La médiation est perçue comme un mode bénéfique de résolution des différends en copropriété divise. Pourtant, son essor tarde à survenir. Ce constat nous mène à nous interroger sur comment la médiation peut occuper une plus grande place en copropriété, particulièrement quant au droit québécois. En première partie, nous nous intéressons à certains aspects du régime de la copropriété et leur incidence sur le processus de médiation. D’abord, nous considérons l’encadrement législatif et contractuel qui s’impose aux acteurs à travers les dispositions d’ordre public et la déclaration de copropriété afin d’en évaluer l’impact sur l’autodétermination des parties. Ensuite, nous abordons le caractère formel de la copropriété à travers la représentation du syndicat de copropriété à la médiation et de l’autorité de l’assemblée des copropriétaires sur certaines ententes de règlement. En seconde partie, nous nous tournons vers les défis que pose l’exercice de la médiation en copropriété. D’une part, nous soulevons des enjeux issus de la dichotomie entre le caractère confidentiel de la médiation et le contexte collectif de la copropriété. D’autre part, nous discutons de l’adaptation de l’exercice de la médiation en copropriété via la spécialisation du médiateur et le développement de la médiation en ligne. Nous concluons que la médiation peut occuper une place plus importante en copropriété et être bénéfique pour ses acteurs, mais qu’elle est limitée par les droits de la collectivité. Une meilleure conciliation de ceux-ci aux droits des parties en médiation pourrait contribuer à accroitre le recours à ce mode de règlement des différends. / Mediation is perceived as a beneficial way of solving condominium-related conflicts. Nonetheless, mediation has yet to become a go-to resolution method when conflicts emerge in a divided co-ownership setting. This observation led us to question how mediation can be used to successfully resolve condominium-related conflicts, particularly in regards to Quebec law. The first part of this paper considers aspects of the divided co-ownership regime and the way they influence the mediation process. We start by analyzing the elaborate legal and contractual framework that binds the parties and the ways it may limit or otherwise impact their self- determination and empowerment. Then, we discuss the formal obligations imposed on the actors in co-ownerships through the matters of the representation of the syndicate of co-owners in mediation and the assembly of co-owners’ authority over certain resolution agreements. In the second part of this paper, we discuss some challenges of practising mediation in a co-ownership setting. We first underscore incompatibilities between the confidential aspect of mediation and the collective nature of co-ownership. Then, we discuss how the practice of mediation is likely to adapt through mediator specialization and through advancement of online mediation. Our study leads to the conclusion that though mediation could occupy a bigger space in co-ownership-related conflicts, the rights of the co-op community currently limit its realm. A better conciliation of those rights to those of the parties in mediation could support the integration this dispute resolution process as part of co-ownership culture.

Indivisaires, concubins, membres d'une même famille, copropriétaires siégeant à une même assemblée, sociétés d'un même groupe, adhérents à un même parti politique, salariés d'une même unité économique et sociale, couple d'époux ou de partenaires, personnels de direction d'une même clinique... aucun lien ne semble rapprocher ces situations. Pourtant, toutes ont pu être qualifiées de "communautés d'intérêts". Hasard du langage ou, à l'inverse, signe de l'émergence d'une véritable notion ? Quels enseignements peuvent être tirés de l'emploi récurrent de l'expression "communauté d'intérêts" en droit positif ? Approfondissement minutieusement l'état de notre droit, cet essai s'applique à démontrer l'existence de la nation de communauté d'intérêts, ses spécificités et tout l'intérêt de sa consécration. Appréhendant la communauté d'intérêts comme un ensemble de personnes unies par des liens particuliers, l'étude menée ici s'avère audacieuse. Elle met à la disposition du juge et du législateur des outils de protection adaptés aux particularités de cette entité juridique et requise par celle-ci. D'une utilité pratique indéniable, l'étude répond également à une nécessité théorique. Elle propose de combler un vide juridique, celui qui existe au sein des groupements de personnes, et situe ainsi les diverses communautés d'intérêts entre les ensembles dépourvus de toute cohésion et ceux qui sont dotés de la personnalité morale ou qui en sont privés pour des raisons formelles. / Interest owners, cohabitees, members of a same family, co-owners at a same general assembly, subsidiairies of a same company, members of a same political party, employees of a same economic and social entity, spouses or life partners, management staff of a same clinic... these appear as unrelated and dissimilar simulations. Yet, all qualify as "communities of interests". Is this a mere vocabulary coincidence or the indication that a genuine concept is emerging ? What lessons can we learn from the recurring use of the term "communities of interest" in positive law ? Thoroughly researching the state of our law, this essay demonstrates the concept of "community of interest", its specificities and why it should be legally anchored. Apprehending the community of interest as a group of people united by special ties, the study undertaken here appears bold. It provides the judge and the legislator with protection tools adapted to the particularities of this legal entity and required by it. The study answers a theoretical necessity, and demonstrates its undeniable practical use. It proposes to fill a legal vacuum that exists within groups of people, and thus places the different communities of interest between the entities without any cohesion at all and those with legal personality or who are deprived of legal personality for formal reasons.

