捆绑SM社区

The 2020-2022 series of Civil Law Workshops explored "Dis-enclosing private law".

The workshops were presented with financial assistance from Justice Canada鈥檚 Support Fund for Access to Justice in Both Official Languages from Justice Canada.

2020-2022 series - "Dis-enclosing private law"

---

Patrick Garon-Sayegh, "D茅confiner le droit priv茅 en le dramatisant : l鈥檃rtisanat juridique mis en sc猫ne et sous les projecteurs de Kenneth Burke"

March 31, 2023, 13:00-14:30 (EDT), 202 New Chancellor Day Hall

(In French Only) 脌 tort ou 脿 raison, les pratiques m茅thodologiques disciplinent les milieux savants. Ces pratiques agissent autant 脿 titre prospectif que r茅trospectif. Elles orientent les recherches 脿 venir et d茅marquent celles qui devraient 锚tre retenues de celles qui devraient 锚tre 茅cart茅s. Quoiqu'elles soient n茅cessaires, leur effet disciplinaire devient souvent un carcan confinant, autant pour les chercheurs que pour les objets qu'ils 茅tudient.

Cette pr茅sentation offre aux chercheurs en droit priv茅 une orientation m茅thodologique novatrice qui permet de d茅confiner 鈥� au moins en partie 鈥� leurs objets d'茅tude. Cette orientation, ancr茅e dans la perspective 芦 dramatique 禄 d茅velopp茅e par le rh茅toricien Kenneth Burke, invite les chercheurs en droit priv茅 脿 se pencher sur le travail concret des acteurs juridiques. Lorsqu'adopt茅e, la perspective dramatique permet d'appr茅hender la dimension artisanale du droit priv茅 de mani猫re 芦 quasi-empirique 禄 qui illumine les cat茅gories doctrinales du droit priv茅 sous un nouvel angle tout en respectant la perspective dite 芦 interne 禄 suivant laquelle le sens de ces cat茅gories rel猫ve de pratiques interpr茅tatives autonomes.

Patrick Garon-Sayegh est professeur adjoint 脿 la Facult茅 de droit de l'Universit茅 de Montr茅al, o霉 il enseigne principalement le droit de la preuve civile et l'interpr茅tation des lois. Ses recherches actuelles chevauchent le droit de la preuve et la responsabilit茅 m茅dicale. Plus particuli猫rement, il s'int茅resse aux pratiques argumentatives impliqu茅es dans la preuve d'une faute m茅dicale et les affinit茅s philosophiques, historiques, et pratiques qui existent entre la justification m茅dicale et la justification juridique.

---

听

Kirsten Anker and Tina Piper, "Codification and Mt Royal: Designing a Place for Precious Things"

February 24, 2022, 13:00 to 14:30,

Codification and urban planning were both central to the project of modernisation: humans and their lived spaces were subjected to the deliberate, rational design of a central authority in the name of progress, social hygiene and order. In examining the case of the contemporaneous drafting of the Civil Code of Lower Canada and the planning of Mt. Royal Park in the mid-1800s, we hope to show the specificities of how that modern project played out in colonial Quebec in a linguistically and legally plural society. We argue that the process of designating a park as a defined space for nature in the city has parallels in the designation of the code as the location of law with similar implications for the relationship between humans and their environment as for that between a people and their law.

Kirsten Anker is Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, 捆绑SM社区. She teaches property, legal theory and Aboriginal law/Indigenous legal traditions, with research interests extending also to evidence, dispute resolution, resource management and legal education. Her book Declarations of Interdependence: A Legal Pluralist Approach to Indigenous Rights explores various aspects of claiming Native (Aboriginal) Title as a way to inspire a re-imagination of law. She has written widely on the challenge to orthodox understandings of law and sovereignty posed by the recognition in Australia and Canada that Indigenous law 鈥渋ntersects鈥� or co-exists with state law, and draws on studies in legal theory, anthropology, Indigenous and occidental philosophy, translation and language. Current projects include work on Indigenous legal traditions in formal legal education, non-static digital mapping in land claims, the privatisation of Indigenous consultation, and ecological jurisprudence.

Tina Piper is Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, 捆绑SM社区. She teaches and researches in the areas of intellectual property law and legal history. She co-published a book entitled Putting Intellectual Property in its Place: Creative Labour and the Everyday (Oxford University Press) with Laura Murray and Kirsty Robertson. She was an IPLAI Resident Faculty Fellow from 2013 to 2015. She is a member of the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy (). Before joining 捆绑SM社区, she trained as a biomedical-electrical engineer and completed her doctorate of law at the University of Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. Tina also works with a number of community groups and has sat on the boards of POPMontreal, CKUT and Creative Commons Canada. She was an Action Canada Fellow (2005-2006). She has been a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada since 2004.

---

Richard Janda, "Vicarious Liability Deconfines Private Law"

21 January 2022, 13:00-14:40,

Common law and civil law jurists seek to make clear what private law, and the law of extracontractual liability in particular, is confined to performing and doing. Famously Oliver Wendall Holmes, in The Common Law (1881) had stated that 鈥淭he general principle of our law is that loss from accident must lie where it falls, and this principle is not affected by the fact that a human being is the instrument of misfortune.鈥� In this way he confined the very possibility of compensation through the notion that as a general matter it should not arise. Civilians confine the operation of the private law somewhat differently by viewing obligations as generally contractual 鈥� operating by the consent of those bound by them 鈥� and only exceptionally extending extra-contractually. But one way or the other, vicarious liability allows us to observe the private law deconfining its conception of fault in order to take account of the risk that moral persons create. In particular, the Supreme Court of Canada鈥檚 appeal to 鈥減ublic policy鈥� in order to do so provides a point of entry into the deconfinement of private law.

Richard Janda is Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, 捆绑SM社区. He teaches extracontractual obligations, business associations, administrative process and environmental law. A former clerk to Justices Le Dain and Cory of the Supreme Court of Canada, he was also Director of the Center for the Study of Regulated Industries at 捆绑SM社区.

He is currently leading the Myko project (), which explores how to connect everyone to the environmental footprint of their choices in real time. He has written, among other things, on corporate social responsibility, digital law, and theories of justice.

---

Ga毛le Gidrol-Mistral, "La mort d鈥檜n oxymore: la propri茅t茅 collective"

5 November 2021, 13:00-14:30,

(In French Only) Sous l鈥檈ffet de la mont茅e des imp茅ratifs collectifs et de la prise en consid茅ration d鈥檌nt茅r锚ts altruistes, l鈥檌d茅e d鈥檜ne propri茅t茅 collective en droit civil se trouve raviv茅e au fil des tentatives d鈥櫭ヽlatement du dogme individualiste de la propri茅t茅 priv茅e et de la remise en cause de son caract猫re fondamentalement 茅go茂ste. Pour autant, la propri茅t茅 collective peine 脿 s鈥檌mposer dans l鈥檌maginaire civiliste: tant么t qualifi茅e de surann茅e, tant么t phagocyt茅e par la propri茅t茅 individuelle, son caract猫re plurivoque entra卯ne une certaine polys茅mie qui rend difficile l鈥檃ppr茅hension de ce ph茅nom猫ne juridique.

Ce n鈥檈st qu鈥檈n disant les mots et en explorant ses repr茅sentations conceptuelles que l鈥檌maginaire r茅el de la propri茅t茅 collective pourra 锚tre esquiss茅.

Ga毛le Gidrol-Mistral est professeure au D茅partement des sciences juridiques de la Facult茅 de science politique et de droit de l鈥橴QAM. Elle est 茅galement directrice du Groupe de r茅flexion en droit priv茅 (GRDP). Elle enseigne le droit des biens et de la propri茅t茅, le droit des personnes et des biotechnologies, le droit des obligations et la m茅thodologie de la recherche juridique.

Ses recherches s鈥檃ncrent dans une perspective comparatiste et une analyse en termes de fondements du droit civil. 脌 travers une 茅tude des concepts et cat茅gories du droit civil, elle s鈥檌nt茅resse 脿 la fonction sociale du droit priv茅 et propose d鈥檈xplorer et de bousculer les fronti猫res existantes entre sujet et objet de droit, personne et corps, droit individuel et collectif, entit茅s humaines et non humaines notamment. Ses projets sur la copropri茅t茅 ou la protection de l鈥檈nvironnement ouvrent un dialogue entre l鈥櫭ゞo茂sme individuel de la propri茅t茅 priv茅e et l鈥檃ltruisme collectif des communs et lui permettent d鈥檈nvisager, 脿 c么t茅 de la propri茅t茅 exclusive dominante, des formes plus sociales et solidaires de propri茅t茅 ou de d茅tention des biens. Ceux sur l鈥檈mbryon, le statut du corps humain, la circulation des produits de la reproduction, l鈥檃nimal ou l鈥檌ntelligence artificielle lui permettent de mesurer l鈥檌mpact des nouvelles technologies sur les cat茅gories et les concepts du droit civil.

