I examine five international investment cases that embrace the neoliberal vision. This economic model provides a new, contested space between the construction of hegemonic globalisations from above and the contestation of these globalisations from below. The first objective is to describe this space. Each ends the same way: the exit of an unwanted foreign investor after intense social mobilisation. The second objective is to show that counter-hegemonic victories are difficult to achieve: the regime relegates the voice of the subaltern to an inconsequential role, limits public interest state projects that may interfere with investor rights, and often includes a compensatory promise to foreign investors irrespective of the host state’s fiscal capacity. The third objective is to demonstrate the ambivalent role of the state in promoting such neoliberal projects, which necessitate that it adopt a more active role in either policing investment or policing society.

This paper outlines a prosecutorial framework by which Canadian corporations can be held criminally liable for their involvement in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. Combining the provisions of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act with the corporate liability standards found in the Canadian Criminal Code, a standard of liability emerges which appears well designed to generate findings of guilt against multinational corporations with complicated ownership structures, a myriad of representatives and far-flung operations. This model standard, it is hoped, might furthermore contribute to the global debate regarding multinational corporate accountability. By applying the proposed framework to two Canadian corporations constructing internationally illegal settlements on the farmlands of Bil‘in in the West Bank, I therefore seek to test its practical relevance, as well as to demonstrate the theoretical underpinnings and legal sources (domestic and international) which would support its application, both in this instance and beyond.

This paper argues in favour of principle-based securities regulation for Canada. The author examines the current state of Canadian securities regulation and why change is needed. The author then examines the characteristics of principle-based regulation and contrasts it against rule-based regulation while exposing the advantages and disadvantages of both regulatory models. In proposing a principle-based model for Canadian securities regulation, the author looks to the use of this type of regulation in the capital markets of certain Canadian provinces, the United States and the United Kingdom and then examines certain attributes of Canadian capital markets that have to be considered in the application of principle-based securities regulation to Canada. In supporting principle-based regulation as the modern form of securities regulation, the author discusses lessons learned from the global financial crisis and how those lessons can be applied in the promotion of principle-based securities regulation for Canada.

Forecasts, predictions and opinions about the future should not be treated in the same way as hard information is treated under the Securities Act. Because this type of soft information cannot be verified in advance, the imposition of liability in respect of these statements about the future may hinder their production and have a result that is adverse to the interests of investors – who would prefer to hear management speak candidly about its thoughts on the company’s future performance. This essay examines the way in which the Ontario Securities Act treats statements about the future, as well as the most important decision in this area up to the present: Kerr v. Danier Leather. It will also discuss whether there should be a duty to update predictions when the circumstances that formed the basis of these forecasts have changed significantly.

Prostitution has often been referred to as the oldest profession in the world. Yet the Canadian legislature and courts refuse to recognize it as a profession but merely as a social nuisance or worse yet a social evil. While the act of selling sex in exchange for money is technically legal in Canada, all related activities are criminalized. The majority of social science studies concerning the impact of prostitution-related laws on the health, safety and wellbeing of prostitutes indicates that criminalization jeopardizes the safety of prostitutes, as well as their access to health and social services and recommends the decriminalization of the profession. Despite these studies and requests from sex workers and experts, the government has refused to repeal any of the prostitution-related laws. This paper outlines the societal and legislative treatment of prostitution and then seeks to determine whether decriminalization is a viable goal in Canada.

This paper focuses on the use of mediation within Ontario’s child protection system. Applying the process pluralism framework advocated by Carrie Menkel-Meadow, the systemic resistance to child protection mediation [CPM] in Ontario is explained. To address this resistance, a particular approach of structuring conflict resolution is evaluated through the lens of process pluralism. It is concluded that increasing the use of CPM at the dispositional stage of a child protection proceeding will improve results for children and their families.

This paper explores the economic rationales underpinning potential hedge fund regulation, and reviews the arguments about why rules aimed to mitigate systemic risk may be economically efficient. The paper presents a limited definition of systemic risk, and proposes that an international macro-prudential supervisory body be set up for the Ontario, U.S. and U.K. markets to collect systemically important information about hedge funds and to recommend policy changes in light of this information. The paper also reviews the proposed regulatory reforms in the United States that will apply to hedge funds, and argues that while helpful, such regulations are sub-optimal because they do not consider certain important characteristics of systemic risk.

Currently there are approximately 20,000 valid gene patents in the United States. The debate regarding biotechnology and patent law has reached a pinnacle over the patentability of genes. Biotech is fighting a patentability war on two fronts. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit cannot agree regarding the touchstone of patentability for genes; two branches of the Executive are at odds over whether gene sequences qualify under 35 U.S.C. §101. Recent U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit jurisprudence also undermine the patentability of genes as obvious. This thesis argues that the patentable subject matter debate fails to adequately address the goals of patent policy in fostering innovation. Looking to Canadian and U.K. jurisprudence, it is possible to hone an approach to obviousness that addresses the ethical and research concerns in the patentable subject matter debate while fostering investment and patent protection for non-obvious biotech discoveries.

This paper discusses the role played by Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in the European Union and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the way in which they potentially contribute to the constitutionalization of such Regional Trade Agreements. The European Court of Justice has played a major role in the constitutionalization of the European Union due to the preliminary reference procedure, as well as the principles of direct effect and supremacy. The lack of availability to NAFTA Dispute Resolution Mechanisms of the principles which are so influential with the European Court of Justice mean that NAFTA’s Dispute Resolution Mechanisms are unable to drive constitutionalization in a manner similar to the ECJ. Chapter 11 of NAFTA however has the potential to act as a agent of constitutionalization within the scope of international investment law, but not of NAFTA itself.

This paper analyses the effects of tying arrangements involving IP rights on innovation. Tying, with its ability to temporarily exclude others from the potential benefits deriving from innovation, is pro-innovative by providing firms the incentive to allocate resources to realize newer and better products. However, when tying is used with or in place of IP rights to only help protect entry or growth into a market, it could discourage innovation. Market dominance, especially coupled with technological tying can create a barrier towards competition. It is shown that most pro-competitive effects of tying can also be seen as pro-innovatory as intense competition in the marketplace is shown to lead to innovation. In more competitive markets firms are pushed to innovate in order to maintain or improve their positioning for their products. The courts are faced with a difficult balancing judgment regarding product tying involving IP.