DOCSLIB.ORG

Law 435 Can Constitutional

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Law 435 Can Constitutional LAW 435 CAN CONSTITUTIONAL INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1 THE ELEMENTS OF THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION ................................................................ 1 THE SOURCES OF THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION ................................................................... 1 REFERENCE CASES ............................................................................................................................. 1 CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES .............................................................................................................. 1 Reference re Secession of Quebec ......................................................................................................... 1 Reference re Senate Reform .................................................................................................................. 2 CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION ................................................................................................... 2 UNWRITTEN CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES .............................................................................. 2 Reference re Meaning of the Word “Persons” in Section 24 of the British North America Act, 1867 . 2 Edwards v Canada (Attorney General) – Living Tree .......................................................................... 3 Constitutional Interpretation and Original Intent – Justice Ian Binnie ............................................ 3 CONSTITUTIONAL ARCHITECTURE ...................................................................................................... 4 TRIGGERING JUDICIAL REVIEW AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES .................................................... 4 HOW DO CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES GET TO COURT? ............................................................... 4 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................................. 4 PARTIES AND INTERVENORS ........................................................................................................... 4 National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius ..................................................................... 4 FEDERALISM ................................................................................................................................................ 5 CONFEDERATION .................................................................................................................................... 5 John T Saywell, The Lawmakers: Judicial Power and the Shaping of Canadian Federalism ............. 5 FEDERALISM AND THE MODERN CANADIAN STATE .................................................................... 5 Kenneth Harold Norrie, Richard Simeon & Mark Krasnick, Federalism and the Economic Union 5 INTERPRETING THE DIVISION OF POWERS .................................................................................... 6 VALUES INFORMING THE INTERPRETATION OF THE DIVISION OF POWERS ................... 6 Richard E Simeon, “Criteria for Choice in Federal Systems” ........................................................... 6 Conceptions of Community .............................................................................................................. 6 The Functional Perspective .............................................................................................................. 6 The Democratic Perspective............................................................................................................. 7 THE PRIVY COUNCIL.................................................................................................................................. 7 Why Federalism? ................................................................................................................................. 7 Citizen Insurance Company v Parsons - IMPT for 92(13) .................................................................. 7 Russell v The Queen – win for POGG .................................................................................................. 8 Hodge v The Queen – Double Aspect Doctrine .................................................................................... 8 THE DEVELOPING CONSTITUTIONAL STATE ..................................................................................... 8 Reference re the Board of Commerce Act, 1919 & the Combines and Fair Prices Act, 1919 ............... 8 Fort Frances Pulp and Paper Co v Manitoba Free Press Company * reread ...................................... 9 Toronto Electric Commissioners v Snider ............................................................................................. 9 POGG AND HALDANE QUOTES ...................................................................................................... 10 THE NEW DEAL .......................................................................................................................................... 10 WPM Kennedy, “Our Constitution in the Melting Pot” .................................................................. 10 Vincent C Macdonald, “Judicial Interpretation of the Canadian Constitution” ............................ 10 AG Canada v AG Ontario (Labour Conventions) ............................................................................... 10 AG Canada v AG Ontario (The Employment and Social Insurance Act) ........................................... 11 AG British Columbia v AG Canada (The Natural Products Market) .................................................. 12 Remaining New Deal Cases ............................................................................................................... 12 Richard Simeon & Ian Robinson, State, Society and the Development of Canadian Federalism ..... 12 PITH AND SUBSTANCE ............................................................................................................................. 13 Pith and Substance Test .................................................................................................................. 13 Katherine Swinton, The Supreme Court and Canadian Federalism: The Laskin-Dickson Years ..... 13 William R Lederman, “Classification of Laws and the BNA ACT” ................................................ 13 R v Morgentaler .................................................................................................................................. 13 DOUBLE ASPECT DOCTRINE .................................................................................................................. 