Search

Substandard prison health care in Canada has long been the subject of research, debate, and policy analysis. For nearly forty years, Senator Kim Pate and her associates have uncovered myriad human rights abuses occurring inside Canadian prisons and have urged governments to take action. The extent to which this substandard health care specifically impacts the reproductive freedom of incarcerated women has yet to be the subject of meaningful academic consideration. It has been argued by many that the conditions of Canadian prisons engage the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This paper, in its limited scope, conceives of reproductive freedom as encapsulated by the section 7 Charter right to life, liberty, and security of the person. It is a novel analysis of how each of these three constitutional rights might be engaged by the current state of reproductive health care in prison. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the trade mark application of Scott Paper Ltd. for registration in trade-mark design of their bathroom tissue. It is noted that an opposition to the application was raised by the Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP which was also agreed by the Trade Marks Opposition Board. However, the Scott Paper appealed to Federal Court of Canada and after thorough investigation, the company was allowed to pursue the registration.

Social science evidence is the "new normal" in Charter litigation in Canada. Yet, the road is not smooth for the use of social science evidence in courts. How to effectively use such evidence remains an under-studied area. This paper explores the dynamics, strategies, and best practices associated with adducing such evidence, using a qualitative, comparative perspective and examining cases from Canada, the United States, and South Africa. The paper argues that there are clear lessons emerging, in Canada and elsewhere, for how to effectively use social science evidence in constitutional cases. By analyzing scholarship and case studies in this area, the paper unpacks some of the dynamics and strategies at play for using social science evidence in courts. It puts forward five lessons, explaining that counsel who wish to harness social science evidence in Charter litigation should: (1) employ a group approach to constitutional litigation that brings together affected persons, community organizations, academics, and other experts; (2) present social science evidence early on in litigation and with the most reliable experts available; (3) ensure that social science evidence will withstand scrutiny under the applicable rules of evidence; (4) consider alternative strategies where social science evidence is weak, contested, or complex; and (5) prepare for a future where the importance of social science evidence in Charter cases increases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Law & Society/Revue Canadienne Droit et Societe (Cambridge University Press) is the property of Cambridge University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The number of nuisance and negligence tort claims in the US against “Big Oil” companies have grown significantly in the last five years. The Netherlands case of Milieudefensie et al v Royal Dutch Shell represents the first major success of such a claim internationally. While the US cases and Milieudefensie demonstrate starkly different approaches as to how to seek accountability from Big Oil for climate change harms, the increasing judicial engagement on these issues may mean the time is right for similar lawsuits in Canada. Three Canadian common law causes of action are examined: nuisance, negligence, and unjust enrichment. Defences and arguments which stem from society’s (and any potential plaintiff’s) acquiescence and authorization to allow the defendants’ conduct may present difficult barriers to success. This paper focuses on these types of defences, and argues that the responsibility of Big Oil for climate change harms should not be completely vitiated even if governments and plaintiffs have acquiesced, authorized, and arguably contributed to our climate crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the court case Daishowa Paper Manufacturing Ltd. v. Canada regarding the impositions of liabilities on silviculture reseeding in accordance to the provincial law in Canada. It highlights the need of reforestation by Daishowa Paper Manufacturing Ltd. of the lands which been cleared due to timber cutdowns for tax profit under the Alberta law. It highlights the Alberta law on regulating the company for timber rights until the sufficient reforestation.