---

Daniel Borrillo, "D茅confiner la bio茅thique 脿 la fran莽aise : pr茅sentation critique de la derni猫re r茅vision de la loi"

10 mars 2021, 13h00 脿 14h30, webinar

(In French Only) Le dispositif bio茅thique fran莽ais se caract茅rise par un fort interventionnisme de l鈥櫭塼at aussi bien sur le contenu des normes que sur la m茅thode de cr茅ation et de r茅vision l茅gislatives. Il suffit qu鈥檜ne question soit consid茅r茅e comme appartenant au domaine juridique de la bio茅thique pour qu鈥檈lle se trouve automatiquement soumise 脿 un traitement politique sp茅cifique. C鈥檈st cette sp茅cificit茅 que l鈥檕n appelle 芦 bio茅thique 脿 la fran莽aise 禄. Construit sur le mod猫le de l鈥檈xpertise articul茅e et contr么l茅e par l鈥櫭塼at, la loi bio茅thique appara卯t comme un r茅v茅lateur de l鈥檌mpossibilit茅 de la culture politique et juridique fran莽aise 脿 faire confiance 脿 l鈥檌ndividu qui appara卯t rarement comme une source de cr茅ativit茅 et d鈥檌nd茅pendance mais comme un 锚tre irresponsable, brutal et sans scrupule qui ne vise qu鈥櫭� opprimer les autres et s鈥檈nrichir 脿 leurs d茅pens. C鈥檈st pourquoi, la bio茅thique n鈥檈st pas con莽ue pour informer, expliquer, clarifier les enjeux, mais plut么t pour proscrire, censurer et se substituer aux personnes concern茅es. C鈥檈st aussi pourquoi, le dispositif bio茅thique est destin茅 d鈥檃vantage 脿 l鈥櫭﹖ablissement des limites et des bornes plut么t qu鈥櫭� l鈥櫭﹍argissement du domaine des libert茅s offertes par la science, laquelle est pr茅sent茅e de surcroit comme 茅tant 脿 l鈥檕rigine des nouvelles formes d鈥檈sclavage et d鈥檃li茅nation.

Daniel Borrillo est enseignant-chercheur en droit priv茅 脿 l'Universit茅 de Paris Nanterre et chercheur au CNRS (CERSA-Paris II Panth茅on). Auteur de plusieurs ouvrages sur le droit de la bio茅thique, la r茅gulation des sexualit茅s et le droit de la non-discrimination, il a particip茅 脿 l'茅laboration du Pacs et du mariage pour tous en France, de la loi sur l'identit茅 de genre en Argentine et des politiques publiques d'茅galit茅 de genre et des sexualit茅s pour la commission europ茅enne.

---

Fr茅d茅ric Zenati-Castaing, "La dimension savante de la codification"

10 February 2021 13:00-14:30, webinar

(In French Only) Cette conf茅rence, d茅j脿 donn茅e aux 茅tudiants en doctorat de l'Universit茅 de Lyon, s'inscrit dans mes travaux sur la codification, sur la science du droit et sur le droit commun. Elle fait 茅cho 脿 une autre conf茅rence que j'avais donn茅e 脿 Mc Gill en 2012 dans le cadre du colloque Stateless law sous le titre "non ratione imperii, sed imperio rationis" (non pas par la force du pouvoir, mais par le pouvoir de la raison) pour montrer que la doctrine est une forme que peut prendre le droit sans Etat. Ce colloque m'avait fourni l'occasion de creuser les rapports entre science juridique d'une part, et loi et Etat d'autre part. Il m'avait conduit 脿 mettre en 茅vidence la rivalit茅 qui existe entre le droit savant, source qui r茅gnait avant la codification, et le droit 茅tatique qui est devenu la r猫gle depuis lors. J'avais avanc茅 l'hypoth猫se d'un retour de l'h茅g茅monie de la science du droit avec l'av猫nement des codifications savantes du XXe et du XXIe si猫cle et la mondialisation. La pr茅sente conf茅rence poursuit la r茅flexion en avan莽ant, 脿 partir des donn茅es de l'histoire comparative, l'hypoth猫se que la codification l茅gislative par laquelle l'Etat a accapar茅 le droit depuis le XVIIIe si猫cle et a d茅poss茅d茅 la science juridique n'est, en r茅alit茅, intrins猫quement qu'un avatar de l'艙uvre savante, que la codification est, par essence, savante. Elle l'est en ce qu'elle est r茅v茅lation d'un droit transcendant (droit divin, droit naturel, droit commun鈥�), mission qu'a toujours remplie la science du droit dans toutes les traditions juridiques o霉 elle existe. C'est parce que les droits coutumiers ne reposent pas sur la transcendance qu'ils ont ni science du droit, ni codes.

Fr茅d茅ric Zenati-Castaing est professeur des facult茅s de droit en France. Il enseigne 脿 l鈥橴niversit茅 de Lyon le droit civil, les sources du droit, le droit compar茅 et la philosophie du droit. Il a fond茅 l鈥櫭ヽole doctorale de droit priv茅 de l鈥橴niversit茅 Jean Moulin. Il a 茅t茅 membre du Conseil national des universit茅s de 1999 脿 2003. Il a cr茅茅 脿 l鈥橴niversit茅 de Lyon un dipl么me doctoral portant sur l鈥櫭﹖ude fondamentale du droit priv茅, dipl么me aujourd鈥檋ui devenu un master de recherches, qu鈥檌l dirige depuis lors.

---

Marianne Faure-Abbad (Universit茅 de Poitiers), "L鈥檌nfluence du droit de l鈥檈nvironnement sur le droit civil: instrumentalisation ou 茅cologisation? "

2 December 2020, 13:00-14:30, webinar

(In French only) D鈥檃bord travaill茅 par les sp茅cialistes de droit public par le prisme des sources du droit, le droit de l鈥檈nvironnement a conquis le droit priv茅 jusqu鈥櫭� disposer aujourd鈥檋ui d鈥檜n ancrage puissant dans le Code civil fran莽ais qui contient, depuis la loi pour la reconqu锚te de la biodiversit茅 du 8 ao没t 2016, un titre consacr茅 脿 la r茅paration du pr茅judice 茅cologique (pur). Situ茅 en cl么ture des textes r茅gissant la responsabilit茅 civile extracontractuelle, ce r茅gime de r茅paration du pr茅judice 茅cologique est tellement 茅loign茅 des principes qui gouvernent la r茅paration des d茅lits civils, que son importation dans le Code civil interroge ses impacts sur les contours, les concepts, les conditions de la responsabilit茅 civile.

D鈥檜n point de vue plus g茅n茅ral, la conf茅rence s鈥檃ttachera 脿 montrer dans un premier mouvement comment le droit de l鈥檈nvironnement recourt aux concepts du droit civil comme des outils au service des objectifs qu鈥檌l poursuit. Typiquement, l鈥檕bligation d鈥檌nformation dans les contrats permet, dans le Code de l鈥檈nvironnement fran莽ais, d鈥檃ssurer la m茅moire du passif environnemental des terres, renouvelant ainsi le r么le qu鈥檕n lui conna卯t en droit des contrats dans la protection du consentement. Dans un second mouvement, il s鈥檃gira d鈥檃ppr茅cier les impacts de la privatisation du droit de l鈥檈nvironnement sur les concepts du droit civil : la responsabilit茅 civile bien s没r, mais aussi la distinction des personnes et des choses et le droit des biens.

Marianne Faure-Abbad est professeure 脿 l鈥橴niversit茅 de Poitiers, 1re vice doyenne de la Facult茅 de droit, charg茅e de la recherche et codirectrice du Master II Droit de l鈥檜rbanisme et de la construction. Auteure d鈥檜ne th猫se de doctorat sur Le fait g茅n茅rateur de la responsabilit茅 contractuelle. Contribution 脿 la th茅orie de l鈥檌nex茅cution du contrat, pr茅f. Philippe Remy (Presses universitaires juridiques Poitiers-LGDJ 2003), elle enseigne aujourd鈥檋ui sp茅cifiquement le droit de la construction immobili猫re, discipline dans laquelle elle publie des travaux p茅dagogiques et scientifiques.

Elle dirige depuis plusieurs ann茅es, avec le prof. Michel Boudot, les journ茅es d鈥櫭﹖udes annuelles Poitiers-Roma Tre 芦 Jean Beauchard-Paolo Maria Vecchi 禄, qui s鈥檌nscrivent dans la perspective de recherche historico-comparative de l鈥橢quipe de recherche en droit priv茅 de la Facult茅 de droit et des sciences sociales.

