’ve also been busy over Winter Break with coaching our school’s national trademark Moot Court team.

I anticipate this semester to be a bit easier than last semester. First, I’m taking a few less credit hours. Second, five of those hours are internships (ie no reading, recording, or exams). Third, I don’t have the writing credit hours that I did last semester. Finally, I don’t have a Saturday class, as that drains the life out of you.

So that’s where we’re at. I’m going to keep troubleshooting these back-end problems, and try to get Copyright Law recorded in the near future. As always, feel free to contact me with questions.

- Neil

Note: Due to temporary technical issues, this episode lacks an intro and outro (they will be provided shortly).

Note: Due to temporary technical issues, this episode lacks an intro and outro (they will be provided shortly).

Note: Due to temporary technical issues, this episode lacks an intro and outro (they will be provided shortly).

Note: Due to temporary technical issues, this episode lacks an intro and outro (they will be provided shortly).

In the meantime, you might want to check http://lifeofalawstudent.com/bulkaudio/. It’s not as pretty, but all of the episodes are available there.

- Neil

Update: All appears to be back to normal now.

Singh v Minister of Employment and Immigration (1985)
Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v Chiarelli (1992)
Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2002)

Chen v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2001)
Langer v Canada(Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1995)
Romans v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2001)

Union Colliery Co v Bryden (1899)
Quong Wing v the King (1914)
Canada v Singh
re Munshi Singh (1914)
Mack v Canada (AG) (2002)

Janet Dench, “A Hundred Years of Imm to Canada 1900-1999: A Chronology focusing on refugees and discrimination” (2000). (Online, http://www.web.net/~ccr/history.html)

Just an FYI: I have not forgotten about or abandoned LoaLS. The transition back to law school has required significantly more time than I had expected. I also had to spend a great deal earlier this semester writing an appellate brief for Moot Court.

I have fall break coming up, and I am hopeful that I can begin recording new episodes.

- Neil

Schachter v Canada (1992)

Vriend v Alta (1998)

St. Catherine’s Milling and Lumber Co. v. The Queen (1888)

Calder v. British Columbia (Attorney General) (1973)

Guerin v. The Queen (1984)

R. v. Sparrow, (1990)

R. v. Van der Peet, (1996)

Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997)

Devine v AG Qc (1988)

AG Manitoba v forest (1979)

Mercure v AG Saskatchewan (1988)

R. v Paquette (1988)

Mahe v Alberta (1990)

Ford v Quebec (AG) (1988)

Gosselin v Quebec (2002)

AG Canada v Lavell (1974)

Bliss v Canada (1979)

Law v Canada (1999)

Rodriguez v BC (AG) (1993)

Lochner v New York (1905)

Reference re sections 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code

Reference re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (BC) (1985)

R v Morgentaler (1988)

R v Keegstra (1990)

Taylor v Canadian Human Rights Commission (1990)

Collin v Smith (1978) (American Case, for comparison only)

RAV v City of St Paul, Minnesota (1992) (American Case, for comparison only)

Ross v New Brunswick School District No 15 (1996)

Saskatchewan (HR commission) v Bell (1991)

R v Keegstra (1990)

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580 v Dolphin Delivery Ltd (1986, SC)

BCGEU v British Columbia (AG 1988)

UFCW local 1518 v Kmart Canada ltd

RWDSU local 558 v Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (west) ltd (2002)

Ford v Qc (1988)

Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec (AG) (1989)

R Moon, “The Constitutional Protection of Freedom of Expression,” 2000

Multani v. Commission Scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys, (2006)
R v Big M Drug Mart (1985)
Lord’s Day Act 1970

Ford v Quebec (AG), (1988)
Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v. N.A.P.E., (2004)

We discuss sec 1 analysis, which is used in virtually every charter challenge once it has been established that a right exists and is being infringed. Section 1 allows the government to limit a right if they can demonstrate the limit is: prescribed by law, reasonable, and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. R v. Oakes is the early charter case that established a clear test to determine whether the section 1 criteria have meet met, and this test is still used today with very few adjustments. As I promised, I am posting a little map of how a charter challenge works from my notes to make the big picture more clear:

1. Is there a violation of a right?
2. Is the violation a reasonable limit under sec 1?
1. The limit is prescribed by law?
2. Demonstrably justified in a free/demo society?

i. Purpose is related to concerns which are pressing and substantial

ii. Means used to achieve objective are not disproportionate

1. Rational connection

2. Minimal impairment

3. Balance btwn both competing interests of society and the individual AND balance btwn the benefits of the legislation and the harm caused by it (Dagenais v CBC)

NOTE - In this podcast I originally said I would discuss both section 1 and section 33, but the latter was made into a separate podcast due to length. We will discuss the notwithstanding clause in episode 27.

Osborne v Canada (Treasury Board), (1991)
R v Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society, (1992)
R v Oakes, (1986)
Edmonton Journal v Alberta (AG), (1989)
Irwin Toy ltd v Quebec (AG), (1989)
Thompson Newspapers Co v Canada, (1998)
RJR MacDonald Inc v Canada (AG), (1995)
R v Lucas, (1998)

Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union Local 580 v Dolphin Delivery Ltd., (1986)
Shelley v Kraemer, (1948)
New York Times v Sullivan, (1964)
McKinney v University of Guelph, (1990)
Godbout v Longueuil, (1997)
Eldridge v British Columbia, (1997)
Vriend v Alberta, (1998)
Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto, (1995)

Vriend v Alberta, (1998)
R v Morgentaler, (1988)
R v Oakes, (1986)

The second doctrine addressed is mootness.  An issue that Federal courts declare moot is not justiciable and cannot be decided.  An issue becomes moot when, in the course of litigation, events transpire which deprive one or both parties of a stake in the case.  Similar to playing the card game of Poker, one can’t hope to play a hand if (1) they don’t have money in the pot and a personal stake in the outcome and (2) they’ve folded their hand and don’t want to keep playing.

The DeFunis case shows how an issue can become moot in the course of litigation.  Roe, our second case, shows a case that would normally be considered moot, but falls under one of the four exceptions to the mootness doctrine:

1) “Continuing Harm to Plaintiff”

2) “Voluntary Cessation”

3) “Capable of Repetition, But Evading Review”

4) Class Action Lawsuits

DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974)
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)