Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Zürich, 1951. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 6-9).

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Zürich.

This work examines the scope of the divide between legal and equitable jurisdictions in Canadian law. It focuses in particular on the divide between legal and equitable remedies, which continues to mold the remedial approach in modem Canada. It is concluded is that the strict separation between legal and equitable remedies is detrimental to legal evolution. The judicial system must strive to serve justice by embracing a flexible and responsive remedial approach. The retention of a division between law and equity inhibits the legal response to the demands of an evolving society. Arguments based in history no longer justify a restrictive and divided remedial jurisdiction. It is accepted that history and precedent cannot be abandoned altogether. A division between law and equity must be maintained on some level but the scope of this division needs re-evaluation. The distinction between legal and equitable rights does not in itself necessitate a division in remedies. Rather, it is time to move towards a flexible framework of remedies, which is responsive to the particular circumstances of the dispute, irrespective of the historical origins of particular measures. It is noted in Chapter 1 that a remedial approach influenced by an intermingling of legal and equitable principles, is evident in recent Canadian jurisprudence. In particular, a resurgence of equitable themes and the expansion of specific equitable remedies, has occurred. Therefore, it is the aspects of equity's remedial jurisdiction that are focused on in the body of this work. Chapter 2 provides a brief historical outline of the origins of equity's remedial jurisdiction. This outline highlights the equitable themes, which retain significance in a modem context and must shape the remedial approach of the future. In the latter half of Chapter 2 the fusion of the administration of law and equity under the Judicature Acts is examined. It is concluded that a mingling of legal and equitable doctrine has occurred in the wake of this fusion and remedial law must embrace this development. The Canadian judiciary has taken some active steps towards breaking down the divide between legal and equitable remedies. These steps are identified in Chapters 3 and 4, with reference to the evolution of the constructive trust and equitable compensation respectively. These remedies have expanded beyond their historical limitations and have mingled with legal doctrine. The jurisprudence supports a flexible remedial approach that rejects the strict confines of history. It is concluded that a move beyond the divide between legal and equitable remedies must not be resisted. Remedies must be loosened from their historical anchors to shape a responsive remedial approach in Canadian law.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Breslau.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Zürich.

This work examines the scope of the divide between legal and equitable jurisdictions in Canadian law. It focuses in particular on the divide between legal and equitable remedies, which continues to mold the remedial approach in modem Canada. It is concluded is that the strict separation between legal and equitable remedies is detrimental to legal evolution. The judicial system must strive to serve justice by embracing a flexible and responsive remedial approach. The retention of a division between law and equity inhibits the legal response to the demands of an evolving society. Arguments based in history no longer justify a restrictive and divided remedial jurisdiction. It is accepted that history and precedent cannot be abandoned altogether. A division between law and equity must be maintained on some level but the scope of this division needs re-evaluation. The distinction between legal and equitable rights does not in itself necessitate a division in remedies. Rather, it is time to move towards a flexible framework of remedies, which is responsive to the particular circumstances of the dispute, irrespective of the historical origins of particular measures. It is noted in Chapter 1 that a remedial approach influenced by an intermingling of legal and equitable principles, is evident in recent Canadian jurisprudence. In particular, a resurgence of equitable themes and the expansion of specific equitable remedies, has occurred. Therefore, it is the aspects of equity's remedial jurisdiction that are focused on in the body of this work. Chapter 2 provides a brief historical outline of the origins of equity's remedial jurisdiction. This outline highlights the equitable themes, which retain significance in a modem context and must shape the remedial approach of the future. In the latter half of Chapter 2 the fusion of the administration of law and equity under the Judicature Acts is examined. It is concluded that a mingling of legal and equitable doctrine has occurred in the wake of this fusion and remedial law must embrace this development. The Canadian judiciary has taken some active steps towards breaking down the divide between legal and equitable remedies. These steps are identified in Chapters 3 and 4, with reference to the evolution of the constructive trust and equitable compensation respectively. These remedies have expanded beyond their historical limitations and have mingled with legal doctrine. The jurisprudence supports a flexible remedial approach that rejects the strict confines of history. It is concluded that a move beyond the divide between legal and equitable remedies must not be resisted. Remedies must be loosened from their historical anchors to shape a responsive remedial approach in Canadian law. / Law, Peter A. Allard School of / Graduate

Thesis (Ph. D. (Philosophy))--Rhodes University, 2004.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, San Diego, 2004. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 248-271).

One of the most important issues that arise under the statutory oppression remedy is the manner in which a court will use its wide powers to order relief once oppression has been found. Guidelines according to which courts will exercise their discretion become even more desirable where a remedy may impact on the governance structures of the corporation. There is an extensive body of case law under the oppression remedy, most of which tends to relegate the exercise of the remedy to the facts of a case. / However, from a study of the case law, two principles appear with varying frequency depending on the size of the corporation. These are principles which may be asserted under the oppression remedy. The first principle states that the majority may not exercise its electoral rights to the prejudice of the minority. It flows from the relationship between members of a corporation and arises most frequently at closely held corporations. The second principle is against abuse of fiduciary position, which entails a duty on directors and senior management to protect the interests of all shareholders. Abuse of fiduciary position may also involve instances where there is a breach of fiduciary duties to the corporation. This second principle is more prevalent at widely held corporations. The remedy will be tailored according to the principle under which liability was found.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Marburg.