I am amazed at the velocity of change which the internet and computers generally have brought. I can remember life without Google and Apple; I remember making mix cassette tapes which activity has had new life breathed into it by streaming services such as Spotify. As a lawyer I have wondered what impact such ubiquity of technology will have on our Courts ability to grant relief against these tech giants which tech giants most persons would think do not carry on business in Canada (at least in British Columbia). The Court of Appeal of British Columbia has weighed in on this issue in:
Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Google Inc.,2015 BCCA 265
This case makes it clear that Canadian Courts (at least British Columbia Courts) will not be limited by the fact that Google's servers and systems are not hosted in Canada and will assert that justice can be granted in the business world at large.
In the Equustek case Equustek sought an interim injunction preventing Google from presenting their website in a Google Search result. Google defended the application on the basis of jurisdiction arguing that the Court did not have jurisdiction over Google; Google submitted that it was not a British Columbia corporation and the injunction did not relate to activities it carried on in British Columbia.
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia and decided that Google was carrying on business in British Columbia as a result of it sale of adwords and the connection of such sales to financing the Google search engine. As a consequence the Court of Appeal concluded that it did have jurisdiction over Google and that the Court could grant an Order which would have impact outside of British Columbia. The Court of Appeal stated:
“Once it is accepted that a court has in personam jurisdiction over a person, the fact that its order may affect activities in other jurisdictions is not a bar to it making an order”
This decision will have impact on Canadian cases which will require an Order to deal with breach of confidentiality and defamation where the servers are NOT located within Canada or the Province where the Court is located. It will be interesting to see how enforcement of these types of Orders will be received by the jurisdictions where the servers are located.
Bridgeland Law is located at 200, 6700 Macleod Trail SE, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2H 0L3 and attendance at the office is by appointment only
Friday, June 26, 2015
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
The Rule of Law; Vexatious litigants; a clear dismissal of Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments
In the 180 page decision decided in 2012 in Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 the Honourable Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke elucidates the history of what Justice Rooke describes as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Litigants. Justice Rooke starts his decision by quoting from Thomas Hobbes Leviathan:
"Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no injustice. Force, and fraud, are in war the two cardinal virtues. ... The laws are of no power to protect them, without a sword in the hands of a man, or men, to cause those laws to be put in execution. ... And law was brought into the world for nothing else but to limit the natural liberty of particular men in such manner as they might not hurt, but assist one another, and join together against a common enemy."
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (Forgotten Books, 2008), at pp. 87, 147, 184
Justice Rooke then articulates clearly in the first paragraph the difficulty posed by OPCA litigants:
[1] This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant. As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given by others) often fall into the following descriptions: Detaxers; Freemen or Freemen-on-the-Land; Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens; Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International (CERI); Moorish Law; and other labels - there is no closed list. In the absence of a better moniker, I have collectively labelled them as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants ["OPCA litigants"], to functionally define them collectively for what they literally are. These persons employ a collection of techniques and arguments promoted and sold by'gurus' to disrupt court operations and to attempt to frustrate the legal rights of governments, corporations, and individuals.
The submissions made by one of the litigants inspired Justice Rooke to do a global review of the sociology and law relating to OPCA; Justice Rooke stated:
[53] There is a third reason for a broad-based decision and analysis. It so happens that Mr. Meads has provided a remarkable and well developed assortment of OPCA documents, concepts, materials, and strategies. These materials also illustrate particular idiosyncrasies that this and other Courts have identified as associated with the OPCA community and OPCA litigation. Phrased differently, Mr. Meads= materials and approach provide an ideal type specimen for examination and commentary, which should be instructive to other OPCA litigants who have been taken in by these ideas, opposing parties and their counsel, as well as gurus.
[54] Mr. Meads' submissions also make an excellent subject for a global review of the law concerning OPCA, the OPCA community and its gurus, and how the court, lawyers, and litigants should respond to these vexatious practices and the persons who advance and advocate these techniques and ideas. In this sense, the present case management allows the litigation between Mr. and Ms. Meads to explore the OPCA community and its concepts, for the benefit of this and other Canadian Courts, and litigants appearing before the courts.
[55] I will use Mr. Meads' materials and arguments to illustrate many points in this review. Those materials will be supplemented from several sources. First, I review judgments from this and other Courts that report on OPCA strategies and court responses to OPCA litigants.
The balance of the case is good reading for those interesting in informing themselves about:
"The OPCA Phenomenon";
"Indicia of OPCA Litigants, Litigation, and Strategies"; and
"Judicial Response to OPCA Concepts and Arguments".
