ALBERTA LAW REVIEW最新文献_第2页

Recent Regulatory and Legislative Developments of Interest to Oil and Gas Lawyers 石油和天然气律师关注的最新监管和立法发展

IF 0.5

ALBERTA LAW REVIEW Pub Date : 2020-12-08 DOI: 10.29173/ALR490

Gordon M. Nettleton

引用次数: 0

The Gas/Bitumen Dispute: The Clash of Fact, Technology, Policy and Law 天然气/沥青争端：事实、技术、政策和法律的冲突

IF 0.5

ALBERTA LAW REVIEW Pub Date : 2020-12-08 DOI: 10.29173/ALR486

Allan L. McLarty, G. Lepine

引用次数: 1

Depriving Law Reform of its Potential? New Perspectives on the Public-Private Divide, Law Commission of Canada, ed. 剥夺了法律改革的潜力?《公私分立的新视角》，加拿大法律委员会编。

IF 0.5

ALBERTA LAW REVIEW Pub Date : 2020-12-07 DOI: 10.29173/ALR1259

Richard F. Devlin

引用次数: 1

Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia and Civil Justice: Analyzing the Procedural Interaction of Evidentiary Principles and Aboriginal Oral History Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia与民事司法:证据原则与原住民口述历史的程序互动分析

IF 0.5

ALBERTA LAW REVIEW Pub Date : 2020-12-07 DOI: 10.29173/ALR1262

D. Newman

引用次数: 2

Peeling an Orange and Finding an Apple: Aboriginal Rights Litigation, Joseph Magnet & Dwight Dorey, eds. 《剥橘子和找苹果:原住民权利诉讼》，约瑟夫·马德怀特·多雷编。

IF 0.5

ALBERTA LAW REVIEW Pub Date : 2020-12-07 DOI: 10.29173/ALR1260

Constance Macintosh

引用次数: 0

The Duelling Narratives of Religious Freedom: A Comment on Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem 宗教自由的决斗叙事——评辛迪加诉阿姆塞勒姆案

IF 0.5

ALBERTA LAW REVIEW Pub Date : 2020-12-07 DOI: 10.29173/ALR1263

K. Chan

引用次数: 0

Supreme Court Restates Directors' Fiduciary Duty - A Comment on Peoples Department Stores v. Wise 最高法院重申董事的信义义务——评人民百货公司诉Wise案

IF 0.5

ALBERTA LAW REVIEW Pub Date : 2020-12-07 DOI: 10.29173/ALR1257

D. MacPherson

{"title":"Supreme Court Restates Directors' Fiduciary Duty - A Comment on Peoples Department Stores v. Wise","authors":"D. MacPherson","doi":"10.29173/ALR1257","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.29173/ALR1257","url":null,"abstract":"This article considers the implications of the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Peoples Department Stores v. Wise for the law of directors' fiduciary duties. The Court’s decision is attacked on two grounds.\u0000 First, the author criticizes the Court’s interpretation and treatment of the phrase \"the best interests of the corporation\" as found in the Canada Business Corporations Act. It is argued that the decision in Wise rejects the traditional interpretation of this phrase which was previously accepted to mean \"the best interests of the shareholders collectively. \" This rejection raises the spectre of the debate between the \"shareholder primacy \" model of directors' duties and broader \"pluralist\" alternatives. By undercutting the lynchpin of the \"shareholder primacy\" model, the author suggests that the Court has left a vacuum in the law because the Court failed to outline what is to replace this traditional interpretation, or even to acknowledge the substantive change being made. At the level of process, it is equally suggested that the revision of important principles in corporate law exclusively through the judiciary is fundamentally undesirable, where the law of directors' duties has such a large element of public policy attached to it. The author also proposes that the decision in Wise has resulted in an unacceptable level of uncertainty in the law, and that this uncertainty was neither necessary nor advisable to resolve the case before the Court.\u0000 Second, the author criticizes the Court's comments indicating that a breach of fiduciary duty requires mala fides on the part of directors. It is argued that this is inconsistent with pre-existing case law.","PeriodicalId":54047,"journal":{"name":"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW","volume":"43 1","pages":"383-383"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2020-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47415466","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

A Theory of Vicarious Liability 替代责任理论

IF 0.5

ALBERTA LAW REVIEW Pub Date : 2020-12-07 DOI: 10.29173/ALR1254

J. Neyers

{"title":"A Theory of Vicarious Liability","authors":"J. Neyers","doi":"10.29173/ALR1254","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.29173/ALR1254","url":null,"abstract":"This article proposes a theory' of vicarious liability which attempts to explain the central features and limitations of the doctrine. The main premise of the article is that the common law should continue to impose vicarious liability because it can co-exist with the current tort law regime that imposes liability for fault. The author lays out the central features of the doctrine of vicarious liability and examines why the leading rationales (such as control, compensation, deterrence, loss-spreading, enterprise liability and mixed policy) fail to explain or account for its doctrinal rules.\u0000 The author offers an indemnity theory for vicarious liability and examines why the current rules of vicarious liability are limited in application to employer-employee relationships and do not extend further. It is proposed that the solution to the puzzle of vicarious liability rests within the contractual relationship between employer-employee and not the relationship between the employer and the tort victim. The proposed indemnity theory implies a contract term that indemnifies the employee for harms suffered in the course of his or her employment. Vicarious liability then follows from an application of the contractual concepts of subrogation and indemnity to the particular relationship between employee, employer and tort victim. Finally, the article discusses and attempts to resolve the possible criticisms that may follow the indemnity theory, including concerns that it is in conflict with leading decisions, including Lister v. Romford. Bazley v. Curry and Morgans v. Launchbury.","PeriodicalId":54047,"journal":{"name":"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW","volume":"43 1","pages":"287-326"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2020-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43534192","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 10

What Is a Crime? Defining Criminal Conduct in Contemporary Society, Law Commission of Canada, ed. 什么是犯罪？《界定当代社会中的犯罪行为》，加拿大法律委员会，编。

IF 0.5

ALBERTA LAW REVIEW Pub Date : 2020-12-07 DOI: 10.29173/ALR1261

Giles Renaud

引用次数: 0

The Origins, Early History and Evolution of the English Criminal Trial Jury 英国刑事审判陪审团制度的起源、早期历史与演变

IF 0.5

ALBERTA LAW REVIEW Pub Date : 2020-12-07 DOI: 10.29173/ALR1258

S. Anand

引用次数: 2