I probably should do this with my other courses--just need to find the time/stop procrastinating--and probably use the h2o tool referenced above (now that I know about it)!

I had my RA drop everything in a Word document and I did some formatting cleanup and it wasn't too bad. But it was all newer stuff that we could pull from CanLII--which I'd guess isn't true of everything you'd want to cover in Corporations.

The closest I came to this was with my Startup Law course, where I supplemented a textbook I liked with a bunch of links to cases/statutes and other materials. On my second round teaching it I realized it'd be easier for students if I pulled the cases/statutes into one doc.

Thank you so much, Hilary! Your work has shaped how I think about sandboxes and the broader challenges financial innovation pose to regulation and consumer protection. It's been fantastic having the benefit of your feedback and support on this work!

Thanks, Dan! Hope all’s well!

TLDR: Regulators' efforts speak to the significant impact sandboxes can have on law and policy, but also suggest we need to revisit some longstanding assumptions about how these tools interact with mainstream regulation.

Will be interesting to see what the SCC does. I've written on what they ought to do both for the CBLJ and the Globe and Mail (www.theglobeandmail.com/business/com...), and tried to explain how it was that our lower courts got themselves tangled up trying to figure out this issue.

In this context, past cases offer examples of material changes, but these examples are not exhaustive—new cases typically will require fresh analysis from first principles.

(3) Jamal J highlighted the dangers of taking past decisions concluding that a given set of facts is *sufficient* to show that a legal test is met, and then trying to argue that those cases establish that those facts are *necessary* to show that the test is met in subsequent cases.

I think the answer is that securities law often uses open-ended standards whose application to facts can get complicated. The "plausible analysis" test leaves room to defer the resolution of these qs to trial, where the evidentiary record will allow for better-informed application of law to facts.

(2) To secure leave to bring this action, plaintiffs needed credible evidence and a “plausible analysis” of applicable law. Rowe & Kasirer JJ asked whether this means courts could adopt conflicting interps. of the same statute, on the basis that they’re all plausible...

(1) Issuer's counsel struggled to explain why the SCC should depart from its standing interpretation of “material change” (as encompassing material events internal to the co.). Was glad to see Jamal J mention my article on why they should *not* depart from their approach. ssrn.com/abstract=4856418

More on the Clinic and our student caseworkers here: www.uottawa.ca/faculty-law/...