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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Canada’s Patented Medicines (Notice Of Compliance) Regulations fail to achieve the intended purpose of balancing innovation with timely generic market entry. An examination of the inefficiencies created by the Canadian regulations reveals that key features of U.S. pharmaceutical law should be adopted to improve the disjointed regulatory system that impedes generic competition. Specifically, the regulations should be amended to consolidate multiple proceedings into one cause of action that evaluates patent validity. An economic incentive to challenge weak patents should also be introduced in Canada. These features encourage competition without deterring pharmaceutical research and development because only patents that are not truly inventive will be invalidated after a full inquiry. As such, the intellectual property laws will continue to satisfy Canada’s international intellectual property obligations and protect innovative medicines and allow recovery of costs and monopoly profits to new and useful pharmaceutical products.

One of the main factors that spurred the 2008 financial crisis was the trading of securitized products without a clear understanding of the risks that those products bore. I argue that an appropriate regime of mandatory disclosure is the primary instrument regulators should refer to in order to correct the informational asymmetries that are present in the market for securities products. Subsequently, I take into consideration the CSA proposed legislation for the mandatory disclosure of securitized products and analyze its main components under the light of the principles of investor protection and market efficiency. I find that the new legislation should be welcome by market operators because it is a good balancing effort between the necessity to protect the investors and fostering the efficiency of the market.

Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada provides that polygamy is an indictable offence. In a recent reference to the Supreme Court of British Colombia, the court held that this section was constitutionally valid and did not infringe upon religious freedom because of the harm polygamous marriages caused to women, children, society and most importantly, “the institution of monogamous marriage”. This paper will revisit the court’s analysis of polygamy and discuss why it was considered harmful and preserved as a criminal act. The paper will canvas the underlying differences between the roles ascribed to marriage in Islam, as an example of a non-Western religio-legal tradition, and the collective liberal West. Ultimately, the paper will consider whether a balance can be struck between the measures required to protect women and children from harm, and preserving religious freedom, while remaining within the bounds of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.