The 2016-2018 series of Civil Law Workshops explored 芦 Les influences en droit priv茅 禄.

The workshops were presented with financial assistance from Justice Canada鈥檚 Support Fund for Access to Justice in Both Official Languages from Justice Canada.

Each workshop was accredited for 1.5 hours of continuing legal education by the Barreau du Qu茅bec.

Workshops of听2018-2020 series - 芦 Les influences en droit priv茅 禄

---

Sarah Worthington (Cambridge University), 鈥淭he Power of property in Private Law鈥�

29 March 2019, 13:00-14:30, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

This lecture will address the reliance that the common law, and equity in particular, place on the idea of property, and in particular what is achieved by that reliance. Of course the practical power of the trust and all that it enables in both commercial and domestic settings is well known. But I want also to move beyond that feature and address the notion that reliance on the idea of property enables difficult policy choices to be injected into judicial decisions in an astonishingly subliminal way.

Property law has the reputation for being politically neutral and doctrinally rigorous, with any practical conclusions following from the very nature of things rather than requiring any normative assessment. That view appears flawed. This is an idea I have addressed periodically, but it seems apt to revisit it in the context of this series of lectures.

Yvette Rachel Kalieu Elongo (School of Law & Political Sciences, University of Dschang), "Le droit OHADA et la distinction droit civil / droit commercial: quelles influences?"

8 February 2019, 13:00-14:30, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

(In French only) L鈥橭rganisation pour l鈥橦armonisation en Afrique du Droit des affaires (OHADA) est une organisation sous-r茅gionale regroupant 17 脡tats de l鈥橝frique subsaharienne qui s鈥檈st donn茅e pour objectif d鈥檃ssurer l鈥檌nt茅gration et le d茅veloppement des 脡tats membres par le droit. Elle a, 脿 cet effet, adopt茅 des actes uniformes couvrant diff茅rents domaines tels que le droit des s没ret茅s, le droit commercial, les voies d鈥檈x茅cution qui rel猫vent habituellement soit du droit civil, soit du droit commercial.

En regroupant ainsi, sous le couvert du droit des affaires, un ensemble de mati猫res que l鈥檕n rattache traditionnellement au droit civil ou au droit commercial, le droit OHADA semble d茅passer et contribuer d鈥檜ne certaine mani猫re 脿 relativiser la distinction somme toute doctrinale et parfois th茅orique, entre le droit civil et le droit commercial.

L鈥檜niformisation recherch茅e des r猫gles du droit dans l鈥檈space OHADA et le souci d鈥檜ne application uniforme de celles-ci, avec la mise en place d鈥檜ne cour commune, semblent avoir pris le pas, pour les fondateurs du droit OHADA, sur la distinction droit civil et droit commercial. L鈥橭HADA s鈥檌nt茅resse surtout 脿 la finalit茅 茅conomique de la r猫gle. Il est vrai que l鈥檕n peut, sur certains aspects, s鈥檌nterroger sur la pertinence de ce d茅passement et ses limites en se demandant si l鈥橭HADA peut durablement s鈥檃ffranchir de cette distinction. D鈥檜n autre c么t茅, on pourrait se demander si l鈥檃pproche retenue par le droit OHADA ne peut pas influencer d鈥檜ne certaine mani猫re la distinction et amener 脿 s鈥檌nterroger sur la pertinence de la distinction droit civil/ droit commercial aujourd鈥檋ui.

S茅bastien Pimont (Sciences Po), 鈥淧enser les influences du droit civil : s'en d茅barrasser, les accepter toutes鈥�

1 November 2018, 13:00-14:30, room 16, Old Chancellor Day Hall

(In French only) Cet atelier se propose d鈥櫭﹖udier le droit civil comme听un rapport d鈥檌nfluence听entre un 茅l茅ment technique et un 茅l茅ment politique. Une telle approche permet d鈥檌soler ces 茅l茅ments tout en pensant leur action r茅ciproque ainsi que leur relativit茅.

Le droit civil existe, ainsi, comme une 茅criture particuli猫re, tel est son 茅l茅ment technique. Un moyen au service d鈥檜ne fin politique : un mode d鈥檈xposition d鈥檜n projet de soci茅t茅, ind茅pendamment de la nature de ce dernier.

Ceci pos茅, nous d茅velopperons l鈥檋ypoth猫se selon laquelle il est possible de concevoir le droit civil comme pouvant assurer la coexistence formelle, la copr茅sence pacifique de plusieurs projets politiques dans une soci茅t茅 unique mais pluraliste.

Afin d鈥檡 parvenir, cet atelier entend d茅velopper successivement les points suivants : 1. Isoler l鈥櫭﹍茅ment politique du droit civil; 2. Formaliser son 茅l茅ment technique; 3. Concevoir ce dernier comme (pouvant peut-锚tre 锚tre) l鈥檌nstrument d鈥檜ne th茅orie de la justice adapt茅e au fait pluraliste de nos soci茅t茅s contemporaines.

Omar Farahat (捆绑SM社区),听鈥淢orality in Islamic Commercial Law Theory鈥�

26 October 2018, 13:00-14:30, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

This workshop investigates the place of moral considerations in shaping classical Islamic views on commerce and commercial law. The relation between morality and law is a question that received much attention in modern jurisprudence, and is often used as a framework for analyzing the Islamic legal tradition.

Nonetheless, not much has been said on the place of moral ideas in shaping laws governing commercial exchanges in either tradition. While, in modern law, it is sometimes claimed that positive morality is squarely opposed to capitalist-driven commercial laws, studies on Islamic commerce tend to either offer descriptive accounts of the law, or a historical narrative of economic stagnation.

This workshop, by contrast, will discuss the moral frameworks constructed by a number of classical Muslim thinkers to allow a conceptualization of commercial activity and a formulation broad principles that make sense of Islamic legal regulation of commerce.

The talk will make two central claims. Internally, Islamic commercial law theory viewed morality as an effective yardstick against which the validity of transactions could be measured. Externally, the anchoring of law in a metaphysical view of morality allowed for a more pervasive and multi-layered intervention of moral ideas in commercial regulation than generally assumed in modern works on commercial law theory.

The 2016-2018 series of Civil Law Workshops explored 芦 Le public en droit priv茅听禄.

The workshops were presented with financial assistance from Justice Canada鈥檚 Support Fund for Access to Justice in Both Official Languages from Justice Canada.

Each workshop was accredited for 1.5 hours of continuing legal education by the Barreau du Qu茅bec.

Workshops of 2016-2018听series - 芦 Le public en droit priv茅 禄

---

Frederik Swennen, University of Antwerp - 鈥淭he Public in Family Law: Channelling Parents to be Each Other鈥檚 Intimate Partners?鈥�

4 November 2016, 13:00-14:30, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

The disconnect between marriage and parenthood (Parsons 1916) seems acquis in 21C family law. Particularly, filiation can be established with full effect vis-脿-vis parents who are not, and never were, each other鈥檚 intimate partners.

The first purpose of this Workshop, however, is to unveil that parenthood still is much dependent on the existence of a(n) (former) intimate partnership between the parents, e.g. in adoption law (art. 555 CCQ) or in the exercise of parental authority (art. 372 CCF). Function merely seems to have replaced form.

The second purpose is to normatively discuss the above in light of the 鈥渃hannelling function鈥� of family law (Schneider 1992), aiming to direct people into accepted social institutions that exert performative effects. Is there a State interest to direct parents towards certain intimate practices, if not institutions? Alternatively, is there a State interest in developing a non-intimate parenthood status between parents (Weiner 2015)?

The Workshop will draw on family studies and on Quebec and Low Countries鈥� family law.

---

Vincent Forray, 捆绑SM社区 - 鈥淟a raison publique du droit des contrats鈥�

25 November 2016, 13:00-14:30, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

(In French only) Le contrat est une affaire priv茅e. Par d茅finition et par excellence. Les parties s鈥檕bligent elles-m锚mes au terme d鈥檜n accord de volont茅s. Le c艙ur du r茅gime contractuel est constitu茅 de r猫gles et principes qui suivent la logique d鈥檜ne telle conception听: libre choix des parties quant 脿 la forme et au contenu de leur contrat, force obligatoire 脿 la mesure du consentement, effet relatif des conventions, privil猫ge de la volont茅 des contractants dans l鈥檕p茅ration d鈥檌nterpr茅tation鈥�

D鈥檜n autre c么t茅, le contrat est aussi une affaire publique. En effet, le droit civil pr茅voit des m茅canismes de contr么le de la gestion priv茅e des transactions. Classiquement, ces m茅canismes prennent la forme de limitations aux r猫gles et principes 茅voqu茅s plus haut. Toutefois, le fait nouveau tient 脿 l鈥檌nstitution d鈥檜ne v茅ritable police des comportements des contractants听: clause g茅n茅rale de bonne foi, obligations connexes aux prestations et contenus d茅termin茅s par les parties, dispositifs de r茅茅quilibrage de la relation contractuelle, surveillance de certains pouvoirs鈥�

En sorte que le droit des contrats vit au fil d鈥檜ne tension entre deux types de raison ou de rationalit茅. Cet atelier sera l鈥檕ccasion d鈥櫭﹖udier plus profond茅ment cette tension afin de concevoir, et peut-锚tre d鈥檕uvrir, certaines perspectives d鈥櫭﹙olution en la mati猫re.