14 Double Aspect Doctrine Test ........................................................................................................... 15 William R Lederman, “Classification of Laws and the BNA Act” .................................................. 15 Multiple Access Ltd v McCutcheon ..................................................................................................... 15 ANCILLARY POWERS – OCTOPUS METAPHOR ......................................................................... 16 Ancillary Powers Test...................................................................................................................... 16 General Motors of Canada Ltd v City National Leasing ..................................................................... 16 Quebec AG v Lacombe ........................................................................................................................ 17 INTERJURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITY – CASTLE METAPHOR ......................................................... 17 IJI Test ............................................................................................................................................. 18 Canadian Western Bank v Alberta – adds impair to the IJI test ....................................................... 18 Quebec (AG) v Canadian Owners and Pilots Association ................................................................... 18 PARAMOUNTCY – STALONE ALWAYS WINS METAPHOR .............................................................. 19 Paramountcy Test ............................................................................................................................ 20 Multiple Access Ltd v McCutcheon ..................................................................................................... 20 Bank of Montreal v Hall – step 2 of paramountcy test ...................................................................... 20 Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc v Saskatchewan ............................................................................. 21 Alberta (AG) v Moloney ...................................................................................................................... 22 PEACE, ORDER AND GOOD GOVERNMENT ........................................................................................ 22 Re: Anti-Inflation Act ......................................................................................................................... 22 R v Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd ** come back to this case ............................................................ 24 ECONOMIC REGULATION ....................................................................................................................... 25 PROVINICAL POWERS OVER ECONOMIC REGULATION ........................................................... 25 Carnation Company Limited
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the Commonwealth
    Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in The Commonwealth Struggles for Decriminalisation and Change Edited by Corinne Lennox and Matthew Waites Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in The Commonwealth: Struggles for Decriminalisation and Change Edited by Corinne Lennox and Matthew Waites © Human Rights Consortium, Institute of Commonwealth Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London, 2013 This book is published under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NCND 4.0) license. More information regarding CC licenses is available at https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/ Available to download free at http://www.humanities-digital-library.org ISBN 978-1-912250-13-4 (2018 PDF edition) DOI 10.14296/518.9781912250134 Institute of Commonwealth Studies School of Advanced Study University of London Senate House Malet Street London WC1E 7HU Cover image: Activists at Pride in Entebbe, Uganda, August 2012. Photo © D. David Robinson 2013. Photo originally published in The Advocate (8 August 2012) with approval of Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) and Freedom and Roam Uganda (FARUG). Approval renewed here from SMUG and FARUG, and PRIDE founder Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera. Published with direct informed consent of the main pictured activist. Contents Abbreviations vii Contributors xi 1 Human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity in the Commonwealth: from history and law to developing activism and transnational dialogues 1 Corinne Lennox and Matthew Waites 2
    [Show full text]
  • Vriend V. Alberta, Supreme Court of Canada
    Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493 Delwin Vriend, Gala-Gay and Lesbian Awareness Society of Edmonton, Gay and Lesbian Community Centre of Edmonton Society and Dignity Canada Dignité for Gay Catholics and Supporters Appellants v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Alberta and Her Majesty’s Attorney General in and for the Province of Alberta Respondents and The Attorney General of Canada, the Attorney General for Ontario, the Alberta Civil Liberties Association, Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere (EGALE), the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF), the Foundation for Equal Families, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Bar Association -- Alberta Branch, the Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies (CASHRA), the Canadian AIDS Society, the Alberta and Northwest Conference of the United Church of Canada, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Christian Legal Fellowship, the Alberta Federation of Women United for Families, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and Focus on the Family (Canada) Association Interveners Indexed as: Vriend v. Alberta File No.: 25285. 1997: November 4; 1998: April 2. - 2 - Present: Lamer C.J. and L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka,* Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major and Bastarache JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for alberta Practice -- Standing -- Charter challenge -- Teacher’s employment at college terminated because of his homosexuality -- Provincial human rights legislation not including sexual orientation as prohibited ground of discrimination -- Whether appellants have standing to challenge legislative provisions other than those relating to employment -- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 15(1) -- Individual’s Rights Protection Act, R.S.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Approach to Constitutional Principles and Environmental Discretion in Canada
