Canadians know that the jurors at a trial decide the defendant's guilt or innocence according to the law of the land. What they don't know is how far that right actually goes, and what the real power of juries is. Sometimes people -- even jurors -- wonder if a law or a judgment in a particular case is a just one. When the law seems wrong, we are told there is only one solution: change the law. In fact, though, in our legal system there is another remedy: When jurors decide that to question the fairness of applying the law in the case they are deciding may lead to a manifestly unfair and unjust result, they have the right not to apply that law. However, in Canada it is illegal and completely forbidden for a trial lawyer, or even a judge to tell jurors they have this right to nullify the law. In the Canadian justice system, jurors can hand down a verdict of not guilty even if the facts pointing to guilt are clear, even if the accused doesn't deny the facts, even if the judge tells the jurors to find the accused guilty. This centuries-old safeguard, which goes along with the principle of jury independence, has protected people's rights and freedoms and helped sweep away laws that ordinary citizens think are outdated and unjust. This power of juries is known to the legal community -- but is largely unknown by the general public -- until now. Gary Bauslaugh, author of Robert Latimer, A Story of Justice and Mercy (Lorimer, 2010), learned the specifics of this matter as a result of his research around the Robert Latimer case. In his new book, written for non-expert readers and citizens who have been summoned for jury duty, he tells the story of jury nullification from Quaker leader William Penn to the modern-day acquittal of Henry Morgentaler, who was charged with conducting abortions. Bauslaugh then lays out the arguments that some people make against jury independence and nullification, and makes his own argument in favour of these safeguards. He offers suggestions for jurors who may find themselves in a situation where their consciences are at odds with the law.

American government securities); 1928-53 in 5 annual vols.:[v.1] Railroad securities (1952-53. Transportation); [v.2] Industrial securities; [v.3] Public utility securities; [v.4] Government securities (1928-54); [v.5] Banks, insurance companies, investment trusts, real estate, finance and credit companies (1928-54).

Tax avoidance continues to attract attention globally with strong support for tax law reform at all levels. This Tax Law IMF Technical Note focuses on some of the key design and drafting considerations of one specific legal instrument (being, a statutory general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR)) which is often considered by authorities to combat unacceptable tax avoidance practices. A GAAR is typically designed to strike down those otherwise lawful practices that are found to be carried out in a manner which undermines the intention of the tax law such as where a taxpayer has misused or abused that law. However, the objective of combating unacceptable tax avoidance can itself make the legal design of a GAAR complex. This is simply because the phrase “tax avoidance” means different things to different people. Whatever the form of a GAAR, it should give effect to a policy that seeks to strike down blatant, artificial or contrived arrangements which are tax driven. However, the GAAR should be designed and applied so as not to inhibit or impede ordinary commercial transactions. This Tax Law IMF Technical Note discusses and explores how drawing a line between those arrangements which should be caught by the GAAR is a matter of degree and can be delicate.