---

Michelle Cumyn, Universit茅 Laval - 鈥淟e droit priv茅 et les formes actuelles de gouvernance publique鈥�

27 January 2017, 13:00-14:30, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

(In French only)Les manifestations contemporaines du public en droit priv茅 traduisent des mouvements contradictoires et entra卯nent une remise en question de son r么le. Deux formes actuelles de la gouvernance publique sont abord茅es听: les interventions l茅gislatives dans les rapports juridiques priv茅s et la contractualisation de l鈥檃ction publique.

Les derniers si猫cles ont vu le droit 茅tatique s鈥檌mmiscer toujours davantage dans les rapports juridiques priv茅s. Les lois et les r猫glements assortis de sanctions p茅nales sont consid茅r茅s 芦听d鈥檕rdre public听禄听: le droit priv茅 est donc tenu d鈥檈n assurer la sanction. Il est moins port茅 脿 d茅velopper ses m茅canismes propres. On assiste 脿 une 芦听publicisation听禄 du droit priv茅.

De source coutumi猫re, le droit priv茅 a d鈥檃bord 茅t茅 con莽u comme obligatoire. L鈥檈ssor du contrat a co茂ncid茅 avec un renversement de son r么le听: d鈥檌mp茅ratif, il est devenu essentiellement suppl茅tif. Aujourd鈥檋ui plus que jamais, l鈥檃utonomie de la volont茅 fonde les rapports juridiques priv茅s. Paradoxalement, les contrats d鈥檃dh茅sion et autres formulaires sont l茅gion. On pourrait parler d鈥檜ne 芦听privatisation听禄 du droit priv茅.

Le d茅ploiement simultan茅 de ces tendances oppos茅es s鈥檈xplique par la tension entre protection et libert茅. Le mouvement s鈥檈ncha卯ne et s鈥檃cc茅l猫re, au point o霉 l鈥檕n peut se questionner sur l鈥檈fficacit茅 des interventions l茅gislatives ponctuelles. Serait-il pr茅f茅rable de r茅tablir le droit priv茅 dans son r么le, en renfor莽ant son caract猫re obligatoire?

En droit public, le mod猫le de la loi fait l鈥檕bjet de critiques, et l鈥櫭塼at a souvent recours au contrat comme outil d鈥櫭﹍aboration et de mise en 艙uvre de cadres normatifs. La contractualisation de l鈥檃ction publique emprunte des formes tr猫s diverses, qui vont bien au-del脿 de la figure famili猫re du contrat administratif. Cette mouvance s鈥檈xplique par la volont茅 de rendre l鈥檃ction publique plus l茅gitime et plus efficace.

Du point de vue du droit priv茅, la r茅f茅rence au contrat s鈥檃v猫re ambig眉e. Il est difficile de se prononcer sur le caract猫re juridiquement contraignant des ententes, sur leur validit茅 et sur leurs effets. Quelles conclusions faut-il tirer de l鈥檌nsuffisance du droit priv茅 en cette mati猫re?

---

脡ric Millard, Universit茅 Paris Ouest Nanterre La D茅fense - 鈥淒roit priv茅/droit public : quelques enjeux d'une distinction doctrinale鈥�

6 February 2017, 13:00-14:30, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

(In French only) La distinction public/priv茅, particuli猫rement en droit, est fr茅quemment con莽ue comme une summa divisio, une distinction essentielle, structurante et parfois naturelle. Dans cette intervention, on souhaiterait montrer que si elle est ainsi dans la tradition juridique, continentale d'abord (affirmation qui peut se nuancer), c'est essentiellement parce qu'elle est construite ainsi par la doctrine juridique elle-m锚me, particuli猫rement la doctrine acad茅mique, tant dans ses productions scientifiques ou dogmatiques, que dans son appr茅hension des modalit茅s de construction et transmission des savoirs.

En mobilisant les outils th茅oriques de l'analyse m茅tadoctrinale, cette position sera illustr茅e par l'茅tude de deux questions importantes dans le cas fran莽ais : la question de la constitutionnalisation (publicisation) du droit priv茅, par l'instauration d'un contr么le de constitutionnalit茅 dans ses diff茅rentes versions (contr么le a priori et question prioritaire de constitutionnalit茅) et celle de la 芦 privatisation 禄 du droit europ茅en communautaire.

---

Pascale Cornut St-Pierre, University of Ottawa (Civil Law Section) - 鈥淟鈥櫭﹙itement fiscal vu sous l鈥檃ngle du droit civil听: le priv茅 est politique!鈥�

10 March 2017, 13:00-14:30, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

(In French only) La libert茅 de principe accord茅e aux individus en droit des contrats et en droit commercial s鈥檈st mu茅e, en pratique, en une libert茅 de cr茅ation des formes juridiques qui pose aujourd鈥檋ui d鈥檌mportants d茅fis d鈥檕rdre public. Alors que ces d茅fis sont le plus souvent abord茅s sous l鈥檃ngle du droit public, comme un probl猫me d鈥檈ffectivit茅 de l鈥檌ntervention de l鈥櫭塼at dans les affaires priv茅es, j鈥檃imerais sugg茅rer que le droit priv茅 peut 茅galement contribuer 脿 la solution d鈥檜n tel probl猫me. J鈥檌llustrerai mon propos en me penchant sur l鈥檜n des grands enjeux de notre 茅poque, qui rel猫ve de toute 茅vidence du droit public : l鈥櫭﹙itement fiscal. Face 脿 la complexification croissante non seulement des r茅gimes fiscaux, mais aussi des structures juridiques employ茅es dans la vie des affaires, le droit priv茅 peut agir 脿 la racine du probl猫me en conf茅rant, par ses techniques de qualification, une intelligibilit茅 accrue aux rapports juridiques que nouent entre elles les parties priv茅es, simplifiant d鈥檃utant l鈥檃pplication des r猫gles fiscales.

---

Catherine Kessedjian, Universit茅 Panth茅on-Assas and Wainwright Senior Fellow, Faculty of Law, 捆绑SM社区 - "Le droit priv茅 au service de la protection d'int茅r锚ts publics"

7 April 2017, 13:00-14:30, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

(In French only) Prenant place dans le cycle de conf茅rences intitul茅 芦 Le public en droit priv茅 禄, cette communication part d鈥檜ne d茅finition large de la notion de 芦 public 禄 pour y inclure les int茅r锚ts collectifs de la soci茅t茅 dans son ensemble ou, 脿 tout le moins, de parties d鈥檈ntre elle que l鈥檕n appellera, pour simplifier, des 芦 communaut茅s 禄.

Traditionnellement, il appartient 脿 l鈥櫭塼at de prot茅ger ces int茅r锚ts collectifs ou publics par les diff茅rents moyens qui sont 脿 sa disposition : la l茅gislation, la force publique, les actions de droit public, les actions p茅nales, etc.

Or, force est de constater que l鈥櫭塼at n鈥檃 plus les moyens de ses ambitions. Moyens mat茅riels tout d鈥檃bord (les budgets des 脡tats sont mis 脿 mal par la r茅sistance 脿 l鈥檌mp么t, notamment). Moyens politiques, ensuite (la l茅gitimit茅 politique des gouvernements est contest茅e). Moyens intellectuels, enfin (le personnel politique, comme la soci茅t茅 dans son ensemble, fait face 脿 ce qu鈥檌l est d茅sormais convenu d鈥檃ppeler un 芦 illettrisme fonctionnel 禄).

C鈥檈st pourquoi, la place des actions en justice civiles d茅lictuelles ou contractuelles pour d茅fendre et prot茅ger les int茅r锚ts collectifs va grandissante, ph茅nom猫ne que les 脡tats-uniens appellent le 芦 private enforcement 禄, expression anglaise que l鈥檕n retrouve de plus en plus dans la doctrine francophone.

Ce ph茅nom猫ne sera explicit茅 gr芒ce 脿 deux exemples : les actions en dommages et int茅r锚ts pour violation des r猫gles du droit antitrust (droit des ententes anti-concurrentielles) et les actions pour violation des droits fondamentaux par les entreprises.

