Case Highlights


"...what was protected under Article 25 was the religious faith and not a practice which may run counter to public order, health or morality. Polygamy was not integral part of religion and monogamy was a reform within the power of the State under Article 25. This Court upheld the views of the Bombay, Gujarat and Allahabad High Courts to this effect. This Court also upheld the view of the Allahabad High Court upholding such a conduct rule. It was observed that a practice did not acquire sanction of religion simply because it was permitted. Such a practice could be regulated by law without violating Article 25..."...

Read more

Article Highlights

When Can the Director of a Corporation Be Held Personally Liable for Oppression?

Company law
Circumstances in which director can be held personally liable for oppressive conduct
Oppression is a broad and equitable remedy. It allows Courts to rectify unfair or prejudicial behaviour on the part of corporate stakeholders. While most Canadian case law is devoted to the issue of what amounts to oppression, a new decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, Wilson v. Alharayeri , 2017 SCC 39, clarifies the circumstances in which a director can be held personally liable for oppressive conduct. Wilson emphasizes that the test for personal liability for oppression is fluid and contextual.

Read more

Canada's top court rules Google must block some results worldwide

Intellectual property
Supreme Court rules 7-2 Canadian courts can force Google to remove results worldwide
Canadian courts can force internet search leader Google to remove results worldwide, the country's top court ruled on Wednesday, drawing criticism from civil liberties groups arguing such a move sets a precedent for censorship on the internet. In its 7-2 decision, Canada's Supreme Court found that a court in the country can grant an injunction preventing conduct anywhere in the world when it is necessary to ensure the injunction's effectiveness.

Read more

Do you want to see more?