Your search
Results 63 resources
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
In AB v. Bragg, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that fifteen-year-old AB should be allowed to use a pseudonym in seeking an order to disclose the identity of her online attacker. By framing the case as one pitting the privacy interests of a youthful victim of sexualized online bullying against principles protecting the free press and open courts, the SCC approached but ultimately skirted the central issue of equality. Without undermining the important precedent that AB achieved for youthful targets of online sexualized bullying, the author explores the case as a missed opportunity to examine the discriminatory tropes and structural inequalities that undergird the power of this kind of bullying. Viewed through an equality lens, enhanced access to pseudonymity for targets is not necessarily about privacy per se, but rather an interim measure to respond to the equality-undermining effects of sexualized online bullying—a privacy mechanism in service of equality.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Aggressive international tax planning by multinational corporations has lately fallen under intense political scrutiny. U.S. politicians have called out some American multinationals, including Apple, Amazon, Starbucks and Google, for relocating profits abroad to avoid American taxes. More recently, politicians accused Burger King of being unpatriotic for its own purported “tax inversion” maneuver, in which it would acquire Canada’s Tim Hortons and shift the head office from Florida to Ontario, benefitting from the lower northern tax rates. The Chicago-based Walgreens pharmacy chain recently backed off a “tax inversion” plan to relocate to Switzerland (the former headquarters of Alliance Boots, a company acquired by Walgreens), apparently having assessed the political risk as too high. This sort of aggressive international tax planning by multinational corporations was what G20 members had committed to fighting against when they endorsed the OECD’s “action plan” against base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS). Canada has been vigilant about improving its tax framework to prevent non-resident corporations from eroding the Canadian tax base, having enacted thin-capitalization rules and, more recently, foreign-affiliate-dumping rules, as well as proposing anti-treaty-shopping measures. But despite Canada’s commitment to the OECD’s BEPS Action Plan, the Canadian government has been reluctant to follow through on implementing rules that might affect its own resident corporations and their international competitiveness. This is most notably visible in the generous participation exemption for dividends from foreign affiliates, the absence of rules restricting the deductibility of interest expenses incurred to earn exempt dividends from foreign affiliates. Canada may be reluctant to fully follow through on all aspects of the OECD’s BEPS Action Plan. As the examples of Apple, Amazon, Google and Starbucks demonstrate, the American government has so far been unable to bring itself to take any meaningful action against aggressive international planning by U.S.resident corporations. Were Canada to enact and enforce rules that clamped down on aggressive international tax planning by its own resident corporations, it would only put Canadian firms at a competitive disadvantage relative to American (or other international) rivals. Until the United States is willing and able to take the lead on aggressive international tax planning by multi-national corporations, the reality is that smaller countries, including Canada, should be cautious about making changes to its international tax rules that are dependent on other countries making similar changes.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Royal prerogative of mercy : ministerial guidelines | WorldCat.org
-
"The fourth edition of Canadian Copyright Law brings you the latest updates according to new Canadian legislation and international agreements. Copyright infringement has always been illegal. Today with near-constant access to the internet and the mainstream explosion of digital formats, copyright is one of the most important issues for creative professionals, consumers of that media, and those who work in related industries. The line between what is protected and what is "free" is blurring further, and the copyright issues are more complex then ever"--Book jacket.
-
Raji Mangat, 2014 CanLIIDocs 12
-
"[E]very international dispute is of a political character, if by that is meant that it is of importance to the State in question. Thus viewed, the proposition that some legal questions are political is an understatement of what is believed to be the true position. The State is a political institution, and all questions which affect it as a whole, in particular in its relations with other States, are therefore political"-- Provided by publisher.
-
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.
Explore
Resource type
- Blog Post (1)
- Book (18)
- Book Section (7)
- Dictionary Entry (1)
- Journal Article (34)
- Preprint (1)
- Report (1)