Your search

Family law is evolving towards non-adversarial dispute resolution processes. As a result, some family lawyers are representing clients who are trying to reach settlements that recognize their interests, instead of just pursuing their legal rights. By responding to the full spectrum of client needs, lawyers are required to behave differently than they do when they are representing a client in a traditional civil litigation file. They consider the emotional and financial consequences of relationship breakdown – things that are not typically within the purview of the family law lawyer. They objectively reality check with their clients, and they approach interest-based negotiations in a client-centric way. These lawyers view their role as that of a non-adversarial advocate, and their clients as whole people with interests that are not just legal. This paper draws on an empirical study involving focus groups with family law lawyers, to argue that the Federation of Law Societies of Canada’sModel Code of Professional Conductneeds to be updated to incorporate non-adversarial advocacy. The lawyers in the study viewed non-adversarial advocacy as being responsive to client needs, and in the interest of clients’ children. This paper draws from the study to establish what constitutes non-adversarial advocacy and then it presents a proposal for revising Rule 5 (Advocacy) of the Model Code.

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.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

With little public discussion, the Canadian law of self-defence has become, in important respects, more permissive than Florida’s Stand Your Ground law. This article provides original historical research into the origins of the Canadian law of self-defence that reveals the evolution of its current conceptual features. It compares these features with the features of the Florida law and warns that in climates of fear, despite Canadian safeguards, Canada’s law is vulnerable to biased or unprincipled application. The Gerald Stanley case in Battleford Saskatchewan serves as a warning. The author argues that Stanley’s successful accident defence in the homicide of Colten Boushie was, in fact, predicated on dangerous notions of defence of property and defence of person that prioritize the protection of property, liberty, and honour over human life.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

Introduction: This review provides a national summary of what is currently known about the Canadian opioid crisis with respect to opioid-related deaths and harms and potential risk factors as of December 2017. Methods: We reviewed all public-facing opioid-related surveillance or epidemiological reports published by provincial and territorial ministries of health and chief coroners’ or medical examiners’ offices. In addition, we reviewed publications from federal partners and reports and articles published prior to December 2017. We synthesized the evidence by comparing provincial and territorial opioid-related mortality and morbidity rates with the national rates to look for regional trends. Results: The opioid crisis has affected every region of the country, although some jurisdictions have been impacted more than others. As of 2016, apparent opioid-related deaths and hospitalization rates were highest in the western provinces of British Columbia and Alberta and in both Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Nationally, most apparent opioid-related deaths occurred among males; individuals between 30 and 39 years of age accounted for the greatest proportion. Current evidence suggests regional age and sex differences with respect to health outcomes, especially when synthetic opioids are involved. However, differences between data collection methods and reporting requirements may impact the interpretation and comparability of reported data. Conclusion: This report identifies gaps in evidence and areas for further investigation to improve our understanding of the national opioid crisis. The Public Health Agency of Canada will continue to work closely with the provinces, territories and national partners to further refine and standardize national data collection, conduct special studies and expand information-sharing to improve the evidence needed to inform public health action and prevent opioid-related deaths and harms.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

Background Non-consensual removal of condoms, colloquially referred to as ‘stealthing’, is the removal of a condom during sex by a sexual partner when consent has been given for sex with a condom only. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey to determine how commonly women and men who have sex with men (MSM) attending Melbourne Sexual Health Centre had experienced stealthing, and analysed situational factors associated with the event. Responses were linked to demographic information extracted from patient files. Results 1189 of 2883 women (41.2%), and 1063 of 3439 MSM (30.9%) attending the clinic during the study period completed the survey. Thirty-two percent of women (95% CI: 29%,35%) and 19% of MSM (95% CI: 17%,22%) reported having ever experienced stealthing. Women who had been stealthed were more likely to be a current sex worker (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] 2.87, 95% CI: 2.01,4.11, p <0.001). MSM who had experienced stealthing were more likely to report anxiety or depression (AOR 2.13, 95% CI: 1.25,3.60, p = 0.005). Both female and male participants who had experienced stealthing were three times less likely to consider it to be sexual assault than participants who had not experienced it (OR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.22,0.4 and OR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.21,0.45 respectively). Conclusions A high proportion of women and MSM attending a sexual health service reported having experienced stealthing. While further investigation is needed into the prevalence of stealthing in the general community, clinicians should be aware of this practice and consider integrating this question into their sexual health consultation. Understanding situational factors would assist in the development of preventive strategies, particularly female sex workers and MSM.

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.

The Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America for cooperation in the examination of refugee status claims from nationals of third countries (Safe Third Country Agreement) has been subject to criticism since its adoption. Aimed at addressing asylum shopping, the agreement prevents asylum seekers, who have transited through one country, from applying for asylum in the other, subject to certain exceptions. The fact that the agreement applies only to land border ports of entry has led to an increase in irregular entries into Canada, particularly since 2017. The agreement has been the subject of numerous legal challenges. Against this backdrop, the authors analyze the implementation of the agreement in Canadian law and the issues it raises. They argue that the agreement is counterproductive, as if fails to effectively promote the orderly processing of refugee claims from the United States. They also examine the historical background of the numerous legal challenges to the agreement, including the latest Federal Court decision of 2020 which found that the agreement violates section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.