Search
Full bibliography 2,184 resources
-
In recent years Chambers, Smith, McFarlane and Stevens have all sought to explain the nature of equitable proprietary rights by way of the concept of a ‘right to (or ‘in’, or ‘against’) a right’. In this paper I argue that there is a sense in which this conceptualisation of the beneficiary’s equitable proprietary under a trust is illuminating, but that, rather than a right to the trustee’s possessory interest in tangible property, the ‘rights’ of the trustee in which the beneficiary is interested are the trustee’s powers of title. I also contend, in a ‘fusionist’ spirit, that equitable property interests should not be treated as a particular ‘legal kind’, but rather that only interests under trusts should be regarded as a distinct sort of property interest within the numerus clausas. I go on to show how the proposed analysis best explains (1) our notion of ‘beneficial interest’ under a trust; (2) why a trustee is not a residual claimant to the trust assets; (3) the interest of a discretionary object of a trust; (4) the rules of and rationale for tracing; and (5) the ‘automatic’ resulting trust.
-
"In recent years, trust law has continued to expand its influence at a rapid pace, particularly in the area of pension trusts, where it plays a key role in resolving conflicts over the administration, creation, termination, and revocation of pension funds. The flexible nature of trusts results in its continued development, especially in the areas of resulting and constructive trusts. This new edition offers substantially revised chapters on both types of trust, as well as many more caselaw references. Chapter 6 explores the various situations in which a resulting trust can arise, examines the important role of intention in finding a resulting trust, and analyzes recent pronouncements by the Supreme Court on the presumptions of resulting trust and advancement. Chapter 7 offers an updated discussion of the constructive trust, which courts increasingly employ as a tool for remedying unjust enrichment in cohabitation cases."--Pub. desc.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
This document examines the background and philosophy of theCopyright Act, the works protected by copyright, neighbouringrights, general issues and implementation of the copyright law.
-
The breadth and scope of copyright limitations and exceptions has emerged as a major policy issue around the world.² Some narrow limitations on copyright holders’ rights, such as quotation, remain uncontroversial, yet more expansive, flexible exceptions have generated fierce debate. Virtually all domestic copyright laws include some limitations and exceptions to the exclusive rights otherwise granted to copyright holders, typically achieved through the adoption of one of two models. One approach is a “fair use” model, which is widely viewed as the most flexible limitation and exception on the copyright holders’ rights, given its potential applicability to any circumstance or
-
Canadian copyright collectives and the Copyright Board have in recent years advanced the theory that when the Board certifies collectives’ tariffs (or fixes the royalties in individual cases), those tariffs become mandatory on users. Users have no choice whether to deal with the collective; they must pay the specified royalties as long as they make a single unauthorized use of a work from the collective’s repertoire. Many users, for some strange reason, have also subscribed to this view, despite its extraordinary consequences. This article, first in a series of two, shows that this spectre of a “mandatory tariff” lacks any basis in law. Established case law debunks it, standard principles of statutory interpretation contradict it and the legislative history discredits it. An approved tariff creates a compulsory licence that interested users can avail themselves of, if they wish to obtain a licence, but it does not force users to become licensees. Copyright collectives can recover unpaid royalties only from users who offered to pay them and later default on their payment.
-
Canadian copyright collectives and the Copyright Board have in recent years advanced the theory that when the Board certifies collectives' tariffs (or fixes the royalties in individual cases), those tariffs become mandatory on users. Users have no choice whether to deal with the collective; they must pay the specified royalties as long as they make a single unauthorized use of a work from the collective's repertoire. Many users, for some strange reason, have also subscribed to this view, despite its extraordinary consequences. This is a second article in a series of two. The previous article showed that the “mandatory tariff” theory cannot, as a matter of statutory interpretation and in light of the case law, withstand scrutiny. This article shows that in addition, construing the Act in accordance with the “mandatory tariff” theory gives rise to numerous practical challenges, conceptual puzzles, procedural nightmares, and constitutional headaches, each of which should weigh the scales against it. In contrast, the “voluntary licence” theory avoids all these quandaries, and, in addition to being consistent with earlier case law, appears clear, simple, and coherent.