Copyright of McGill International Journal of Sustainable Development Law & Policy is the property of McGill International Journal of Sustainable Development Law & Policy and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper amounts to a discussion about justice: it is about whether just outcomes for the individual vis-à-vis 'lines of jurisprudence' and case law should matter within the democratic framework of Canada's governing institutions. In the case of Alberta Union of Public Employees v. Lethbridge Community College, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 727, 2004 SCC 281 the Supreme Court of Canada overturned the highest Court in Alberta in the latter's ruling that an employee deprived of both her employment and right to tenure without cause must receive the justice of reinstatement. Even at the close of the original appeal before a split arbitration board, one arbitrator of three, like the Alberta Court of Appeal later ruled, decided that reinstatement was the only option the employer had under the law. In this paper I will argue that the Supreme Court erred in its decision in this instance because it chose to support its own dictum of preserving "industrial peace" over and against what the Alberta Court of Appeal, labour arbitrator Bartee, and I see as the most important issue: the upholding of an employee's rights as spelled out in the collective agreement. 2 This was not a case where industrial peace should have been the underlying concern primarily because a Canadian employee was robbed by her employer of contractual and statutory rights under the collective agreement and the law respectively. The Court, more concerned with what this decision might mean in future for "industrial peace," felt they could justify their decision by employing the tactic of a long discussion on the jurisprudence relating to the broad remedial powers given to arbitration boards to settle disputes arising from their own dicta but yet in conflict with the collective agreement and statute law. Notwithstanding how one wishes to order the nexus of factors which need to be considered in a case such as this, for instance the rights of the employee/employer, power of the board, right to an appeal, etc., I argue the court erred by not choosing the breach of a Canadian citizen's legal and contractual rights as the single most important factor in this case. Cases involving dismissal really turn on whether the employee was fired for cause or without cause, and if the latter, then, as the Alberta Court of Appeal saw clearly, reinstatement is the only option. The Supreme Court, though, had something else at the front of their minds and front and centre in their decision: their own mantra of "industrial peace" pre-empted by a long, philosophically dislocated, discussion about the broad remedial powers of arbitration boards. I will argue that this decision needs overturning because it extinguishes a fundamental principle of justice in Canada: citizens cannot be deprived of their tenure of employment without just cause under a collective agreement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Ottawa Law Review is the property of University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Ottawa Law Review is the property of University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper explores some of the complex legal issues that a pension plan sponsor may face when making changes to plan design, particularly where those changes may have a negative impact on benefits. Pension standards legislation in Canada generally permits prospective amendments to a pension plan, provided they do not affect vested rights. However, as the author explains, determining the nature and extent of permissible changes may be complicated by differences in the language of the applicable legislation, which varies across jurisdictions. Furthermore, the key terms "accrued" and "vested" have not been interpreted in a consistent way by courts and tribunals. Turning specifically to the question of which pension benefits can be changed and which ones cannot, the author argues that pension standards law protects only accrued benefits, and not a particular plan design or all "rights" which might be said to arise from plan membership. The paper goes on to review the limited circumstances in which changes can be made to vested pension benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Law & Society/Revue Canadienne Droit et Societe (Cambridge University Press) is the property of Cambridge University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Ottawa Law Review is the property of University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This Paper explores the potential for a Canadian defense of brainwashing in the context of battered spouses who commit crimes against third parties. Part I briefly discusses a working definition of "brainwashing" and the historical basis for this potential defense. Part II discusses the juridical basis for a new defense of brainwashing by examining the theory behind the proposed defense. This leads to an examination of the established defenses of necessity, duress, automatism, and diminished capacity, which in turn moves the discussion toward the feasibility of an affirmative defense of brainwashing through the concept of superimposed intent. Part III will explore the evolution of Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS) as a model for a new defense and will examine brainwashing and the battered spouse. The paper is limited to a subset of abused women termed victims of the "sexual sadist." Part IV concludes by analyzing the case of Karla Homolka and the future of a brainwashing defense. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores ongoing tensions in the Canadian common law of employment between two key principles: the obligation of a constructively dismissed employee in some circumstances to remain in the employment where it is reasonable to do so in order to mitigate damages, and the possibility that the employee's decision to advance a legal claim alleging constructive dismissal may, in and of itself, be treated as a repudiation of the contract so as to disentitle the employee from damages. As explained by the author, this tension reflects the competing influences on employment law of different theories of contract -- the classical, the neoclassical, and the relational -- and is further complicated by the friction in the case law between the "elective" and the "automatic" theories of contract termination in employment, i.e. can the agreement be terminated only on the election of the innocent party or does any repudiatory breach automatically result in the agreement's termination? As a practical matter, these unresolved conflicts make it difficult to predict the outcome of a particular case, and force employees and their legal counsel to make an unnecessarily convoluted series of decisions in attempting to determine the appropriate course of action. The author argues that many of these issues would be greatly simplified if the courts embraced relational contract law theory in the constructive dismissal context. This would enable employees to "stand and sue," that is, obtain a determination of a claim without having to resign and without risking loss of the employment in the event that the claim was ultimately unsuccessful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue Canadienne de Science Politique is the property of Cambridge University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Ottawa Law Review is the property of University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Ottawa Law Review is the property of University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In this paper, recent boundary cases are considered-but especially as related to Ontario. The choice of jurisdiction is a consequence of the original audience for whom the paper was prepared: real estate lawyers in Ontario. While the activity of case law review and discussion may be seen as an ad hoc and fact-specific exercise, most lawyers in practice choose to remain aware of recent cases in order to stay abreast of new trends. Law schools still use the case law method for teaching-as well as to identify current reported cases as harbingers of potential new trends. Likewise, legislators monitor what emerges from our courts-if only to make sure that there is not a need for remedial legislation in order to possibly "correct" policy implications of a decision or a series of decisions which signal a new trend. Despite its jurisdictional limitations and the review of only most recent cases, this paper is both an example and a reminder that the jurisprudence of boundary law and the work of geomatics professionals continues to evolve. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Native Studies is the property of Brandon University, CJNS, Faculty of Arts and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Native Studies is the property of Brandon University, CJNS, Faculty of Arts and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Ottawa Law Review is the property of University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Ottawa Law Review is the property of University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Osgoode Hall Law Journal is the property of Osgoode Hall Law School and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper looks into the causes of the failure of Ontario's employment standards regime to protect vulnerable workers in subcontracted and other atypical employment relationships. At the outset, the author provides an overview of the academic literature on certain features of modern business organization, such as vertical disintegration, and their link to the rise in precarious employment. Citing the garment industry, he notes that disintegration of this kind typically takes the form of subcontracting of production among a number of firms. Because the workers who actually make the clothes have a contractual relationship with only one of the intermediaries at the bottom of this production pyramid, they are highly vulnerable to the risk of non-payment of wages or other basic statutory entitlements. The author points out that the "multiple employer" provisions of Ontario's Employment Standards Act were intended to remedy the injustices that can result from the use of fragmented business structures. However, taking as an example the Ontario Superior Court decision in Lian v. J. Crew, he argues that adjudicators have consistently applied a narrow approach to those provisions -- one that emphasizes traditional notions of privity of contract and requires evidence of a specific intent to circumvent the legislation. The outcome has been that workers employed under a subcontract are effectively denied access to the protections of the statute. The author is critical of this line of case law, which in his view is inconsistent with the broader approach to defining the scope of employment under other statutory regimes (such as human rights and occupational health and safety) and which defeats the purposes of the Act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of defendants in cartel cases making admissions, outside of immunity programs, is relatively undeveloped, except in the US. However, as the number of cartels under investigation has increased (due to the significant increase in penalties and the offer of full immunity to the first whistleblower to come forward and cooperate with the regulator) and the time and resources that must be deployed in a full adversarial disposition of a case makes litigation impractical in most cases, both regulators and defendants are seeking ways to expeditiously resolve disputes through settlements or leniency deals. The release of a number of important policy discussion papers and the recent adoption of a formal settlement process in the European Commission, suggest there is momentum for change. This paper discusses the risks and benefits of the use of such procedures and then moves to a comparison of the approaches to leniency in Canada and Australia. It is an opportune moment for such a comparison because both jurisdictions have similar legal and institutional arrangements and have recently passed similar important amendments to their cartel laws. The Canadian regulator seized the moment and