Fulbright Canada

Background.There is a shared global commitment to improving baseline donation and transplantation performance metrics in a manner consistent with ethics and local cultural and social factors. The law is one tool that can help improve these metrics. Although legal systems vary across jurisdictions, our objective was to create expert, consensus guidance for law and policymakers on foundational issues underlying organ and tissue donation and transplantation (OTDT) systems around the world.Methods.Using the nominal group technique, a group composed of legal academics, a transplant coordinator/clinician, and a patient partner identified topic areas and recommendations on foundational legal issues. The recommendations were informed by narrative literature reviews conducted by group members based on their areas of expertise, which yielded a range of academic articles, policy documents, and sources of law. Best practices were identified from relevant sources in each subtopic, which formed the basis of the recommendations contained herein.Results.We reached consensus on 12 recommendations grouped into 5 subtopics: (i) legal definitions and legislative scope, (ii) consent requirements for donation‚ (iii) allocation of organs and tissue‚ (iv) operation of OTDT systems‚ and (v) travel for transplant and organ trafficking. We have differentiated between those foundational legal principles for which there is a firm basis of support with those requiring further consideration and resolution. Seven such areas of controversy are identified and discussed alongside relevant recommendations.Conclusions.Our recommendations encompass some principles staunchly enshrined in the OTDT landscape (eg, the dead donor rule), whereas others reflect more recent developments in practice (eg, mandatory referral). Although some principles are widely accepted, there is not always consensus as to how they ought to be implemented. As the OTDT landscape continues to evolve, recommendations must be reconsidered for the law to keep pace with developments in knowledge, technology, and practice.

Although Canada recently expanded access to medical assistance in dying, intolerably suffering Canadians with dementia still face seven obstacles to qualify for MAID. Advance directives for VSED are an important, yet under-appreciated, alternative.

This article provides an overview of the key areas of the legal landscape downstream of liquefaction terminals in the context of Canadian LNG projects. This will be of particular interest to those involved in Canada's nascent LNG industry, including project proponents, buyers and sellers of LNG, and owners and operators of LNG carriers and other vessels intending to load LNG, either as cargo or bunker fuel, from a terminal in Canada. Canada’s LNG industry has had a rocky start in some respects, with many projects having been shelved and a number of the remaining projects facing an uncertain future due to market conditions, regulatory obstacles, and other challenges. However, there continue to be many factors supporting the development of LNG liquefaction capacity in Canada, including the desire to supply the world with responsibly sourced, cost-effective, and relatively clean fuel, and it is expected that a number of projects will ultimately proceed. The supply and transportation of LNG from such projects once they become operational will engage the body of maritime laws governing the operation of ships in Canadian waters and, where relevant, Canada’s export laws. Other requirements may additionally apply by virtue of the contractual arrangements typically entered into in connection with such activities. Such regulatory and other requirements, and their place within the broader LNG value chain, are the subject of this article.

On March 14–16, 2019, the Association for Canadian Studies in the United States (ACSUS) and SUNY Plattsburgh’s Institute on Quebec Studies, in partnership with Fulbright Canada, the Centre interuni...

This article provides practical insight and strategic guidance regarding how to properly structure the prosecution or defence of a claim in a rising and falling market, and what expert and fact evidence is necessary. First, the article discusses the threshold required to be awarded specific performance and how courts have interpreted Semelhago’s “uniqueness” test, especially in the context of property purchased for commercial investment purposes. Next, if specific performance is not awarded, the valuation date must be chosen. The authors propose a new “hybrid approach” for assessing damages whereby the loss based on actual cash follow up to the date of trial is measured (and a risk adjustment applied to reflect that revenues are never earned risk-free). The net present value of remaining cash flow is then calculated on the basis of the most recent data available at the date of trial. The proposed hybrid approach allows the plaintiff to receive the value of land less the cost to acquire it, plus in every claim month the plaintiff receives the cash it would have earned, but also assumes the risk of operating the land as of that time. Finally, in considering Southcott the authors address some strategic and practical considerations regarding mitigation and the needed evidentiary burden to consider.