From: Moore,
Marcus <moore@allard.ubc.ca>
Sent: Tuesday 8
October 2024 03:46
To: Angela
Swan; Matthew Hoyle; Mitchell McInnes; obligations@uwo.ca; Me
Subject: Re:
Canada's Chief Justice
They don't make 'em like
they used to.
Notice of
Confidentiality:
The information
transmitted by this message is intended only for the person or entity to which
it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any
review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of the
information without the sender's consent is prohibited. If you received this in
error please contact the sender immediately by return email and immediately
delete this transmission including all attachments.
From: Angela Swan <aswan@airdberlis.com>
Sent: Friday, October 4, 2024 7:46 AM
To: Matthew Hoyle <MHoyle@oeclaw.co.uk>;
Mitchell McInnes <mmcinnes@ualberta.ca>;
obligations@uwo.ca <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: Canada's Chief Justice
|
[CAUTION: Non-UBC
Email] |
Well, that s a relief! Jakub Adamski and I are in the final stages
of editing a new edition of our Contracts text. If we ditch all the cases
more than 5 say 6, to be on the safe side years old, it will be a very much
shorter book! What we could say to explain the law is, of course, another
thing altogether.
I am reminded of a story I heard many years ago. A Court of Appeal
judge is said to have said, Though the learned judge s language is far from
clear, I cannot believe he meant what he appears to have said .
|
Angela Swan, O.C. (she/her) |
|
Counsel |
|
T 416.865.4643 |
|
Aird & Berlis LLP |
|
This email is intended only for the individual or entity named in
the message. Please let us know if you have received this email in error. |
From: Matthew Hoyle <MHoyle@oeclaw.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, October 4, 2024 8:48 AM
To: Mitchell McInnes <mmcinnes@ualberta.ca>;
obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: Re:
To me that appears to be a repudiation not only of
the entire doctrine of precedent and stare decisis, but of the entire
judicial method.
I cannot fathom how a judge in any legal tradition
could say that.
Matthew Hoyle
Barrister
One Essex Court
This message is confidential and may be privileged. If
you believe you have received it in error please delete this email and
immediately inform the sender.
Regulated by the Bar Standards Board.
From:
Mitchell McInnes <mmcinnes@ualberta.ca>
Sent: Friday, October 4, 2024 1:41:15 PM
To: obligations@uwo.ca <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject:
Steven Elliott wrote: "The CJ s comment cannot
have been made with private law in mind."
That's what I thought when I initially heard about the
story. But it turns out that the Chief Justice did have
private law in mind. He is quoted in one of Canada's newspapers as
saying:
"The judicial landscape has changed completely, and a decision five years old is often, in commercial or civil matters, already a very old decision. To make a long story short, I am simply telling you that the legal interest in these historical decisions is very minimal"
Mitchell
--
Mitchell McInnes
Faculty of Law
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2H5
Disclaimer
The information contained in this
communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by
the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been
automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email security and cyber
resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security
awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential capabilities.
Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity,
human error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a
more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website.