embraced policies designed to encourage defendants to cooperate in exchange for leniency. In contrast, the Australian regulator passed up its chance, preferring to retain its discretion and reject the notion that it will openly cut deals. This paper argues that the ACCC should take seriously its Canadian counterpart's response and reconsider its approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Self-represented litigants' are becoming an epidemic in the B.C. provincial court system. Litigants who lack legal training and knowledge about the formalities of the court often slow and disrupt the justice system. The cuts to legal aid and the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Christie have contributed to this epidemic. The purpose of this paper is to discuss some of the challenges that self-represented litigants pose to the family law justice system. The erosions to legal aid funding and services have had a disproportionately negative effect on women. It has forced women to become self-represented litigants, resulting in women's continued impoverishment and financial dependency on men, exposed women to violence and abuse by ex-spouses, and forced women to surrender child support, spousal support, custody and access rights. This" paper addresses the current state of legal aid in B.C. It also discusses the adverse effects' that the cuts and restructuring of legal aid in B.C. have had on women attempting to navigate the provincial family court system. The paper limits its discussions to the heterosexual experience for brevity and does not address child protection issues, as different legal rules apply in that context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Azmi Jubran was subjected to homophobic harassment throughout his high school experience. In 1996, he filed a human rights complaint against the Vancouver School Board alleging discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. His case was the first in Canada to deal with the issue of school responsibility for peer-to-peer harassment. It also makes a significant contribution to the jurisprudence in the realm of sexual orientation harassment and discrimination. This is because Jubran did not identify as homosexual. Using a critical feminist analysis, this paper analyses the decisions and opinions of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, Superior Court, and Court of Appeal regarding the relevance of sexual orientation identity and the recognition of harm in the case. Drucilla Cornell's concept of sexual shame, Gail Mason's linking of sexuality harassment to visibility and naming, and Judith Butler's discussion of the power of words to injure are discussed in relation to the case as to whether it would qualify as harassment under these conceptualizations. It is argued that while the precedent carries the possibility of eliminating homophobia in schools, there are significant concerns with the legalistic human rights mechanism that potentially undermine efforts to eliminate oppression and achieve social equality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public support for legal recognition of same-sex marriage increased markedly in Canada over the course of the 1990s. The argument of this paper is that a sequence of Supreme Court decisions in the realm of same-sex relationship recognition—and the legislative activity that followed as a result—played a pivotal role in shaping public opinion on this issue. It is argued that the impact of these institutions was twofold. First, by framing the issue as one of equal rights, the courts and legislatures induced many Canadians to weigh equality-related considerations more heavily in the formation of opinions on same-sex marriage. Second, legal recognition of same-sex relationships directly persuaded many Canadians that such recognition was legitimate. The paper uses data from the Canadian Election Studies for 1993, 1997 and 2000. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper demonstrates that an important and overlooked guide to understanding Canadian and US Supreme Court decision making in tax cases is the "default," or the party to whom the court will decide in favour of if tax language is ambiguous. While statutory interpretation methods influence the overall manner in which courts approach tax-law decision making, the default is a more concrete guide to evaluating Canadian and US Supreme Court decisions. The paper first explores the statutory interpretation approaches referenced in Canadian and American Supreme Court tax law cases. The paper then examines the histories of defaults, including the cases in which they emerged and the rationales given for their adoption. Third, based on original research, the paper concludes that defaults have a profound effect on income tax decisions by, in Canada, the Supreme Court favouring the taxpayer and, in the United States, the Court deferring to the Internal Revenue Service. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article comments on various research papers on workers' compensation, unemployment insurance and employment trend in the U.S. and Canada. The article says that workers' compensation, both in terms of coverage and in terms of paid benefits, is one of the largest social programs in the U.S. It is distinctive in that it is the only social program that involves extensive use of private insurers. One of the research papers focuses on the settlement procedure that involves settlement of claims either in court or out of court. Past studies have suggested that insurers try to pressure plaintiffs into settling out of court and that workers who are economically weaker are more susceptible to these pressures. Furthermore, the plaintiffs' lawyers, it is argued, play an important role in settling out of court, to their clients' disadvantage. The paper reexamine the issue using New York data and confirm that insurers cut the claim adjustment to pressure claimants into settlements which are substantially less than the compensation claimants could have received through adjudication. The settlement involves a lump-sum payment, whereas the adjudication payments are paid over the claimant's lifetime.