    Osgoode Hall Law School of York University Osgoode Digital Commons Articles & Book Chapters Faculty Scholarship 2019 Approach to Constitutional Principles and Environmental Discretion in Canada Lynda Collins University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law Lorne Sossin Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, [email protected] Source Publication: 52:1 U.B.C. L. Rev. 293 (2019) Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/scholarly_works Part of the Administrative Law Commons, and the Environmental Law Commons Repository Citation Collins, Lynda and Sossin, Lorne, "Approach to Constitutional Principles and Environmental Discretion in Canada" (2019). Articles & Book Chapters. 2740. https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/scholarly_works/2740 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles & Book Chapters by an authorized administrator of Osgoode Digital Commons. IN SEARCH OF AN ECOLOGICAL APPROACH TO CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES AND ENVIRONMENTAL DISCRETION IN CANADA LYNDA COLLINS, & LORNE SOSSINt I. INTRODUCTION One of the most important and least scrutinized areas of environmental policy is the exercise of administrative discretion. Those committed to environmental action tend to focus on law reform, international treaties, and political commitments-for example, election proposals for carbon taxes and pipelines, or environmental protections in global protocols and trade agreements. Many proponents of stronger environmental protection have focused their attention on the goal of a constitutional amendment recognizing an explicit right to a healthy environment,' while others seek recognition of environmental protection within existing Charter rights.2 As the rights conversation evolves,, advocates t Professor with the Centre for Environmental Law and Global Sustainability at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, situated on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Nation.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Resources,Mobility Rights,Meech Lake Accord
    Habeas Corpus Existing since the 13th century, habeas corpus is both a free- standing right and, more recently, a right protected under section 10(c) of the Charter.[1] Habeas Corpus translates to “produce the body”.[2] A habeas corpus application is used by persons who feel they are being wrongfully detained. Upon application, the individual is brought before a judge who will determine whether the detainment is lawful. Provincial courts must hear these applications quickly. The right is available to all individuals in Canada, including refugees and immigrants.[3] Habeas corpus is most often used when a person is being detained against their will and is suffering a deprivation of liberty. Most applications are brought by prisoners detained in correctional institutions and by immigration, child welfare, and mental health detainees.[4] An example of an unlawful detainment is a prisoner being moved from a minimum-security prison to a maximum-security prison without being told why he or she is being moved. If habeas corpus is granted, the individual’s detainment will change such that it is no longer considered illegal. This could include moving a prisoner from a maximum- security back to a minimum-security prison or even releasing the prisoner all together. The Supreme Court of Canada has described habeas corpus as a “vehicle for reviewing the justification for a person’s imprisonment”.[5] A habeas corpus application will typically be approved in cases where an individual has proved two things: 1. Their liberty was deprived in some way.[6] Three circumstances typically lead to a deprivation of liberty: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Judging Electoral Districts in America, Canada, and Australia Erin Daly
    Boston College International and Comparative Law Review Volume 21 | Issue 2 Article 2 8-1-1998 Idealists, Pragmatists, and Textualists: Judging Electoral Districts in America, Canada, and Australia Erin Daly Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the Election Law Commons Recommended Citation Erin Daly, Idealists, Pragmatists, and Textualists: Judging Electoral Districts in America, Canada, and Australia , 21 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 261 (1998), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr/vol21/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Idealists, Pragmatists, and Textualists: Judging Electoral Districts in America, Canada, and Australia Erin Daly* I. INTRODUCTION In the 1960s, the United States Supreme Court entered the political thicket of voting rights cases in which plaintiffs challenged apportion­ ment and districting plans. In the 1970s, the Australian High Court heard its first districting case, and in the 1980s, the Canadian courts entered the fray. This decade has seen renewed and intensified interest in voting rights as the highest courts of all three countries have issued landmark decisions in this area. With a surprising degree of consensus, the Canadian and Australian courts have held that their respective Constitutions do not guarantee that electoral districts must be of equal size; in other words, they rejected the one person, one vote standard that has been a staple of American law for nearly 35 years.
    [Show full text]
  • 12; Duranti F., Corti E Parlamenti
    Between Judicial Activism and Political Cooperation: The Case of the Canadian Supreme Court* Andrea Buratti 1. On the occasion of the 150th anniversary, of the British North America Act (1867), a group of Italian comparative law scholars dedicated two publications to Canadian constitutional law. They are G. Martinico, G. Delledonne, L. Pierdominici, Il costituzionalismo canadese a 150 dalla Confederazione. Riflessioni comparatistiche, Pisa University Press, 2017; and the special issue of “Perspective on federalism”, vol 9(3), 2017, The Constitution of Canada: History, Evolution, Influence, and Reform. These two works – which also involve distinguished foreign scholars – cover a wide range of topics: the legal systems, federalism and the Québec case, fundamental rights, the Supreme Court, etc. Despite the variety of authors and the heterogeneity of their backgrounds, all the chapters are well linked one with the other, and homogeneous in style and methodology. In this post, I will focus only on the chapters dealing with constitutional adjudication. On this issue, Canadian constitutionalism plays a relevant role, because it is placed in a middle ground between English and American traditions. Moreover, Canadian law brought on peculiar innovations in the landscape of comparative law, and represents, as I will try to underline, a model for alternative approaches to constitutional adjudication. 2. Canadian constitutionalism has always been a crucial case for comparative law, because of the peculiarities of its multicultural society, its heterogeneity, and its interconnections of the legal systems, which shows the asymmetric structure of its federalism. In this perspective, Canadian constitutional law is a lab in which many solutions of legal syncretism and institutional innovation are experienced.
