ALBERTA LAW REVIEW最新文献_第5页

Overview of the New Legal Era for Development Projects in the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore 纽芬兰和拉布拉多近海开发项目的新法律时代概述

IF 0.5

ALBERTA LAW REVIEW Pub Date : 2019-12-02 DOI: 10.29173/alr2579

Q. C. T. Stanley

引用次数: 0

Financing Disputes: Third-Party Funding in Litigation and Arbitration 融资纠纷:诉讼与仲裁中的第三方融资

IF 0.5

ALBERTA LAW REVIEW Pub Date : 2019-12-02 DOI: 10.29173/alr2582

Rachel A Howie, G. Moysa

{"title":"Financing Disputes: Third-Party Funding in Litigation and Arbitration","authors":"Rachel A Howie, G. Moysa","doi":"10.29173/alr2582","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.29173/alr2582","url":null,"abstract":"Third-party funding is an arrangement where an entity with no prior interest in the merits of a dispute provides funding to a party involved in the dispute. Traditionally, this funding was specifically to assist the party to the dispute by financing its legal fees and costs and could be obtained in a number of ways, such as through insurance or loans from financial institutions. Third-party funding has seen significant growth and an increase in sophistication in recent years, resulting in a departure from this traditional model concurrent with the rise of commercial litigation funders whose entire business is providing non-recourse investment in disputes. This article explores both the changes in models of third-party funding — which can include some or all of: (1) paying for legal fees and disbursements, (2) indemnifying against the risk of an adverse costs order, (3) stepping in to provide security for costs, (4) providing working capital or portfolio funding for bundles of claims, and (5) the rise of institutional third-party financing in Canada. In particular, this article will explore some of the specific applications of third-party funding to the energy industry, including “David and Goliath” claims, claims involving state asset expropriation, and the use of funding as a tool for risk allocation in asset sales. \u0000This article will also discuss the development and current state of the legal framework and case law in Canada with respect to third-party funding, along with third-party funding across different contexts and types of disputes. This includes the evolution of the law of maintenance and champerty and a discussion of key legal and ethical issues engaged by third-party funding arrangements including confidentiality, privilege, disclosure, conflicts of interest, and control of the dispute.","PeriodicalId":54047,"journal":{"name":"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW","volume":"1 1","pages":"465"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2019-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43381066","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

Forging a Clearer Path Forward for Assessing Cumulative Impacts on Aboriginal and Treaty Rights 为评估对土著居民和条约权利的累积影响开辟更清晰的前进道路

IF 0.5

ALBERTA LAW REVIEW Pub Date : 2019-12-02 DOI: 10.29173/alr2577

Diana Audino, S. Axmann, Bryn Gray, K. Howard, Ljiljana Stanic

引用次数: 1

The Road Not Taken: Missing Powers to Compel Decryption in Bill C-59, Ticking Bombs, and the Future of the Encryption Debate 未走的路:C-59法案中缺少强制解密的权力，定时炸弹，以及加密辩论的未来

IF 0.5

ALBERTA LAW REVIEW Pub Date : 2019-10-02 DOI: 10.29173/alr2576

R. Diab

{"title":"The Road Not Taken: Missing Powers to Compel Decryption in Bill C-59, Ticking Bombs, and the Future of the Encryption Debate","authors":"R. Diab","doi":"10.29173/alr2576","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.29173/alr2576","url":null,"abstract":"In the fall of 2016, Canada’s Liberal government published a Green Paper canvassing public opinion on changes to national security law. The Paper explored the possibility of new powers to compel third parties to assist with decryption, framing the discussion around a terrorism plot analogous to a ticking bomb hypothetical. The public did not support new decryption powers, and Bill C-59, now before Parliament, does not include them. This article revisits the Green Paper to shed light on deeper fault lines in debates about whether police should have a power to compel decryption. The Green Paper points to illuminating parallels between arguments for compelled decryption and for torture. The strongest arguments for each make use of ticking bomb scenarios. While the arguments have attracted much criticism, they remain plausible and undermine key assumptions of those opposed to compelled decryption. \u0000Part II of this article traces two common arguments for why state agents seek powers to compel a third party to decrypt: for justice (to secure convictions) and public safety (to prevent terrorism and other serious offences). Opponents cast doubt on the first claim by pointing to many alternative sources of evidence. They tend to dismiss the second claim, that police need decryption powers for public safety, as merely theoretical, but fail to engage its merits. Part III takes a closer look at the public safety claim in light of the torture debate and the ticking bomb scenario. Despite criticism, arguments in favour of compelled decryption based on the scenario remain theoretically plausible on consequentialist grounds, and rhetorically persuasive by aligning the need for compelled decryption with the value of life (over dignity or privacy). The public safety claim also challenges a common view among opponents of compelled decryption that such powers do not involve a trade-off between privacy and security but between two forms of security. The article concludes by considering the possible impact on the debate of a terrorist act implicating encryption.","PeriodicalId":54047,"journal":{"name":"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2019-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44825929","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: 0

