(2010) Research paper commissioned by the Law Commission of Ontario.
A paper surveying the literature and reform options for Ontario’s family law system.
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Family Service Delivery: Disease, Prevention, and Treatment
Category: Publications
Whose Best Interests?
(2010) Osgoode Hall Law Journal, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 287-336 (Peer-reviewed).
This article compares the law of custody and access disputes with the procedure used to resolve them. I argue that there is a fundamental contradiction between these two things. The former focuses on the interests of the children involved to the exclusion of all else. The latter, however, is controlled by and designed to protect the rights and interests of the adult parties to the dispute. Despite their doctrinal centrality in custody and access law, children are usually silent and invisible in custody and access procedure. To resolve this contradiction, I propose a focus on the costs and benefits of parenting litigation for the children involved. Too much parenting litigation occurs which has more costs than benefits for them. We should curtail some of these cases, and apply the proportionality principle to others. Finally, these children should have a stronger voice when decisions are being made about their future.
Whose Best Interests? from Noel Semple on Vimeo.
A brief video presentation based on this paper.
The Silent Child
(2010) Canadian Family Law Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 1-25.
There are two possible forms of evidence in a custody or access (visitation) case which is determined through adjudication. First, the judge may hear from the adult parties and the witnesses whom they choose to call. Second, the judge may hear “children’s evidence,” which comes either directly from the child, or from a neutral professional with child-related expertise. To assess the prevalence of children’s evidence in Canadian custody and access litigation, the author conducted a quantitative survey of 181 reported decisions from 2009. The central finding was that only 45% mentioned any form of children’s evidence. Among the various varieties of children’s evidence, assessments (also known as child custody evaluations) were much more common than legal representation of children or direct evidence from children. The paper concludes by contrasting the primacy of the child in custody and access doctrine with the reality that the children involved appear to be effectively silent in the majority of the adjudicated cases.
Canadian Divorce Law and Practice, Volume 3: Spousal Support
Edited by Noel Semple and Ann Wilton, and published by Carswell with regular monthly updates. This is the newest volume of the leading text for Canadian family lawyers.
To order, please visit the Carswell product page.
The Eye of the Beholder: Professional Opinions about the Best Interests of a Child
(2011) Family Court Review, Vol. 49, No. 4, pp. 760-775 (Peer-reviewed).
Full text online, SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1327485
This paper is is based on my LL.M thesis, which I successfully defended on June 10, 2009. The Below, please find short and long versions of the thesis, as well as a 15 minute video presentation.
The Eye of the Beholder from Noel Semple on Vimeo.
For an even shorter description, please click here: Continue reading “The Eye of the Beholder: Professional Opinions about the Best Interests of a Child”
In Sickness and in Health? Spousal Support and Unmarried Cohabitants.
(2008) Canadian Journal of Family Law, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 317-375.
When an intimate relationship breaks down and one of the people involved seeks money from the other, should it make any difference to the law whether or not they were formally married? This article argues that it should make a difference, at least when spousal support is being sought and the parties were never parents together.
(Winner of the 2008 Falconer Memorial Student Essay Competition in Family Law.)
Found here: In Sickness and In Health?
Judicial Review in the Federal Courts: A How-To Guide.
with Freya Kristjanson, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP.
Prepared for the Ontario Legal Clinics Conference, this is a summary of the procedure and substance of Federal Court judicial review of administrative decisions. This paper was written with a legal clinic audience in mind, and pays particular attention to the federally-reviewed tribunals which clinic workers are most likely to deal with.
Network Neutrality: Justifiable Discrimination, Unjustifiable Discrimination, and the Bright Line Between Them
(2007) Canadian Journal of Law and Technology, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp. 163-173.
The servers and data streams which make up the internet in Canada are owned and controlled by corporations like Rogers and Bell. These businesses have potentially enormous power to control how the internet works, and how much it costs you to use it. Should the government regulate the ways they use this power? The answer, as I argue here, is both yes and no. (Winner of the IT.Can 2007 Student Essay Competition)
Found online here: Network Neutrality.
The Case for Tribunal Standing in Canada
(2007) Canadian Journal of Administrative Law and Practice, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp. 305-323.
“Judicial Review” means a court reviewing a decision made by an administrative tribunal. When judicial review occurs, should the tribunal be allowed to send a lawyer to court to defend its decision? I think it generally should, and this article explains why.
Found online here: The Case for Tribunal Standing in Canada
Cited by the Alberta Court of Appeal in Leon’s Furniture Limited v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2011 ABCA 94, at para 25.
Negligent Emissions: Humanizing Climate Change
(2007) Canadian Bar Association Eco-Bulletin.
If I emit greenhouse gases, and as a result the climate changes and you consequently suffer damage to your property or person, the law should allow you to sue me in tort. This article explains why this is so, and how we could reform Ontario law to make it a reality. (Winner of the 2007 CBA NEERLS Student Essay Competition)
CDO: Stop Assisting the NYC Migration
Ultra Vires (U. of Toronto Faculty of Law)
The Career Development Office (CDO) has to be one of the best-run bits of U of T. Efficient, compassionate, and knowledgeable — these people do a great job. I can only think of one thing that would make the CDO better: they should stop helping American firms hire our best graduates. The CDO shouldn’t advertise American jobs, host American OCIs, or do anything else to encourage our graduates to work outside the country.
A Cowardly Concession
The Varsity (Online Edition), October 26th, 2006.
On Monday, Hart House hosted a debate between candidates for the November 13th election of Toronto’s mayor. Three candidates were invited – Stephen LeDrew, David Miller, and Jane Pitfield. Among the 38 registered candidates, these are the only three who have any chance of being elected Mayor of Toronto.
A large and excited audience filed into the Great Hall at 6:30 to see and hear them. As the spectators took their seats, they found that someone else was already making a speech. The speaker was one of the 35 candidates who were not invited. He carried a large, dirty broom which he waved in the air and banged on the floor. He ranted incoherently at the top of his lungs. He did so for a full hour, as the spectators’ mood shifted from amusement to embarrassment to anger.
“The Worst-Case Scenario, and How We Could Get There.”
The most serious source of conflict in Canada-U.S. relations in 2015 will be the Canadian response to American foreign policy. This essay will argue for the plausibility of the worst-case scenario, described in the fictional article below. Such a scenario would make Canada choose between economic devastation and participation in a highly unpopular war.
Continue reading ““The Worst-Case Scenario, and How We Could Get There.””
A Bus to Nowhere
_the newspaper_ (University of Toronto)
Tuesday, August 17, 2004.
As this issue of _the newspaper_ goes to press, most students are working summer jobs to save money for school. By contrast, amateur politicos at U of T’s Students’ Administrative Council (SAC) are busy holding meetings to find new ways to spend it. Naturally, the money SAC spends is the same money the rest of us save every summer- our mandatory undergraduate student fees fund the Council to the tune of about $850,000 per year.
Enough with the propaganda: The U of T Bulletin
_the newspaper_ (University of Toronto)
April 8, 2004
My name is Noel Semple, and I’m a campus pressaholic. I lurk beside news-stands in libraries; I memorize publication schedules. There are dozens of U of T student papers, none of them are too obscure or too typographically shoddy to be worth picking up. There’s only one paper that even I won’t read. You’ve probably seen it, towering in forlorn, untouched piles-the University of Toronto Bulletin.
Continue reading “Enough with the propaganda: The U of T Bulletin”