    [Show full text]
  • Robert J. Sharpe and Patricia I. Mcmahon, the Persons Case: the Origins and Legacy of the Fight for Legal Personhood (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007)
    Robert J. Sharpe and Patricia I. McMahon, The Persons Case: The Origins and Legacy of the Fight for Legal Personhood (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007). Pp. xi, 269. In their book, The Persons Case: The Origins and Legacy of the Fight for Legal Personhood,1 Robert J. Sharpe and Patricia I. McMahon provide a rich and detailed account of the individuals, social forces and ideologies behind one of Canada’s most important constitutional decisions, Edwards v. Canada.2 Their book tells us the remarkable story of how Emily Murphy, the leading protagonist, along with Nellie McClung, Henrietta Edwards, Louise McKinney and Irene Parlby—five prominent 2008 CanLIIDocs 167 Canadian women’s rights advocates from Western Canada, referred to as the Famous Five—advocated for the advancement of the rights of women throughout World War I and during the 1920s. Their engagement with women’s rights included the struggle for women’s suffrage, married women’s property rights, female factory workers’ rights, temperance, and children’s rights. These struggles culminated in the historic effort to seek affirmation of women’s entitlement to hold public office, specifically as members of the Senate of Canada. Against significant odds, they succeeded in convincing the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the highest appellate court on constitutional questions at the time, to declare that women were “qualified persons” for the purposes of appointment to the Senate. Affirming a purposive “living tree” approach to constitutional interpretation, Lord Sankey concluded that women are eligible for Senate appointments, despite the fact that the drafters of the British North America Act, 1867, now the Constitution Act, 1867,3 did not believe that women should be eligible for public office.4 To unravel the legacy of the Persons Case, the book begins by examining the life of Emily Murphy, who played the primary role in advancing the struggle for the inclusion of women in the Senate both politically and in the courts.
    [Show full text]
  • University Women's Club of Vancouver Four Famous Members Who
    UNIVERSITY WOMEN’S CLUB OF VANCOUVER FOUR FAMOUS MEMBERS WHO INFLUENCED VANCOUVER AND CANADA Adapted with thanks from “Women Lead the Way: A History of The University Women's Club of Vancouver, 1907 -2007” By Jean Mann, Beverley New and Cathy Barford, Wikepedia & websites of the Government of Canada On October 18th each year the University Women’s Club of Vancouver celebrates Person’s Day, to commemorate the day in 1929 when women in Canada were declared eligible to sit in the Canadian Senate as a result of the case Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General), more commonly known as The Persons Case. The Persons Case honors the five Alberta women, known as The Famous Five, that later lead to the victory of Canadian women’s equality which gives women the right to be appointed to the Senate of Canada and paved the way for women’s increased participation in public and political life. Those five women were Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung, Irene Parlby, Louise McKinney and Henrietta Muir Edward. In 1927 these five women went to the Supreme Court of Canada to get an answer as to why women were not included in the word person according to the British North American Act. The debate took over five weeks and the court ruled that women would not be included in the word person. Two years later, after the women took the case to London, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of Great Britain, Canada’s highest court of appeal, the question was answered “why should it not?”, a decision which not only helped women have a place in the senate but also gave women more rights and equality.
    [Show full text]
  • Paramountcy in Penal Legislation
    OCCUPYING THE FIELD : PARAMOUNTCY IN PENAL LEGISLATION BORA LASKIN* Toronto Among the time-honoured doctrines of Canadian constitutional law none has a more disarming simplicity and none is more ques- tion-begging than the last of the four propositions proclaimed by Lord Tomlin in the Fish Canneries case' and repeated on three subsequent occasions by the Privy Council.2 It reads as follows : "There can be a domain in which Provincial and Dominion legisla- tion may overlap, in which case neither legislation will be ultra vires if the field is clear, but if the field is not clear and the two legislations meet the Dominion legislation must prevail."' The issues raised by this pronouncement are concomitants of federal- ism, familiar in the United States and in Australia, and immanent in the constitutions of the new federal states that have come into being since the end of World War Two.4 Three fairly recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, in each of which there were dissents, illustrate that court's ap- preciation ofthose issues as they emerged in provincial and federal penal legislation. The three cases are sufficiently different from one another in their facts and supporting legislation to provide adequate perspective for an examination of the doctrine of the "occupied field"-the paramountcy doctrine, to use an equivalent-as it pertains to penal enactments. *Bora Laskin, Q.C., of the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto. 1 A.-G. for Canada v. A.-G . for British Columbia, [1930] A.C. 111, [19301 1 D.L.R. 194, [192913 W.W.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Product Liability Defense: Preemption in Canada
