Articles 2020

Family law is becoming increasingly burdened by high stress, combative lawyers, and unfair judicial rulings. Lawyers, judges and clients are all accountable. Some clients demand an aggressive approach, lawyers justify it, and judges resist penalizing it. Good advocates are motivated by the goal of serving the public good, protecting children from trauma and helping parents solve family problems collaboratively, rather than contributing to the conflict.

This article details the Queen’s Elder Law Clinic's (QELC) initiatives to improve access to justice for seniors in South Eastern Ontario. Run by Queen’s law students, the QELC provides free legal services, specializing in drafting wills and powers of attorney. Offering pro-bono estates and elder law services to local seniors facing financial constraints and diminished capacity challenges, it emphasizes a client-centric approach and provides invaluable client-facing work experience for students.

The article summarizes a panel discussion, What’s Working and What Isn’t: Best Practices and Gaps in Youth Criminal Justice Act Practice and Administration Across Canadian Jurisdictions, from the October 20, 2023 Canadian Bar Association Child and Youth Law Section's Child and Youth Law & the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) Online Symposium.

This article summarizes Hayes v. The City of Saint John, 2023 NBCA 79, where the New Brunswick Court of Appeal recently held that municipalities are vicariously liable at common law for torts committed by its police officers during work hours, but not in the execution of core law enforcement functions.

A recent decision from the Supreme Court of Canada involving a tragic incident has provided clarity on what the courts will assess when determining if a municipality is an “employer” under Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1 (the “OHSA”).

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in Kosicki v. Toronto (City), 2023 ONCA 450, recently considered the relationship between the common law doctrine of adverse possession and its applicability to municipal parkland. The central question at stake in the dispute was the following: Can private landowners gain title over municipal parkland through adverse possession?