Is that All There Is? The Dubious Dividends of Daniels 这就是全部吗?丹尼尔斯的可疑红利

IF 0.5

ALBERTA LAW REVIEW Pub Date : 2019-10-02 DOI: 10.29173/alr2568

K. Wilkins

引用次数: 0

Imperial Tobacco and Trial Lawyers: An Unstable and Unsuccessful Retreat 帝国烟草与审判律师：一次不稳定且不成功的撤退

IF 0.5

ALBERTA LAW REVIEW Pub Date : 2019-10-02 DOI: 10.29173/alr2563

James Johnson

引用次数: 0

Back to Burgess: The Impact of the White Burgess Expert Evidence Regime in Alberta Decisions 回到伯吉斯:怀特伯吉斯专家证据制度在艾伯塔省决策中的影响

IF 0.5

ALBERTA LAW REVIEW Pub Date : 2019-10-02 DOI: 10.29173/alr2562

Lisa A. Silver

引用次数: 0

Introduction 介绍

IF 0.5

ALBERTA LAW REVIEW Pub Date : 2019-10-02 DOI: 10.29173/alr2572

Mike Nesbitt, Leah West

引用次数: 0

Roundtable: Buffalo Days and Nights, Peter Erasmus and Henry Thompson 圆桌会议：水牛城的白天和夜晚，彼得·伊拉斯谟和亨利·汤普森

IF 0.5

ALBERTA LAW REVIEW Pub Date : 2019-10-02 DOI: 10.29173/alr2569

A. Acorn, Darcy Lindberg, J. Nichols, Eric L Pentland, Brock Roe

引用次数: 0

The Devil is in the Scale: Revisiting the Commonality Requirement in Charter Class Actions 魔鬼在天平上：重新审视宪章集体诉讼中的共同性要求

IF 0.5

ALBERTA LAW REVIEW Pub Date : 2019-10-02 DOI: 10.29173/alr2565

I. Ponomarenko

{"title":"The Devil is in the Scale: Revisiting the Commonality Requirement in Charter Class Actions","authors":"I. Ponomarenko","doi":"10.29173/alr2565","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.29173/alr2565","url":null,"abstract":"Even a cursory look at the literature reveals scant agreement among experts on the future of Charter class actions. In no small part, this uncertainty can be attributed to the divergent views among the courts concerning the proper contours of the commonality threshold for aggregate Charter proceedings. While the doctrinal narrative of Thorburn suggests that Charter rights are individual in nature and, thus, are not easily amenable to collective redress, the counter-narrative delivered by Good posits that in order for a Charter class action to pass the commonality hurdle of certification “it does not have to resolve all issues that may exist in terms of establishing liability.” Although it is easy to see Thorburn and Good as thesis and antithesis, the subsequent Charter class actions such as Murray can hardly be portrayed as a synthesis. Hence, uncertainty over the commonality standard reigns. \u0000Taking these observations as its guiding thread, this article makes a case for revisiting the commonality requirement in Charter class actions and argues that “over-individualization” of Charter rights that has been imputed into the analysis by Thorburn is unjustified on both descriptive and normative levels. Descriptively, such “over-individualization” is misguided because it semantically overpowers the analysis which, if properly conducted, would often reveal either no need for individual fact-finding at all or the possibility to follow the resolution of common issues with individual mini-trials. Normatively, overreliance on individualized inquiries as part of the commonality analysis is misguided because it misconstrues the very nature of the class action regime.","PeriodicalId":54047,"journal":{"name":"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2019-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49565961","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: 0