    Product Liability Defence North and South of the Border: Is there such thing as Canadian pre-emption? By Craig Lockwood, Sonia Bjorkquist and Alexis Beale from Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP and Maura Kathleen Monaghan, Jacob W. Stahl and Christel Y. Tham from Debevoise & Plimpton LLP PRODUCT LIABILITY DEFENCE NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE BORDER Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt llp | Debevoise & Plimpton Table of Contents Introduction 3 An Overview of the U.S. Experience 5 The Canadian Experience 9 Recent Developments 15 Conclusion 19 2 PRODUCT LIABILITY DEFENCE NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE BORDER Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt llp | Debevoise & Plimpton 1 Introduction In Canada, most food products, pharmaceuticals, cosmetic products and medical devices are subject to federal regulation pursuant to the Food and Drugs Act (FDA) and other related legislation.1 Similar to the U.S. regulatory scheme, the Canadian regime is administered and enforced by the federal regulatory authorities – most notably Health Canada – responsible for establishing standards of safety for, and regulating and approving the use of, health-related products sold in Canada. However, U.S. manufacturers who sell regulated products in Canada may be surprised to learn that compliance with the FDA and associated regulatory frameworks has not historically served as a defence to product liability claims. In particular, the Canadian regulatory regime has traditionally operated as a ‘regulatory floor,’ rather than a comprehensive code of conduct. Conversely, applicable regulatory frameworks in the United States may prescribe comprehensive codes of conduct that do not leave the regulated entity with any discretion, potentially creating irreconcilable conflicts between the state and federal governments.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Trends in Canadian Federalism. Centripetal and Centrifugal Forces in Canadian Division of Powers ERIKA ARBAN1 Summary
    Current trends in Canadian federalism. Centripetal and centrifugal forces in Canadian division of powers ERIKA ARBAN1 Summary: 1.Introduction; 2. Canadian Federalism and the division of legislative powers; 3. Judicial interpretation of the division of powers; 4. Level of (de)centralization of Canadian federalism; 5. Future changes in the division of powers; 6. Conclusions. 1. Introduction Canadian federalism is often described as the most decentralized in the world. This paper tries to identify elements of Canadian federalism which support and which go against this statement, to ultimately determine whether Canadian federalism is presently on a decentralizing (centrifugal) or centralizing (centripetal) course. As pointed out by Ronald Watts, in determining the level of (de)centralization of a given federal scheme, the first task becomes that of clarifying which powers we want to analyze. 1 L.L.M., University of Arizona; Ph.D. Candidate, University of Ottawa. 1 Centralization or decentralization can refer both to the legislative powers assigned to each level of government (federal or provincial in Canada), or to the role played by the various components in federal decision making.2 Also, we can analyze the level of (de)centralization by looking at the administrative bodies in a federal state and how federal institutions are more or less present locally. In this paper, however, I will focus only on the level of (de)centralization in the distribution of legislatives powers between federal Parliament and provincial legislatures in Canada as stemming from the Canadian Constitution and as shaped by the decisions of the Privy Council (hereinafter, “P.C.”) and the Supreme Court of Canada (hereinafter, “SCC”).
    [Show full text]
  • Untangling the Web of Canadian Privacy Laws
    Reproduced by permission of Thomson Reuters Canada Limited from Annual Review of Civil Litigation 2020, ed. The Honourable Mr. Justice Todd L. Archibald. Shining a Light on Privacy: Untangling the Web of Canadian Privacy Laws BONNIE FISH AND ALEXANDER EVANGELISTA1 It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. George Orwell, 1984 I. THE GENESIS OF PRIVACY LITIGATION Although there are more Canadian privacy laws than ever before and the right to privacy has quasi-constitutional status,2 Canadian citizens have never had greater cause for concern about their privacy. Our devices make public a dizzying amount of our personal information.3 We share information about our preferences and location with retailers and data brokers when shopping for online products and when shopping in physical stores using our credit cards, payment cards or apps. Smart homes and smart cities make possible Orwellian surveillance and data capture that previously would have been illegal without a judicial warrant.4 The illusion of anonymous or secure internet activity has been shattered5 by large scale privacy breaches that have exposed the vulnerability of our personal information to hackers.6 The COVID-19 crisis raises new privacy concerns as governments and private institutions exert extraordinary powers to control the outbreak, including the use of surveillance technologies.7 1 Bonnie Fish is a Partner and the Director of Legal Research at Fogler, Rubinoff LLP, Alexander Evangelista is an associate in the litigation department of Fogler, Rubinoff LLP.
    [Show full text]