---

Patrick Forget, Universit茅 du Qu茅bec 脿 Montr茅al - "L鈥檃tteinte听: donation 脿 charge (ou cadeau empoisonn茅) du droit public au droit commun de la responsabilit茅 civile"

6 October 2017, 13:00-14:30, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

(In French only)听Jusqu'脿 l鈥檌nsertion de la Charte canadienne dans la Constitution, la Charte qu茅b茅coise, pour l鈥檃mbitieux catalogue de droits qu'elle est, se faisait remarquer pour l'茅conomie de ses effets.

L鈥檃rriv茅e de la Charte canadienne et ses suites jurisprudentielles ont 茅t茅 un don de transfiguration pour la Charte qu茅b茅coise, qui, comme vivifi茅e par ce souffle primordial, a impos茅, si ce n'est peut-锚tre pas l'enti猫ret茅 de son r茅gime, au moins sa pr茅sence et ses concepts, notamment le concept d'atteinte, au droit commun de la responsabilit茅 civile. 听

Dans cette conf茅rence, nous tenterons de montrer que ce don du droit public n鈥檈st pas gratuit. L鈥檌nt茅gration raisonn茅e du concept d鈥檃tteinte dans la responsabilit茅 civile exige un travail de d茅finition du concept d鈥檃tteinte lui-m锚me ainsi qu鈥檜n travail de recensement des bouleversements que le concept d鈥檃tteinte engendre (ou est susceptible d鈥檈ngendrer) dans l鈥檃rchitecture du r茅gime de responsabilit茅 civile.

Nombreux sont les juristes qui ont contribu茅 jusqu鈥櫭� pr茅sent 脿 cette r茅flexion. Si nous leur sommes infiniment redevable, nous pensons que notre apport se d茅marque fondamentalement par la grande m茅fiance (m锚l茅e tout de m锚me de fascination) que nous inspire le concept d鈥檃tteinte. 听 听

---

John Borrows, University of Victoria - "Using听Private Law Models to Revitalize Indigenous Law:听Anishinaabe Law and Dispute Resolution - A Proposal"

19 January 2018, 13:00-14:30, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

In some jurisdictions,听private听arbitration听processes allow parties to resolve disputes by constructing their own choice of forum and guiding laws. This paper will consider how Indigenous peoples might revitalize their own legal traditions through voluntary fora where Indigenous processes and principles guide dispute resolution.听

---

Vanja Hamzi膰, SOAS, University of London -听 "A Renaissance interrupted?: Personhood, 鈥楽odomy鈥� and the Public in Twelfth-Century Christian and Islamic Proto-Civil Legality"

27 March 2018, 13:00-14:30, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

The eventful twelfth century was, in many ways, a veritable paradox. On the one hand, it saw a sudden surge in academic works and universities in Western and Southern Europe that sought to bridge the worlds previously thought entirely incommensurable and usher in an age of scholasticism that would eventually lead to the fourteenth- to seventeenth-century Renaissance. For this reason, it has been a staple of mediaevalist scholarship for quite some time now to describe those thorough-going changes as the 鈥榬enaissance of the twelfth century鈥�. On the other hand, the same century also reads as a striking catalogue of most violent acts and disasters: from the rise of inquisition and merciless Christian infighting, over the first expulsions of Jews and the intensification of the Reconquista on Muslim Spain to the blood and gore of the Second, Third and German Crusades. Might it not be more appropriate, then, to characterise this period as an age of profound crisis, in which the true contours of a 鈥榩ersecuting society鈥� were drawn?

This talk seeks to make a modest contribution to that debate, by guiding the audience鈥檚 attention to a tell-tale public aspect of high mediaeval life鈥攖hat of sexual and gender diversity鈥攁nd by expanding the view over the twelfth century so as to include the affairs in the Great Seljuk Empire (1037鈥�1194), a vast Turko-Persianate Sunn墨 Muslim state that originated in Anatolia but quickly came to rule over much of the then Islamicate world. The talk considers, in particular, an unlikely rise of neo-Roman European civil law and Seljuk proto-civil legality and its formidable effect on two paradigmatic twelfth-century intellectual debates on the public, legal and theological standing of 鈥榮odomy鈥� (peccatum sodomiticum, liw膩峁�): one in amongst prominent Benedictines and the other between the leading 岣�anaf墨 scholars. It is argued that these debates, led in the distinct spirit of concordia discors (discordant harmony) or ikhtil膩f (permissible scholarly disagreement), are indispensable for our understanding of legal and social aspects of sexual and gender diversity in the twelfth century and, in turn, the way in which certain rapturous pluralities were continued and ruptured鈥攃oncomitantly.

---

Celia Fassberg,听Hebrew University of Jerusalem - "The Public in Private International Law"

2 March 2018, 13:00-14:30, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

The vindication of private rights in a cross-border situation introduces a series of questions that have to be considered in addition to the traditional private law analysis familiar from domestic situations. Who can sue and who can be sued in a local court, and for what? Should local or foreign law apply? What assistance should a local court give a foreign court? What is the local significance of a foreign judicial decision?听 These questions are quite distinct from the private law analysis and they inevitably touch - directly or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly - on public interests of both local and foreign sovereigns. It is then not surprising that while designed to facilitate the enforcement of private rights, private international law demonstrates a preoccupation with the appropriate weight to be attached to local and foreign public interests and the appropriate way in which to express them. It should be no more surprising that the sense of what is appropriate should fluctuate with changes in the relationship between public and private law and changes in the relationship between states. The presentation will explore different manifestations of this preoccupation with the 鈥減ublic鈥� in each area of private international law (jurisdiction, choice of law, foreign judgments, and legal assistance to foreign courts), drawing on methodological and doctrinal examples of attempts to assert or to suppress local public concerns, to repel or to admit foreign public intrusions.

---

Richard Janda, 捆绑SM社区 - "La raison priv茅e en droit constitutionnel"

23 March 2018, 13:00-14:30, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

(In French only) La constitution est une affaire publique. Par d茅finition et par excellence. On peut m锚me aller jusqu鈥櫭� affirmer que le public, compos茅 de citoyens, n鈥檈xiste pas sans le cadre constitutionnel. Le c艙ur de ce r茅gime public consiste 脿 conf茅rer des pouvoirs 脿 des fonctions du gouvernement et d鈥檌dentifier des principes pour la s茅lection des autorit茅s qui occupent ces fonctions. Les pouvoirs ainsi instaur茅s peuvent 锚tre r茅ciproquement restreints selon la protection des droits et libert茅s des citoyens. L鈥檌d茅e re莽ue depuis Rawls est que la raison publique soutient un r茅gime constitutionnel bien ordonn茅 puisque c鈥檈st 脿 travers elle que les principes constitutionnels peuvent se justifier et 茅ventuellement 锚tre accept茅s par la diversit茅 des individus auxquels ces principes sont vou茅s 脿 s鈥檃ppliquer.

Toutefois, Kant, le maitre 脿 penser de Rawls, a reconnu le r么le clef de la raison priv茅e dans la pr茅servation des ordres constitutionnels. Dans son court texte c茅l猫bre, 芦听Qu鈥檈st-ce que les Lumi猫res?听禄 il distingue entre la raison publique exerc茅e devant un public qui lit, et la raison priv茅 exerc茅e dans un poste civil ou dans l鈥檈xercice d鈥檜ne fonction confi茅e. L脿 o霉 l鈥檕n ob茅it 脿 des obligations de la constitution, on exerce, selon Kant, la raison priv茅e.

Le fond obligatoire de la Constitution c猫de, donc, 脿 une raison priv茅e qui d鈥檜ne part peut limiter l鈥櫭﹖endue de sa pr茅tendue raison publique. Par exemple, si l鈥檕b茅issance 脿 l鈥檕rdre constitutionnel exclut la reconnaissance du r么le des ain茅es autochtones dans 芦听le gouvernement听禄, la raison priv茅e r茅ussit 脿 primer sur la raison publique et 脿 exclure des 茅l茅ments justificatifs possibles. En effet, la Constitution en tant que contrat social exclut du lien contractuel certains peuples et leurs traditions qui, traditionnellement, ne formaient pas 芦听le public听禄. Le champ des obligations est ainsi r茅tr茅ci.听

D鈥檃utre part, la raison priv茅e peut rendre imputable l鈥檈xercice de la raison publique en cr茅ant des obligations autour de ses principes et 茅nonc茅s. 听Par exemple, on pourrait se servir des obligations extracontractuelles qui entourent le contrat social constitutionnel pour reconnaitre une responsabilit茅 civile pour la faute 茅tatique qui cause pr茅judice 脿 la terre par sa n茅gligence dans l鈥橝nthropoc猫ne (voir l鈥檃ffaire Urgenda du tribunal听du district de听La听Haye). Le champ des obligations serait ainsi 茅largi.

