Volume 27, Number 4, 1986

EN:

Many laws in Canada and Québec grant rights of entry to inspectors responsible for looking after the proper operation of structures implemented by the State. From heavily regulated industrials to permit holders and simple citizens, everyone can expect someday to be paid a visit by an inspector. The question arises, however, as to whether the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Québec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms may be resorted to so as to exercise control over possible abuses resulting from such inspections.

These Charters provide security for the person against the State in these areas whether through the right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to a private life or to the inviolability of the home. However, the means by which such rights shall be adequately protected are somewhat uncertain. Should this be done by the granting of an administrative warrant issued ex parte as in the United States ? Or by granting the same kind of warrant in the presence of both parties ? The granting of administrative subpoenas also may be a solution to be considered. But for both legal and administrative reasons, it seems that the best control to exercise over these entries would come from drafting well-defined powers of inspection into the law granting them, which would provide an adequate protection of human rights and freedoms.

FR:

On dit souvent que l'exécution en nature (specific performance) est la sanction normale (primary remedy) de l'inexécution des obligations contractuelles (breach of contract,) dans le système de droit civil, alors que dans le système de common law cette sanction prend la forme de dommages-intérêts. Cet article s'interroge sur l’exactitude de cette assertion.

L'auteur constate, d'abord, que même là où l'on fait du droit civil en anglais, comme au Québec et en Louisiane, l'expression specific performance n'a pas le même sens et la même portée qu'en common law. Il souligne, de plus, que l'expression primary remedy peut se définir de plusieurs façons, susceptibles d'engendrer l'équivoque. Il démontre, enfin, que l'expression breach of contract couvre tellement de situations de fait différentes qu'il est impossible de dire quelle sanction l'un et l'autre systèmes juridiques préfèrent vraiment. Les expressions specific performance et primary remedy ne peuvent en fait se comprendre sans prendre en considération l'évolution historique de la notion d'exécution en nature dans chaque système de droit.

La seconde moitié de l'article procède à cette étude historique ; elle conclut qu'au-delà de différences de forme les deux systèmes, face à la mise en œuvre de politiques semblables, pratiquent des moyens de sanction à toute fin pratique équivalents.

EN:

Even though section 338 Cr.C. appears in Part VIII of the Criminal Code entitled « Fraudulent transactions relating to Contracts and Trade », the criminal offence of fraud is of a much broader scope. The liberal interpretation received from the courts has transformed this crime into one of the widest and sometimes most unpredictable offences.

The author first discusses Canada's territorial jurisdiction over international fraud in the light of the recent Libman case. He then proceeds to examine the impact of the Supreme Court decision in Vezina v. R. on the « deprivation » requirement in the definition of fraud. This text also concentrates on the objective-subjective mens rea dilemna and on a comparison of the constitutive elements of fraud, theft and false pretences. The author finally concludes that sections 320 and 338 Cr.C call out for immediate reform.

EN:

While the industrialized countries are already involved in the new information age, the developing countries are still trying to achieve some measure of industrialization. Although by themselves the satellite telecommunication systems will not solve all the problems of developing countries, nevertheless, they could facilitate the shortcircuiting of a number of preliminary steps leading to the new communications era.

However, as most of the knowledge concerning these satellite systems — from their design until the final stage of production — are concentrated in industrialized nations, this leaves developing countries in a vulnerable and dependent position.

This article analyses some of the established and evolving legal norms towards the promotion of technological parity between the industrialized and non-industrialized nations ; these can be grouped under five specific headings : 1. « Space Law »; 2. « New International Economic Order »; 3. « Right to Communicate » ; 4. « Code of Conduct on Technological Transfer » ; 5. « New International Law of Survival ».

Following these legal considerations, we analyse the types and means of technological transfers taking place between industrialized and non-industrialized countries. In this connection, it is important to distinguish between the transfer of specified equipment only from that of its engineering. We examine these transfers, first following the initiative of the government-sponsored agencies, and second, as a transaction taking place on the free international market.

In our study, it is evident that while non-industrialized countries have access to satellite communications equipment, this however does not apply to their engineering. Will the new rules of international law be capable to launch a free flow of technological knowledge between the industrialized and non-industrialized countries ? On this point, we express our reservations.