Comments on: Then the Court calls me up to drive the Zamboni http://www.lexferenda.com/08022007/then-the-court-calls-me-up-to-drive-the-zamboni/ daithí mac sithigh's blog on cyberlaw and more Mon, 08 Sep 2008 08:14:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Lex Ferenda » Blog Archive » Once you tax, you can’t stop http://www.lexferenda.com/08022007/then-the-court-calls-me-up-to-drive-the-zamboni/#comment-5041 Lex Ferenda » Blog Archive » Once you tax, you can’t stop Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:30:53 +0000 http://www.lexferenda.com/wordpress/?p=181#comment-5041 [...] Irish attachment to the potato, and that I’ve teased the Canadians over important cases about margarine, this just has to be [...] [...] Irish attachment to the potato, and that I’ve teased the Canadians over important cases about margarine, this just has to be [...]

]]> By: Lex Ferenda » Law, Life and Blogging (and the small matter of a doctoral thesis) http://www.lexferenda.com/08022007/then-the-court-calls-me-up-to-drive-the-zamboni/#comment-102 Lex Ferenda » Law, Life and Blogging (and the small matter of a doctoral thesis) Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:12:10 +0000 http://www.lexferenda.com/wordpress/?p=181#comment-102 [...] do hit that Comment button.  Readership has spiked recently (due in no small part to writing about zambonis!); a few kind people have even emailed me from afar to say that they are reading.  As for the rest [...] [...] do hit that Comment button.  Readership has spiked recently (due in no small part to writing about zambonis!); a few kind people have even emailed me from afar to say that they are reading.  As for the rest [...]

]]> By: Eoin http://www.lexferenda.com/08022007/then-the-court-calls-me-up-to-drive-the-zamboni/#comment-101 Eoin Thu, 08 Feb 2007 20:40:15 +0000 http://www.lexferenda.com/wordpress/?p=181#comment-101 What a zany post. I can't resist two comments. First, the Supreme Court of Canada seems to get more than its fair share of bonkers only-in-Canada fact scenarios; or, to be more charitable, it gets a sizeable number of cases relating to matters of Canadian culture. For example, only in Canada could something as odd as Clamato be popular (for the non-Canadians amongst the readership of this blog, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clamato" rel="nofollow">wikipedia</a> says that 'Clamato (a portmanteau of "clam" and "tomato") is a trademark of the Mott's company which denotes a drink made primarily of reconstituted tomato juice concentrate and reconstituted dried clam broth, with a dash of high fructose corn syrup, and USDA Red 40 to maintain a 'natural' tomato colour'. Indeed, in Canada, it is so popular that other companies have tried to rip it off, leading to <em>Cadbury Schweppes Inc. v. FBI Foods Ltd.</em>, <a href="http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1999/1999rcs1-142/1999rcs1-142.html" rel="nofollow">[1999] 1 S.C.R. 142</a> a very important case on remedies for breach of confidence. Second, it's not just the SCC that has made important constitutional law in cases arising out of milk arcana. <em>US v Carolene Products</em> <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0304_0144_ZS.html" rel="nofollow">304 U.S. 144</a> (1938) related to the peculiarities of filled milk (where milk fat is removed from milk [and used for other products, such as ice cream] and replaced with other fats such as coconut oil or palm oil, which sounds vile and is obviously just as much the work of the devil as margerine or clamato). But it gave the US Supreme Court the opportunity to lay the foundations for the modern law on strict scrutiny of discriminatory legislation. What a zany post. I can’t resist two comments. First, the Supreme Court of Canada seems to get more than its fair share of bonkers only-in-Canada fact scenarios; or, to be more charitable, it gets a sizeable number of cases relating to matters of Canadian culture. For example, only in Canada could something as odd as Clamato be popular (for the non-Canadians amongst the readership of this blog, wikipedia says that ‘Clamato (a portmanteau of “clam” and “tomato”) is a trademark of the Mott’s company which denotes a drink made primarily of reconstituted tomato juice concentrate and reconstituted dried clam broth, with a dash of high fructose corn syrup, and USDA Red 40 to maintain a ‘natural’ tomato colour’. Indeed, in Canada, it is so popular that other companies have tried to rip it off, leading to Cadbury Schweppes Inc. v. FBI Foods Ltd., [1999] 1 S.C.R. 142 a very important case on remedies for breach of confidence.

Second, it’s not just the SCC that has made important constitutional law in cases arising out of milk arcana. US v Carolene Products 304 U.S. 144 (1938) related to the peculiarities of filled milk (where milk fat is removed from milk [and used for other products, such as ice cream] and replaced with other fats such as coconut oil or palm oil, which sounds vile and is obviously just as much the work of the devil as margerine or clamato). But it gave the US Supreme Court the opportunity to lay the foundations for the modern law on strict scrutiny of discriminatory legislation.

]]>