This thesis examines the evolution of digital copyright protection in response to the digital challenges, specifically unauthorized file-sharing, in the context of the music industry. It reviews the different strategies used to fight the peer-to-peer technology and its users so as to assess whether the direction which has been taken is in agreement with the ultimate goal of copyright and with other fundamental values of our modern society. It posits that the effort to strengthen the rights of copyright holders and thus maintain an old system of distribution in the face of new technology not only runs afoul the expectations of the public but also prevents the artists and the public from fully taking advantage of the new opportunities of the digital era. This thesis ultimately suggests that policy makers tackling the digital copyright reform should seriously consider legitimizing the use of file-sharing services as a possible way to better achieve the goals of copyright.

Over the last decade, Supreme Court copyright jurisprudence has undergone dramatic changes, concurrent with governmental copyright reform initiatives. Both the Supreme Court and the government have used the popular but unhelpful language of “balance” to explain and justify their initiatives. Unfortunately, there is no consensus as to what constitutes an appropriate balance or how to facilitate this and the two initiatives have been moving in opposite directions. The changes in the Supreme Court have altered the purpose and application of copyright law in a way that favours user access to works. Conversely, had they passed, government amendments would have increased owner rights and incentives, moving in a protectionist direction and restricting access and use. This would have the potential to impede future innovation. This thesis suggests that balance is an inadequate metaphor, examines the differences between the Supreme Court and governmental conception of “balance” and proposes reasons for these differences.

Although many nations have recognized the need to protect the Earth’s climate, human activities are continuing to result in a change in greenhouse gas levels that threaten to result in a detrimental change in the Earth’s climate in terms of ongoing human life. The EU ETS has been developed and implemented in Europe as a key tool to meet the goals set by the Kyoto Protocol. Much political debate has arisen in recent years regarding the implementation of a carbon-trading regime in the United States. Many commentators have recognized that the success of any proposed carbon regime will be determined by how well it is tailored to fit certain economic realities in the United States. However, the adequacy of proposed carbon trading frameworks with regard to potential linkage to existing systems, namely the EU ETS, raises additional considerations. My study seeks to expose these considerations for debate and determine whether existing political considerations in the United States are adequate for the establishment of future linkages or whether further measures are required.

Judges and lawyers have embraced class proceedings as fulfilling an access to justice objective. In the more than fifteen years since the introduction of class proceedings legislation in Ontario, however, few have sought to evaluate whether or to what extent class actions have improved access to justice. The author begins to fill that void by first exploring various meanings of access to justice, and then examining in detail the initiation and settlement of class actions, and the controversial issue of counsel fees, using both doctrinal analysis and empirical data representing the class action practices of more than 75 plaintiff-side lawyers. She concludes that there are several aspects of class action practice and jurisprudence that fall short of advancing access to justice to its fullest extent, and calls for further socio-legal analysis to measure the impact, and evaluate the success, of class actions.

This paper will consider how regulatory arbitrage contributed to the 2007-2009 financial crisis (the “financial crisis”). In particular, the paper will establish how the avoidance of regulatory capital requirements by large and complex financial institutions (“LC financial institutions”) severely worsened the financial crisis, necessitating a massive rent extraction from U.S. taxpayers. In doing to, the paper will examine the regulatory arbitrage perpetrated by American International Group and the subsequent U.S. taxpayer bailout of that firm. Because of the enormous amount of sovereign credit that had to be substituted for private capital during the financial crisis the paper assumes that the net negative nature of regulatory avoidance by LC financial institutions is axiomatic. Therefore, the paper advances several possible reform measures that could eventually be implemented into a new legal framework to confront the problems that are posed by the avoidance of financial services regulations.

This comparative legal analysis evaluates the issue of terrorism and how it has been dealt with respectively by the United States and Israeli Supreme Courts. Since the events of 9/11, combating terrorism has become one of the primary concerns of the US government while it is a matter that has pervaded Israeli policy since its birth as a nation-state. The analysis is centered on examining how each state‘s Supreme Court has confronted the issue with the Israeli Supreme Court using a ―Business as Usual‖ model and the US taking an ―Emergency Powers‖ approach. It is argued that terrorism is an ongoing issue that cannot be justified as an emergency and the US Court would do better in adopting Israel‘s method of adjudication in these matters. It is also suggested that the US could learn from Israel‘s policy towards torture as the US policy has largely been cruel and unsuccessful.

This paper concerns the dominant conceptual or formal accounts of legal rights: the Interest and Will Theories. Section II clarifies the minimal necessary conditions for a rights model to count as a Will Theory. It also explores Kant’s Will Theory of rights and the difficulties posed to it by Hohfeld’s schema of jural relations. Kant has three alternatives: reject the schema’s utility or demonstrate his theory’s compatibility with it via molecularist or basic models of Hohfeldian rights. Although his best option is to disavow Hohfeld, Kant’s theory is ultimately undesirable on other grounds. Section III shall analyze the modern Will and Interest Theories’ biggest weaknesses according to a test proposed in Section I, which should generate bases for preferring one theory to another. It will offer a counterargument to the Inalienability charge levied against the Will Theory, and demonstrate why Interest Theory responses to the Third Party Beneficiary argument are inadequate.

Canadian Trusts and Panamanian Foundations of Private Interest are generally utilized as juridical vehicles through which a creator can designate a person to hold and administer property for the benefit and enjoyment of a beneficiary. Given the similarity of application of both vehicles, and taking into consideration that they emanate from separate juridical and judicial systems, it is pertinent to analytically compare them. As can be expected, there is a significant number of aspects through which Foundations of Private Interest and a Trusts can be compared. The following comparative analysis will be centered around three aspects: Asset ownership, creation mechanisms and the requirement of properly identifying beneficiaries. Preceding the aforementioned comparative analysis, a presentation and description of both legal vehicles will be provided in order to make the comparative analysis comprehensible and hopefully useful.

This paper explores parental alienation in custody and access litigation in Ontario, examining how parental alienation has been defined by various scholars, arguing in favour of the relevance of the term, and identifying a core definition which can be utilized in court. This paper also evaluates how Ontario courts have dealt with parental alienation claims to date, and identifies areas of weakness. Specifically, identification of, and response to, parental alienation is poor in cases where there are elements suggestive of both alienation and estrangement. Additionally, cases are not generally dealt with in a timely manner. Finally, this paper considers the possible benefits of youth acting as parties in parental alienation cases.

Canadian citizens’ inability to access courts has been a subject of controversy for decades. Despite widespread evidence that Canada’s legal aid system is faltering, governments continue to be unwilling to commit the resources necessary to remedy the problem. In this thesis, the author argues that people’s inability to access courts and obtain legal representation not only has implications for their rights and interests, but may also undermine judicial independence. Judicial independence, the author claims, is best understood as a variable bundle of rights, guarantees and powers conferred on courts and judges that preserves and enhances their abilities to adjudicate impartially, maintain a constitutional distribution of powers and uphold the rule of law. Since people’s inability to access courts can impair the judiciary’s ability to preserve these values, judicial independence is undermined. The author claims that it is possible to correct problems of inaccessibility by appointing state-funded counsel in appropriate circumstances.