De sorte que le droit constitutionnel s鈥檃rticule dans une tension entre la raison publique et la raison priv茅e. Cet atelier sera l鈥檕ccasion d鈥櫭﹖udier plus profond茅ment cette tension, afin de concevoir la perturbation qu鈥檈ngendre la raison priv茅e dans la raison publique听 et vice versa, et peut-锚tre d鈥檕uvrir la possibilit茅 d鈥檜ne transformation de la mati猫re.

听

The 2014-2016 series of Civil Law Workshops explored 芦 L'abn茅gation en droit civil 禄.

The workshops were presented with financial assistance from Justice Canada鈥檚 Support Fund for Access to Justice in Both Official Languages.

Each workshop was accredited for 1.5 hours of continuing legal education by the Barreau du Qu茅bec.

---

Thierry Nootens, UQTR - L鈥檃bn茅gation comme fondement de l鈥檕rdre juridique et social : l'exp茅rience des femmes mari茅es du Qu茅bec, 1866-1930

20 November 2015, 13:00-14:30, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

De l'entr茅e en vigueur du听Code civil du Bas-Canada听(1866) 脿 la Crise des ann茅es 30, l'abn茅gation f茅minine constitue l'un des piliers de l'ordre social au Qu茅bec. Le sacrifice de soi, doubl茅 de l'obligation d'ob茅issance, figure alors en bonne place dans le droit positif, les r茅alit茅s familiales et la morale promue par les groupes dominants. Bref, l'abn茅gation fait syst猫me, du point de vue des rapports entre droit et soci茅t茅. Des causes rapport茅es et des proc猫s ordinaires permettent de mieux comprendre comment le fait de 芦 prendre sur soi 禄 a 茅t茅 v茅cu par les femmes mari茅es en diverses circonstances (probl猫mes financiers, ruptures conjugales, etc.) et de rendre compte de sa r茅gulation par la magistrature. Les juges, comme nous le verrons, 茅taient partag茅s entre leur volont茅 de s茅vir 脿 l'茅gard des 茅pouses oublieuses de leurs devoirs et la n茅cessit茅 de secourir des femmes confront茅es 脿 des situations intol茅rables. Si on ne peut pas tirer de le莽ons pour le temps pr茅sent 脿 partir de ce mat茅riel, ce chapitre de l'histoire des femmes permet n茅anmoins de r茅fl茅chir 脿 un enjeu bien contemporain, celui de la juridicisation et judiciarisation des rapports sociaux. La faible institutionnalisation de la vie sociale, avant l'apparition de l'脡tat providence, faisait en sorte que le droit et la justice pr茅sentaient une concr茅tude imm茅diate pour les populations, r茅alit茅 dont le parcours des femmes en difficult茅 t茅moigne 茅loquemment.

---

Alexandra Braun, University of Oxford - Selflessness in the context of testamentary gift-giving: The case of testamentary promises

30 October 2015, 13:00-14:30, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

This paper investigates the role selflessness and more specifically altruism is playing in the context of testamentary gift-giving, with a particular focus on testamentary promises. It investigates the motives behind testamentary gifts and, especially, promises to benefit someone on death, by drawing on findings, of economists, anthropologists and sociologists.

The paper explores the nature of such promises and the consequences that ensue when they are broken, and questions whether and, to what extent the motives should influence how lawmakers perceive and tackle cases in which the promisee has relied upon the promise.

---

Dot Reid, University of Glasgow - Inheritance and Family Values

2 October 2015, 13:00-14:30, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

The law of succession is on the reform agenda in the UK. Before the law was changed for England and Wales in 2014, the Law Commission worked with researchers to conduct a large survey of public attitudes.

Despite extensive social change and the acceptance of many different forms of being 'family', the nuclear family reigns supreme in attitudes towards inheritance. The Scottish government has now proposed making significant changes.

This workshop听 will discuss recent developments in light of recent research and will examine the broader values underpinning inheritance in terms of government policy and public attitudes.

---

Lisa Carayon , Universit茅 Paris 1 Panth茅on-Sorbonne: "Les femmes et la reproduction en droit fran莽ais : l鈥檃bn茅gation forc茅e"

Friday, 20 mars 2015, 13:00-14:30, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

Le terme d鈥檃bn茅gation semble 锚tre utilis茅 de deux fa莽ons distinctes en droit fran莽ais. Dans la sph猫re publique, il renvoie principalement aux hommes, dans leur rapport 脿 l鈥櫭塼at et 脿 la Nation. Dans la sph猫re priv茅e en revanche, il est utilis茅 pour d茅signer des femmes, notamment dans leurs relations familiales.

Les femmes se retrouvent pourtant souvent dans la situation de devoir s鈥檕ublier dans l鈥檌nt茅r锚t commun : c鈥檈st le cas notamment dans le domaine de la reproduction. Le droit fran莽ais organise ainsi un syst猫me dans lequel l鈥檌nt茅r锚t des femmes, la sauvegarde de leur sant茅, leur volont茅 personnelle, la ma卯trise de leurs corps, sont, sinon ni茅s, du moins plac茅s au second plan face 脿 des imp茅ratifs consid茅r茅s comme sup茅rieurs : tant么t la natalit茅 en g茅n茅ral, tant么t l鈥檌nt茅r锚t de l鈥檈nfant en particulier.

Nous montrerons donc comment les femmes sont souvent plac茅es dans une situation d鈥櫬� abn茅gation forc茅e 禄 dans le cadre du droit fran莽ais de la reproduction en 茅tudiant le r茅gime de l鈥檃ssistance m茅dicale 脿 la procr茅ation, l鈥檈ncadrement de l鈥檃vortement et les r茅centes 茅volutions de l鈥� 芦 accouchement sous X 禄.

---

Lionel Smith, Sir William C. Macdonald Chair in Law, 捆绑SM社区: "Droit et pouvoir"

Monday, November 24, 2014, 13:00-14:30, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

En droit civil qu茅b茅cois, il existe une distinction fondamentale entre le droit subjectif et le pouvoir priv茅, au point que l鈥檕n pourrait les qualifier de concepts oppos茅s. Le droit correspond 脿 ce qui est d茅tenu au b茅n茅fice de son titulaire, tandis que le pouvoir est au b茅n茅fice d'autrui. Il semble que l'abn茅gation se concr茅tise par le r茅gime des pouvoirs. Ce r茅gime veille 脿 ce que ces derniers soient utilis茅s dans l'int茅r锚t d'autrui.

La common law conna卯t tr猫s bien les concepts de droit et de pouvoir, mais diff茅remment听: en tant que relations juridiques, tous deux peuvent 锚tre affect茅s soit au b茅n茅fice du titulaire, soit au b茅n茅fice d'autrui. Conform茅ment 脿 la c茅l猫bre terminologie de W.N. Hohfeld (1879-1918), la common law conna卯t quatre relations juridiques fondamentales : le droit, le pouvoir, le privil猫ge, et l鈥檌mmunit茅. Chacune a son propre oppos茅, et, chacune peut, en principe, exister tant au b茅n茅fice de son titulaire qu鈥檃u b茅n茅fice d'autrui, et ce, par le biais de la relation fiduciaire. Cet atelier propose donc une 茅tude compar茅e de ces atomes juridiques dont il est possible de d茅cliner des mol茅cules d'une complexit茅 illimit茅e, incluant des r茅gimes juridiques altruistes.

---

Yann Favier, Universit茅 Rennes 2 - Universit茅 europ茅enne de Bretagne: "Figures de l鈥檃bn茅gation en droit civil : le cas des relations familiales"

Friday, October 3, 2014, 13:00-14:30, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

L鈥檃bn茅gation, notion inconnue du droit civil mais relevant d鈥檜ne forme d鈥檈ffacement de soi pour autrui, est fortement sollicit茅e dans les relations familiales comme le moyen de pr茅servation d鈥檜n int茅r锚t qui, sans 锚tre ext茅rieur au sien, n鈥檈n demeure pas moins distinct de celui-ci : ainsi, il est fait r茅f茅rence 脿 l鈥檌nt茅r锚t de la famille, d鈥檜n proche vuln茅rable, d鈥檜n ou d鈥檜ne partenaire de vie, d鈥檜n enfant.

En ce sens, faire passer l鈥檌nt茅r锚t d鈥檃utrui avant et de pr茅f茅rence 脿 son propre int茅r锚t est moins une figure morale qu鈥檜ne conception plus moderne听qu鈥檕n peut le penser de听l鈥檌nt茅r锚t juridiquement prot茅g茅. Cela est particuli猫rement v茅rifiable dans le cas des relations familiales o霉 des obligations traditionnellement d茅termin茅es par la loi et de plus en plus par la convention, forment le coeur d鈥檜n droit flexible qui remet en question les cat茅gories traditionnelles du droit civil.

