Dear All,



There is also the British Columbia case of JCM v ANA http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2012/2012bcsc584/2012bcsc584.html. There are numerous Australian cases on the issue too, deciding points which are distinct from but refer to the decision of the English/Welsh Court of Appeal decision in Yearworth v North Bristol NHS Trust [2009] EWCA Civ 37.



Best wishes,

JL



--
James Lee
Senior Lecturer and Director of Admissions
Birmingham Law School, room 235
University of Birmingham
Edgbaston
Birmingham
B15 2TT, United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)121 414 3629
E-mail: j.s.f.lee@bham.ac.uk


Web: http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/staff/profiles/law/lee-james.aspx


SSRN: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1192219

________________________________
From: Angela Swan [aswan@airdberlis.com]
Sent: 06 June 2014 16:11
To: 'Harrington Matthew P.'; obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: [Spam?] RE: Human Tissue is Property in Canada

Sperm held in a super-freezer was held to be property, specifically “goods”, in Lam v. University of British Columbia<http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2013/2013bcsc2094/2013bcsc2094.html>, 2013 BCSC 2094, so that the Warehouse Receipt Act governed the contract between the donor and the University.

Angela Swan

From: Harrington Matthew P. [mailto:matthew.p.harrington@umontreal.ca]
Sent: June-06-14 9:44 AM
To: obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: Human Tissue is Property in Canada

This may be of tangential interest to members on this list, but an Ontario trial court handed down a rather significant opinion concerning property interests in human tissue. In Piljak’s Estate v. Abraham, 2014 ONSC 2893, a master in the superior court held that human tissue once removed from the body should be considered chattel capable of being owned like other personal property.

The decision was made in the context of a preliminary motion in a malpractise case where the defendant sought an order in discovery to examine “real or personal property” (under Rule 32.10). In deciding the order, the court had to consider whether the tissue was, in fact, property. The master concluded that the tissue was property but denied the motion on other grounds.

Although American and UK courts have considered this issue in several contexts, this appears to be the first Canadian case specifically holding that body parts or tissue can be considered property.

For those who care, the CanLII cite is: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2014/2014onsc2893/2014onsc2893.html

Regards.

---------------------------------------------
Matthew P. Harrington
Professeur
Faculté de droit
Université de Montréal
Montréal, Québec
514.343.6105
matthew.p.harrington@umontreal.ca<mailto:matthew.p.harrington@umontreal.ca>
----------------------------------------------