Author: Lou Brzezinski, Partner

On October 17, 2018, Canada became the second country in the world, and the first G7 nation, to legalize recreational cannabis.[1] The Cannabis Act[2] and Regulations create a strict legal and regulatory framework for controlling the production, distribution, sale and possession of cannabis across Canada. Under the newly in force Cannabis Act, provinces and territories are responsible for determining how cannabis is distributed and sold within their jurisdictions. This means that each province and territory has been tasked to create its own set of rules governing the “how, where and when” of their individual cannabis distribution and retail system(s).[3] Since the Liberals officially announced on April 20, 2016 that the government would move forward in legalizing cannabis,[4] the provinces and territories have been working toward this goal for varying amounts of time. Post-legalization, each province and territory is at a different level of preparation and readiness.

Read the entire article.


Author: Samantha Banks

This fall, Pennsylvania adopted legislation in an effort to prevent, deter, and criminalize hazing at colleges, universities, and secondary schools. Pennsylvania’s Timothy J. Piazza Anti-Hazing Law (Senate Bill 1090) (the “Law”) was adopted in response to the death of Timothy Piazza, a student at Penn State University who died as a result of traumatic brain injuries he sustained during a fraternity pledging event.

Read more: New Anti-Hazing Law Requires PA Colleges & Universities to Post Semi-Annual Reports, with Initial...


Author: Rose Kinrade

In the unfortunate event of a marriage breaking down, the majority of people have little knowledge of the divorce procedure and how to go about resolving any associated issues such as contact with children and the division of the matrimonial assets.

In the unfortunate event of a marriage breaking down, the majority of people have little knowledge of the divorce procedure and how to go about resolving any associated issues such as contact with children and the division of the matrimonial assets. It is possible for parties to represent themselves in proceedings and, if they are happy to do so, they should ensure that they are aware of the procedure to prevent any errors or delays in completing the necessary paperwork.

Read more: DQ’s Step by Step Guide to Divorce


Author: Simon Stokes

Background to the case

Successful visual artists often operate through limited companies. This can have tax advantages. One such example was the leading British sculptor Lynn Chadwick, who died in 2003. From July 1973 he changed his status from a sole trader to becoming a director and employee of a company he and his wife owned and transferred his stock and trading business to the company at that time. However no written agreement dealing with the transfer of the (physical) property and copyright in his art works was executed. On the artist’s death a dispute arose as to where title to the property and copyright lay in his works of art created both pre and post 1973 – with the artist’s estate or with the company? His Will made no mention of the artist’s artworks or copyright in them. It should be noted that selling or transferring physical title to a work of art does not by itself transfer the copyright in it – so often physical title in a work and the copyright in it are in separate ownership.

Read more: Sculpting a problem? The High Court considers the ownership of art works of the leading British...


On June 22, 2018, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court of Texas settled a conflict in appellate court rulings by holding there is no cause of action in Texas for intentional interference with inheritance. Chief Justice Nathan Hecht, writing for the majority, reasoned that existing remedies in probate law, such as claims of undue influence, duress, restitution through the imposition of a constructive trust, and evidentiary rules and procedures were adequate to protect the interests of a prospective beneficiary.

Read more: Texas Supreme Court Holds: No Cause of Action for Interference With Inheritance Rights