听

The 2012-2014 series of civil law workshops explored 芦 Les apparences en droit civil 禄.

The workshops were presented with financial assistance from Justice Canada鈥檚 Support Fund for Access to Justice in Both Official Languages.

Each workshop was accredited for 1.5 hours of continuing legal education by the Barreau du Qu茅bec.

---

Bertrand Stoffel, University of Zurich: "Appearance and evidence: Is the proof in the pudding?"

Friday, April 4, 2014, 12:30-2:00, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

Abstract: Appearance plays a major role in civil evidence. Certainly, the judge may sometimes rely on science to prove facts. Often however, the judge will have to base her judgment on what appears to her as true or false.

In private law, proof is the demonstration of an alleged fact. It is the process that will lead the judge to the intimate conviction of the existence of the fact. But what, then, are the criteria for the establishment of such demonstration? To a large extent, the judge will rely on her own experience to establish the existence of a fact. She will review documents, hear statements, and inspect locations. All this will put the fact in evidence: It will make it appear as true or false.

The evidence鈥攐r appearance鈥攐f a fact will always be provisional. That is to say, no matter how many pieces of evidence are available, one can never be sure that this is exactly how the fact happened. Indeed, to the observer, the fact evidenced will remain an isolated fact. Moreover, the appearance of that fact will be that which the observer, in his own position and with his own experience, will perceive.

This atelier will explore how proof in private law can be a matter of appearance and how it relies on observation and probability. Reliance on observation is not without problems. Observation will disturb the facts, suppressing some of them and putting others in front. In the same vein, the judge will need to base her findings on her experience of life in order to establish the probability of a fact, thus linking proof with considerable uncertainty and subjectivity.

---

R茅gine Tremblay, University of Toronto: "Sans foi ni loi: Appearances of Conjugality and Lawless Love"

Friday, January 24, 2014, 12:30-2:00, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

Abstract (In French only): L鈥檃uteure propose un survol historique du traitement des conjoints de fait en droit civil qu茅b茅cois. Elle d茅fend qu鈥檋ier comme aujourd鈥檋ui, la non-reconnaissance de ce type d鈥檜nions dans le Code civil du Qu茅bec repose davantage sur une d茅sapprobation ancr茅e dans d鈥檃utres ordres normatifs听: la religion et l鈥櫭ヽonomie. Cependant, ce type d鈥檜nions produit de nombreux effets juridiques en droit priv茅 comme en droit public. Cette situation cr茅e une apparence de conjugalit茅 et ne peut que confondre le justiciable.

---

B茅atrice Kan-Balivet, Universit茅 Jean Moulin Lyon 3, Assistant Director of the Institut de droit patrimonial et de l'immobilier (IDPI): "Apparences et administration du bien d鹿autrui"

Friday, November 29, 2013, 12:30-2:00, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

Abstract (in French only): La n茅cessit茅 de recourir 脿 un tiers pour administrer ses biens est une constante exclusive de toute consid茅ration spatiale ou temporelle, exacerb茅es dans nos soci茅t茅s contemporaines par la mondialisation et la mutation des patrimoines. Le droit objectif pr茅sente ainsi une gamme 茅tendue de dispositifs pour r茅pondre aux besoins d鈥檜n sujet de droit, qui ne veut, ne peut ou ne doit pas administrer ses biens. Les circonstances ayant justifi茅 l鈥檃v猫nement d鈥檜ne th茅orie g茅n茅rale de l鈥檃dministration du bien d鈥檃utrui dans le nouveau Code civil qu茅b茅cois sont 茅galement pr茅sentes en droit fran莽ais, sans pour autant qu鈥檜n tel axe de r茅flexion ait perc茅 dans le Code civil fran莽ais, voire au niveau doctrinal. Si le contexte est similaire, le mod猫le unitaire de la technique avec pouvoir pose interrogation.

La difficile r茅ception de la fiducie dans les pays de la famille romano-germanique invite 脿 nouveau 脿 s鈥檌nterroger sur les apparences de mod猫le unitaire de l鈥檃dministration du bien d鈥檃utrui.

La lutte contre les apparences passe par l鈥櫭﹖ablissement d鈥檜ne diff茅renciation notionnelle des techniques d鈥檃dministration du bien d鈥檃utrui. La technique avec pouvoir dans une acception juridique ne saurait faire oublier les techniques sans pouvoir, lesquelles lui sont ant茅rieures et subsistent en droit positif, m锚me si elles sont plus frustes. La propri茅t茅-gestion n茅cessite en effet un transfert de propri茅t茅 pour administrer lesdits biens, tandis que l鈥檃vanc茅e 脿 consister avec la d茅tention-gestion, 脿 ne remettre ses biens qu鈥檈n possession au sens du droit romain, l鈥檃dministr茅 en conservant la propri茅t茅. La diff茅rence est sensible, l鈥檃dministrateur n鈥檈st alors plus titulaire d鈥檜n pouvoir, mais d鈥檜n droit.

Cette diff茅renciation notionnelle n鈥檈st pas sans enjeux puisqu鈥檈lle induit une diff茅renciation fonctionnelle. Chaque mode de gestion r茅alise en effet un 茅quilibre propre entre les deux imp茅ratifs de gestion que sont, le dynamisme de la gestion et la protection des int茅r锚ts en pr茅sence. Historiquement, c鈥檈st d鈥檃illeurs la prise de conscience de ces fonctions qui explique le d茅clin ou la 芦听r茅apparition听禄 de certaines techniques. Selon la technique utilis茅e, par exemple, l鈥櫭﹖endue des pr茅rogatives de l鈥檃dministrateur ou encore les risques encourus par l鈥檃dministr茅 ne sont pas les m锚mes.

La lutte contre les apparences en mati猫re d鈥檃dministration du bien d鈥檃utrui s鈥檌nscrit en cons茅quence dans une d茅marche fondamentale avec des enjeux qui ne sont pas seulement th茅oriques.

---

Adrian Popovici, 捆绑SM社区: "Le mandat apparent"

Friday, September 20, 2013, 12:30-2:00, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

Abstract (in French only): Le mandat apparent est le joyau des ph茅nom猫nes juridiques que l鈥檕n peut regrouper sous le titre de la th茅orie de l鈥檃pparence en droit civil. Un rappel des r猫gles qui le gouvernent et de sa raison d鈥櫭猼re peut ouvrir la voie vers d鈥檃utres concepts collat茅raux encore peu explor茅s : les contrats fictifs, impos茅s, pr茅sum茅s, les contrats-sanctions, etc鈥� Tout 莽a pour stimuler la r茅surrection du quasi-contrat, nouvelle vague; quasi-contrat r茅alit茅 ou h茅r茅sie?

---

Ross Anderson, University of Glasgow: "Security over Intangibles: Appearance and Reality"

Friday, April 5, 2013, 12:30-2:00, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

Abstract: What do incorporeals looks like? Their qualities are substantive, not physical. That is true of all rights in all systems. But civil lawyers, it seems, can see what common lawyers do not. The institutional structure of the civil law 鈥� persons, obligations, property 鈥� together with general patrimonial principles (such as the numerus clausus, the publicity and specificity principles) means civil lawyers know real rights and limited real rights when they encounter them. The division between real rights and personal rights, inherent in the institutional structure, plays a central role in the law of security interests. It is this simplicity, indeed, that is one of the great attractions of the civil law approach to private law.

Perhaps because of its antiquity, its weight of authority, and relative rationality, however, the basic civilian concepts, particularly in the law of security, are all too readily asserted rather than explained. There has not, in general, been the same critical reflection so characteristic of much modern discourse on proprietary security interests in the common law. Those common law responses, on the whole, demonstrate much practical, if ad hoc, ingenuity. But this ingenuity has not been matched by intelligibility.

Coherence has long been a civil law attribute. But even the great civil codes were not always coherent, particularly on technical points involving ownership and security. The codes were composed at a time when land was the paradigm asset and intangibles were, for commercial purposes, dealt with in the commercial codes and, in particular, in the law of negotiable instruments. The result has been the perception of conservatism. The lack of systematic review has sometimes resulted in only piecemeal amendments. The recent review of moveable security law in Scotland has given one opportunity 鈥� in an English speaking system rooted, in this area, in the civil law 鈥� for wholesale reflection.

In this context I consider, three points: the theory of limited rights as applied to claims and IPRs; the specificity principle; and the publicity principle. The appearance of civil law coherence is shown to be, in places, illusory. Building on the work of George Gretton, however, I suggest that a more coherent approach to basic patrimonial principles brings a clarity to the structure of the law. And it is these doctrinal improvements that allow us to focus on translating our theory into the reality of ordinary financial transactions.

