Morgentaler v. The Queen in the Supreme Court of Canada.

In Morgentaler v. R., the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the abortion provisions in the Criminal Code. In a five to two split, a majority of the Supreme Court judges found that section 251 offended a pregnant woman's constitutionally protected right not to be deprived of her "life, liberty, and security of the person." Sheilah Martin reviews the three majority judgments and focuses on the decision written by Madame Justice Wilson. She believes that Madame Justice Wilson's opinion merits special attention in several regards: her conclusions on the constitutional rights of pregnant women; her recognition and validation of women's perspectives on abortion; and her approach to balancing women's interests in reproductive self-determination against the state's interest in regulating reproduction. Sheilah Martin concludes that this decision will reverberate far into the future. Even though it fails to establish clear guidelines concerning governmental power to control access to abortion, its principles outline the legal framework in which future litigation will occur, and it will limit and shape the terms of any ensuing political debate. In addition, Madame Justice Wilson's judgment holds great promise for those looking to the Court to promote the rights of women and other historically disadvantaged groups.     

Supreme Court of Canada: Saunders v Vautier inapplicable to pension schemes

The Supreme Court of Canada held on 5 July 2006 that membersand former members of a defined pension plan in the form ofa trust cannot unilaterally compel termination     

公司董事对公司债权人之信义义务与注意义务--加拿大最高法院"Peoples Department Stores Inc.(Trustee of)v.Wise"案述评

在本案中,初审法院法官支持原告的诉讼主张,认为公司董事在公司濒临破产时,对公司债权人负有信义义务。上诉法院推翻了一审判决,认为公司董事仅对公司负有信义义务,本案被告董事并未违反任何义务。最终,终审法院维持了上诉法院的判决。加拿大最高法院的这一判决澄清了业界所广泛关注的一个问题,即公司董事对公司债权人的义务。不论是与加拿大以前的法律相比,还是与国外其他国家的法律相比,该判决都赋予了公司债权人更加广泛的潜在权利。最为重要的是,该判决未将公司债权人的此等权利与“公司濒临破产”这一要件事实联结在一起。此外,该判决还明确了公司董事对公司债权人总是负有注意义务这一重要公司法规则。     

Preston v. Meriter Hospital in the Supreme Court of Wisconsin

When a baby is born in a hospital birthing center, the newborn has come to the "emergency department" for purposes of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). Thus, the hospital must provide "an appropriate medical screening examination" to any infant born at the hospital birthing center in order to determine whether the infant has an emergency medical condition.     

Willis v. Wu. In the Supreme Court of South Carolina

South Carolina does not recognize a common law cause of action for life brought by or on behalf of a child born with congenital defect because it is impossible to prove that being terminated by elective abortion, and thus never being born, is better than being born and living a life with disabilities.     

LabCorp v. Metabolite Laboratories: The Supreme Court listens, but declines to speak.

In the United States, a longstanding legal rule exists against patenting natural phenomena. The Supreme Court recently had an opportunity to help define the boundaries and clarify the implications of this "natural phenomenon doctrine" in Laboratory Corporation of America v. Metabolite Labs., dismissed as improvidently granted. This article argues that the natural phenomenon doctrine renders both the patent claim at issue in LabCorp, and the patents that directly or indirectly claim biological correlations between genotypes and medical phenotypes, invalid or unenforceable under U.S. patent law.