Explore
Resource type
- Blog Post (6)
- Book (752)
- Book Section (211)
- Case (228)
- Conference Paper (5)
- Dictionary Entry (78)
- Document (2)
- Encyclopedia Article (2)
- Journal Article (876)
- Magazine Article (2)
- Newspaper Article (2)
- Preprint (2)
- Presentation (1)
- Report (15)
- Thesis (1)
- Web Page (1)
Topics
- Aboriginal law (4)
- Aboriginal peoples (2)
- Abuse of process (5)
- Access to information (1)
- Administrative law (11)
- Admissibility (1)
- Appeals (5)
- Arrest (2)
- Assurance (1)
- Bankruptcy and insolvency (6)
- Banks (1)
- Canada (2)
- Charge to jury (2)
- Charter of Rights (30)
- Child and family services (1)
- Choice of forum (1)
- Civil liability (1)
- Civil procedure (2)
- Communications law (1)
- Constitutional law (47)
- Contracts (2)
- Copyright (8)
- Copyright Pentalogy (5)
- Costs (1)
- Court having jurisdiction (1)
- Courts (8)
- Criminal law (85)
- Crown law (1)
- Custody (4)
- Declaration of invalidity (1)
- Discoverability (1)
- Division of powers (4)
- Equity (1)
- Evidence (16)
- Expropriation (2)
- Extraterritoriality (1)
- Family law (7)
- Fiduciary duty (1)
- Financial institutions (1)
- Fitness to stand trial (1)
- Habeas corpus (1)
- Human rights (1)
- Immigration (3)
- Impaired driving (2)
- Income tax (4)
- Informer privilege (1)
- Infringement (2)
- Insurance (2)
- Intellectual property (8)
- Judicial review (5)
- Jurisdiction (5)
- Labour relations (1)
- Limitation of actions (1)
- Mediation (1)
- Negligence (1)
- Obligation of loyalty (1)
- Obstructing justice (1)
- Occupational health and safety (1)
- Open court principle (1)
- Patents (1)
- Prerogative writs (1)
- Prescription (1)
- Private international law (2)
- Property (1)
- Prosecutorial immunity (1)
- Provincial offences (1)
- Publication bans (1)
- Real property (1)
- Right to security of person (1)
- Sale of goods (1)
- Securities (2)
- Sentencing (9)
- Sex workers (1)
- Sexual assault (6)
- Status of persons (1)
- Statutes (1)
- Taxation (6)
- Telecommunications (1)
- Torts (1)
- Trafficking in persons (1)
- Transportation law (2)
- Treaty rights (1)
- Trial (5)
- Voyeurism (1)
- Young persons (2)
Publication year
-
Between 1700 and 1799
(9)
-
Between 1700 and 1709
(1)
- 1701 (1)
- Between 1760 and 1769 (5)
-
Between 1770 and 1779
(1)
- 1777 (1)
-
Between 1790 and 1799
(2)
- 1797 (2)
-
Between 1700 and 1709
(1)
-
Between 1800 and 1899
(11)
- Between 1820 and 1829 (2)
-
Between 1830 and 1839
(1)
- 1830 (1)
-
Between 1840 and 1849
(1)
- 1849 (1)
- Between 1870 and 1879 (2)
-
Between 1880 and 1889
(1)
- 1880 (1)
- Between 1890 and 1899 (4)
-
Between 1900 and 1999
(420)
-
Between 1900 and 1909
(1)
- 1908 (1)
-
Between 1910 and 1919
(1)
- 1918 (1)
-
Between 1920 and 1929
(1)
- 1927 (1)
- Between 1930 and 1939 (8)
- Between 1940 and 1949 (9)
- Between 1950 and 1959 (13)
- Between 1960 and 1969 (30)
- Between 1970 and 1979 (38)
- Between 1980 and 1989 (132)
- Between 1990 and 1999 (187)
-
Between 1900 and 1909
(1)
-
Between 2000 and 2026
(1,739)
- Between 2000 and 2009 (399)
- Between 2010 and 2019 (682)
- Between 2020 and 2026 (658)
- Unknown (5)