Both labor and management often have a lawyer present their case at an arbitration hearing. This paper investigates whether the probability of obtaining a favorable arbitration outcome was related to the use of legal counsel. An analysis of 1,284 Canadian non-discipline/discharge cases revealed that a party was more likely to receive a favorable award when it had legal representation and the other side did not. However, there was no difference in win rates when the outcomes of cases in which both parties used lawyers were compared with those in which neither side was represented by legal counsel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reviews the economics of resale price maintenance and critiques selected Canadian cases since the passage of the Competition Act in 1986. Some scholars have called for per se legality of vertical restraints but the appropriate antitrust treatment of these restraints remains unresolved. This article offers an opportunity to review the evidence on their treatment under Canadian law and to compare jurisprudence in Canada with that of the U.S. and other jurisdictions. Vertical restrictions in contracts between manufacturers and their retailers represent natural applications of the emerging theory of contracts under principal-agent relationships. At the policy level, it has been suggested that economic efficiency is best served if resale price maintenance is judged according to a rule of reason or a per se legality standard. Cartel behavior continues to be governed by criminal sanctions against price conspiracies.

The article considers competition policy in Canada towards monopoly and monopolization. While the focus is primarily on providing an introduction and examination of the abuse of dominance provisions in the Canadian Competition Act of 1986, it also provide a brief overview of the existing law prior to the 1986 reforms. In response to the old law and Canada's enforcement experience, the monopoly provisions in the new Competition Act differ substantially from those found in the Combines Investigation Act. In this paper, it has been argued that the abuse of dominance provisions in the Competition Act can be, and in practice have proven to be, flexible and effective in addressing socially inefficient monopolization.

In 2016, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal issued a landmark ruling in First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada v. Canada finding that the government of Canada was racially and ethnically discriminating against First Nations children and their families in its funding and delivery of child welfare services to them. This ruling did not result from an isolated legal case; it was the result of litigation that was part of a broader social campaign with active supporters from all over the world. The litigation was driven by, and supported, a dynamic movement for sovereignty for First Nations Peoples around child welfare. This article examines the Caring Society case through the lens of movement lawyering—using the law to bring about transformative social change. Section 2 examines movement lawyering as an approach to lawyering. Movement lawyering involves a range of practices, advocacy and mobilizing that seek to dismantle architectures of subordination. Section 3 provides an overview of the Caring Society litigation and the social campaign within which the case was litigated. The I am a Witness campaign, a dynamic education and grassroots social campaign that engaged Indigenous and non-Indigenous children and sought to make the litigation accessible to the public, is examined in detail. Section 4 analyses Caring Society as a study of movement lawyering. It examines how three elements of movement lawyering; integrated advocacy; accountability to social movements; and willingness to address the root causes of structural oppression were at play in the litigation and related campaigns. In conclusion, the authors contend that Caring Society and the I am a Witness campaign constitute a successful example of movement lawyering as they properly recognize litigation, and the role of lawyers, as one piece of the mosaic of efforts needed to advance transformative social change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For decades in Canada, surreptitious recordings made by civilians have been admissible in criminal and family trials and labour and employment cases. Courts and tribunals have applied a similar test for admissibility that asks whether a recording is more probative than prejudicial. Recordings are readily seen to be invasive, but the concept of prejudice applied in most cases concerns the fairness and accuracy of what is captured in a recording and not its social or psychological impact on the person affected. This article draws on privacy theory and on Erving Goffman's The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life to argue that jurisprudence to date has failed to recognize the nature and degree of prejudice surreptitious recordings cause an affected person. A better understanding of this supports a revised test for admission. A recording that captures a private conversation should not be admitted, except in the last resort, which would include where the prosecution has no other means of proving a material fact in issue, where innocence is at stake, or in a civil case where it is necessary to rectify a significant power imbalance affecting credibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]