The government has indicated that innovation fosters economic growth and is essential to maintaining a competitive position in international markets. Patents are the preferred mechanism by which the Australian Government and other governments encourage their nationals to protect their innovations. The question of the entitlement was raised in several cases in the Federal Court of Australia where there has been a failure to name all of the inventors on a patent grant (non-joinder) or where persons were mis-named as inventors, who were not and consequently have no interest in a grant (rnis-joinder). In both cases, parties who were not themselves daiming an entitlement to the invention, brought objections based on a number of grounds, including entitlement. The results have been the revocation of the patent in the case on the non-joinder of an inventor and in the case of mis-joinder, the preliminary view of a judge of the Federal Court has been, that the patent would be invalid through lack of entitlement. The result is that competitors are permitted to 'exploit' the invention, as the subject matter is not protected by a patent. The implications are far reaching, For example, where a research team in collaboration with another develops an invention but omits the inventive contribution of even one member of one team or includes a person who has not made an inventive contribution in the patent grant, the patent will be invalid. In these circumstances, the author considers that the result produces a disincentive to innovate. Consideration of this area in other jurisdictions reveals that the U.S. and the U.K. have recognised this as an unsatisfactory state of affairs. As a result, Congress in the U.S. made provision in their Patent Code in the early 1950's, that in the case of error or mistake giving rise to a non-joinder or mis-joinder of inventors, the patent would not be invalid but could be rectified by the Director of Patents and Trade Marks (the 'Director'). In the U.K., the Comptroller has powers to deal with a wide variety of cases involving entitlement to ownership of a patent. The situations include but are not limited to cases where some but not all of the persons entitled to the grant have been granted the patent, i.e. non-joinder, or where a person entitled to be granted a patent, has been granted a patent together with a person who is not entitled, i.e. mis-joinder. The thesis will focus on the non-joinder and mis-joinder of inventors, but the U.K. provision addresses a wider field of parties entitled, whether entitled as inventors or on some other basis. In addition, the U.K. and Germany have made provision restricting the persons who are able to challenge a patent on entitlement grounds. This is restricted to those persons having an interest in the patent, rather than open to any person, as is the case in Australia. The Australian decisions have been determined on historic cases dating back to the 17th century. It is timely to consider amendments which will overcome revocation of patents under Australian law, for what is essentially a matter between the persons interested. These amendments will accordingly encourage innovation, particularly in an environment where intellectual property has taken on greater importance and where the identification of the inventor has become more complex as collaborations in research become more common.

The present diploma thesis ‘Practical Division of a Real Estate – Agricultural Farmstead‘ is concerned with actual division of an agricultural homestead in XXX, the district of Olomouc. Based on the local examination which has been performed and after analyzing documents acquired from the owners, conclusions were drawn as to the possibility of dividing the estate while adhering to the applicable regulations of the civil procedure, construction law, construction technology, operational technology and economy. Valid price guidelines were used to determine the price of the estate and a comparative price of the estate was also estimated. Both price levels were also determined for the individual parts established by the practical division of the estate. The thesis consists of two basic sections. The first section focuses on theory, explaining the problem of practical division of an estate and providing a description of work of a certified expert drawing up this type of expert opinion. The second section comprises a practical part, which contains the expert opinion on the actual division of the agricultural homestead in the town of XXX in the Olomouc district.