Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lsuc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!dave
From: dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The new equal rights rule
Message-ID: <637@lsuc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 8-May-85 13:31:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: lsuc.637
Posted: Wed May  8 13:31:56 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 8-May-85 21:29:40 EDT
References: <262@looking.UUCP> <610@lsuc.UUCP> <491@mnetor.UUCP> <5566@utzoo.UUCP>
Reply-To: dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman)
Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Lines: 18
Summary: It's not so bad in Canada

In article <5566@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
||Unfortunately, there is precedent for ridiculous cases getting far.  The
||current court view of product liability is roughly "anytime something bad
||happens, somebody *must* be at fault, and should pay heavily for it". 
|| ...
||I fear I have little confidence in the courts' ability to reject silly
||lawsuits, particularly in the area of employment discrimination. 

I tend to agree with you as far as U.S. courts are concerned, Henry,
but on the whole things aren't so bad in Canada. Our courts tend
to be quite reasonable, and the fact that costs are awarded against
the losing party discourages frivolous (or even likely-to-lose)
lawsuits.

Dave Sherman
The Law Society of Upper Canada
-- 
{  ihnp4!utzoo  pesnta  utcs  hcr  decvax!utcsri  }  !lsuc!dave