Justice Rooke concludes under the heading Summary and Direction and encourages litigants to review his comments and hope that in doing so this "will lead them to more productive and successful interaction with the courts, government and their fellow citizens:
[66] There is no place in Canadian courts for anyone who advances OPCA concepts. The last part of these Reasons suggests how judges, lawyers, and litigants may respond to persons who adopt and advance these concepts. I also comment directly to those in the OPCA community - both gurus and their followers - with the hope that these Reasons will lead them to more productive and successful interaction with the courts, government, and their fellow citizens.
"Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no injustice. Force, and fraud, are in war the two cardinal virtues. ... The laws are of no power to protect them, without a sword in the hands of a man, or men, to cause those laws to be put in execution. ... And law was brought into the world for nothing else but to limit the natural liberty of particular men in such manner as they might not hurt, but assist one another, and join together against a common enemy."
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (Forgotten Books, 2008), at pp. 87, 147, 184
Justice Rooke then articulates clearly in the first paragraph the difficulty posed by OPCA litigants:
[1] This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant. As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given by others) often fall into the following descriptions: Detaxers; Freemen or Freemen-on-the-Land; Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens; Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International (CERI); Moorish Law; and other labels - there is no closed list. In the absence of a better moniker, I have collectively labelled them as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants ["OPCA litigants"], to functionally define them collectively for what they literally are. These persons employ a collection of techniques and arguments promoted and sold by'gurus' to disrupt court operations and to attempt to frustrate the legal rights of governments, corporations, and individuals.
The submissions made by one of the litigants inspired Justice Rooke to do a global review of the sociology and law relating to OPCA; Justice Rooke stated:
[53] There is a third reason for a broad-based decision and analysis. It so happens that Mr. Meads has provided a remarkable and well developed assortment of OPCA documents, concepts, materials, and strategies. These materials also illustrate particular idiosyncrasies that this and other Courts have identified as associated with the OPCA community and OPCA litigation. Phrased differently, Mr. Meads= materials and approach provide an ideal type specimen for examination and commentary, which should be instructive to other OPCA litigants who have been taken in by these ideas, opposing parties and their counsel, as well as gurus.
[54] Mr. Meads' submissions also make an excellent subject for a global review of the law concerning OPCA, the OPCA community and its gurus, and how the court, lawyers, and litigants should respond to these vexatious practices and the persons who advance and advocate these techniques and ideas. In this sense, the present case management allows the litigation between Mr. and Ms. Meads to explore the OPCA community and its concepts, for the benefit of this and other Canadian Courts, and litigants appearing before the courts.
[55] I will use Mr. Meads' materials and arguments to illustrate many points in this review. Those materials will be supplemented from several sources. First, I review judgments from this and other Courts that report on OPCA strategies and court responses to OPCA litigants.
The balance of the case is good reading for those interesting in informing themselves about:
"The OPCA Phenomenon";
"Indicia of OPCA Litigants, Litigation, and Strategies"; and
"Judicial Response to OPCA Concepts and Arguments".
Justice Rooke concludes under the heading Summary and Direction and encourages litigants to review his comments and hope that in doing so this "will lead them to more productive and successful interaction with the courts, government and their fellow citizens:
[66] There is no place in Canadian courts for anyone who advances OPCA concepts. The last part of these Reasons suggests how judges, lawyers, and litigants may respond to persons who adopt and advance these concepts. I also comment directly to those in the OPCA community - both gurus and their followers - with the hope that these Reasons will lead them to more productive and successful interaction with the courts, government, and their fellow citizens.
Monday, June 22, 2015
Securities Act (Alberta) - Exempt Market Securities Exemption
A few years back I had a few clients who used the Exempt Market Securities Exemption to raise private placement capital for various business ventures. The market "crashed" in 2008-2009 and this lead to many investors not seeing their monies returned. Notwithstanding the clear warning that the investment was a "risky" investment and an investor could "loss all of their money", the Securities Commission has pursued many of these fundraisers. I think the manner in which they attack this is that the fundraiser made a misrepresentation which is actionable pursuant to the Securities Act (Alberta).
While searching the web the other day for an update on the various exemptions which are available I came across the website of Venture Law Corp. which I thought was impressive enough to blog about; there are three links to three separate topics:
Notwithstanding that Bridgeland Law can assist you in protecting yourself either as a fundraiser or investor in respect of these types of private placements of capital, it is instructive to read these excellent summaries by Venture Law Corp. Please remember that these articles are NOT legal advice and that you should hire a lawyer to seek legal advice specific to your circumstances and particular fact situation.
While searching the web the other day for an update on the various exemptions which are available I came across the website of Venture Law Corp. which I thought was impressive enough to blog about; there are three links to three separate topics:
Notwithstanding that Bridgeland Law can assist you in protecting yourself either as a fundraiser or investor in respect of these types of private placements of capital, it is instructive to read these excellent summaries by Venture Law Corp. Please remember that these articles are NOT legal advice and that you should hire a lawyer to seek legal advice specific to your circumstances and particular fact situation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)