---

Daniel Jutras, 捆绑SM社区: 芦 Que personne ne bouge! La confiance l茅gitime comme source d鈥檕bligations en droit civil 禄

Friday, January 18, 2013, 12:30-2:00, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

听

听

---

Silvia Ferreri, University of Turin: "The Appearance of Ownership: Sale of Another's Property (An Independent Version in Italy)"

Friday, November 16, 2012, 12:30-2:00, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

Abstract: The Italian provision corresponding to the French 鈥減ossession vaut titre鈥� (art. 2279 of the French Code Civil) does not distinguish between stolen or lost goods, and goods entrusted to a person who has failed to keep them in safe custody for the owner (see art. 1153 Italian civil code). This change occurred in 1942, when a new code replaced the previous one, which was a faithful 19^th century reproduction of the French Code Napoleon.

There are some explanations for this innovation (which places Italy in an isolated position in comparison with neighbouring countries in Europe): the distinction was not easily enforced in court, many exceptions applied, and it was not soundly established in the Roman tradition. The result is unfortunate: Italy has become a privileged market for stolen goods imported from abroad. Switzerland and Germany still distinguish how the goods left the owner鈥檚 possession.

There are at least two interesting international cases to mention: French Ministry of Culture v. Italian Ministry of Culture and De Contessini, Cass. 24^th听 November 1995, n. 12166 and Casa della cultura ecuadoriana c. Danusso, Trib. Torino, March 23掳, 1982. They reach opposite results as far as the restitution of an illegally imported good is concerned. Why did the distinction exist previously? We have to go back to the Roman rule (nemo dat quod non habet) and to the competing Germanic rule (Hand wahre Hand): the latter won in the period of the jus commune (prior to the French revolution), and passed into the French codification. But the distinction was never felt strongly in the Romanistic environment, and in 1942 Italy broke away from the rest of the European codifications. Unfortunately the requirement of good faith on the part of the buyer is presumed (according to a specific rule of the Italian code: art. 1147); this puts the burden of proof of the lack of good faith on the shoulders of the plaintiff, and it means that sometimes stolen goods cannot be recovered. There are some further rules to be considered that introduce some safeguards for 鈥渃ultural goods鈥� and provide some opportunity to recover them: Codice dei Beni Culturali (D.Lgs. 42/2004, art. 64); 1970 UNESCO convention: Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property听 (Paris, 1970); UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects, (Rome, 24 June 1995), in force since 1998 (5 ratifications); Council Directive No 93/7/EEC governing the return of听 cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State; Council Regulation (EC) No 116/2009 laying down provisions on the export of cultural goods.

---

Eric Descheemaeker, University of Edinburgh: "Truth and Truthfulness in the Law of Defamation"

Wednesday, October 3, 2012, 12:30-2:00, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

Abstract: This paper provides a comparative overview of two related, but analytically distinct, issues in the law of defamation. The first is whether the true character of a defamatory statement relieves the defendant from liability. On this issue, the civilian and common-law traditions have historically settled on two markedly different stances, the latter accepting the sufficiency of truth simpliciter while the former never did. Some of the reasons for this distinction are explored. Different is the issue of truthfulness, in the sense of belief in truth. Does it, and should it matter, that a defendant believed that what they said was true albeit (prima facie) defamatory? Should we distinguish on the basis of the 鈥榪uality鈥� of the belief? This paper argues that reasonable truthfulness ought to be recognised as a defence in the law of defamation. De lege lata, the law has never come up with such a general principle, but observation suggests that it has in fact been beating about the bush for a long time, using other analytical tools. Besides, a number of recent developments internationally can be understood as attempts to get closer to the above position.

The 2010-2012 series of civil law workshops presented by the Paul-Andr茅 Cr茅peau Centre for Private and Comparative Law (formerly the Quebec Research Centre of Private & Comparative Law) explore law鈥檚 intraduisibles (elements or aspects which lie beyond translation).

This year, the workshops are presented with financial assistance from Justice Canada鈥檚 Support Fund for Access to Justice in Both Official Languages.

The workshops are recognized as part of the mandatory continuing legal education requirements of the Barreau du Qu茅bec.

The Centre has recently published to commemorate the workshops.

---

Past Workshops

Christine Morin: "Le testament: une traduction de?"

April 13, 2012, 12:30-2:00, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

The eleventh workshop in the 2010/2012 series 鈥淟es intraduisibles en droit civil鈥� will be given by Christine Morin.

Abstract: What does a testator seek to express when arranging for the devolution of his property in a will? His sentiments? his duties? his solidarity? his affections? What does the legislature seek to express by leaving the testator free to bequeath his property to whomever he chooses, or, on the contrary, when limiting this freedom? A legal tradition? moral values? social solidarity? Is the depiction of society that emerges from the Civil Code of Qu茅bec鈥檚 treatment of wills the same as that emerging from the legislation of the other provinces?

---

Ruth Sefton-Green: "Why Remedies is not a Legal Subject in Civil(ian) Law"

March 23, 2012, 12:30-2:00, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

The tenth workshop in the 2010/2012 series 鈥淟es intraduisibles en droit civil鈥� will be given by Ruth Sefton-Green.

Abstract: The aim of the presentation is to focus on the absence of remedies and the pre-eminence of rights in civil law. More precisely, we need to explore whether it is the concept of remedies that is lacking in civilian law (with a focus on French law), or just the language of remedies. Dr Sefton-Green鈥檚 working hypothesis is that the concept is missing; civil law does not think in terms of remedies; there is no legal categorization of remedies. If this is so, the gap is conceptually embedded and is not just a question of language.

Furthermore, if remedies are absent, what does this tell us about the nature of rights (droits subjectifs) in civil law? Can inferences be drawn about the relationship between rights and obligations? If remedies are absent, does this mean that wrongs are absent as well? Or is there a way to square the circle?

Finally, the quest for remedies in civil law is inevitably linked to an enquiry into the dual relationship between the parties (and their respective rights) in private law and the triangular relationship between the parties and the judge. The pre-eminence of rights and the absence of remedies in civil law, paralleled by the presence of remedies in the common law, will impact on these two relationships.

---

Jimena Andino Dorato: "L'Autre faute"

March 2, 2012, 12:30-2:00, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

The ninth workshop in the 2010/2012 series 鈥淟es intraduisibles en droit civil鈥� will be given by Jimena Andino Dorato.

Abstract: Assuming that translation is possible -- but without denying the inherent difficulties of that process -- this presentation examines the notion of fault in Quebec law, beginning with questions raised by its translation. The point of departure of this exercise brings us to the difficulties faced by translators and editors working on the Spanish version of the trilingual Civil Code of Qu茅bec. The goal is to examine how these difficulties in translation may aid a renewed understanding of fault in Quebec law. For that, it will be necessary to return to French law, an important source for the laws of Quebec and Latin America, focusing, in particular, on the various interpretations it has received. From this examination of the Other, we will move to an intra-civilian analysis of the 鈥渢ext of departure鈥�, the 鈥渢ext of arrival鈥�, and the family of civil law. This will help establish a third perspective that will remove us from the usual English - French, common law - civil law binary approach, allowing an examination of familiar and foreign laws in a manner that will reveal neither to be wholly familiar or foreign.

---

Eric H. Reiter: "Translating the Untranslatable: Historical Aspects of the Protection of Honour, Bodily Integrity, and Other Extrapatrimonial Interests in Quebec Civil Law"

January 20, 2012, 12:30-2:00, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

The eighth workshop in the 2010/2012 series 鈥淟es intraduisibles en droit civil鈥� will be given by Eric H. Reiter.

Abstract: This workshop is a historical look at the slow development of extrapatrimonial personality rights in Quebec law, from the later 19th century to the Civil Code of Qu茅bec. With its stated aim to affirm and protect the dignity of the human person, the later 20th-century recodification of private law brought personality rights into the civil code for the first time. Long before this, however, litigants attempted to use the law and the courts to protect intangible and abstract human qualities like honour, bodily integrity, and familial affection. Their attempts 鈥� creative and often sophisticated, if not always successful 鈥� illustrate some of the obstacles to and conceptual changes behind the development of extrapatrimonial rights in Quebec civil law.

---

Kirsten Anker: "Aboriginal Rights in Quebec: Always Sui Generis?"

November 23, 2011, 12:30-2:00, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

The seventh workshop in the 2010/2012 series 鈥淟es intraduisibles en droit civil鈥� will be given by Kirsten Anker.

Abstract: 鈥淎boriginal Title鈥� makes up part of the law of Quebec, but it always comes in borrowed clothes. Existing in pockets of federal law, Aboriginal title sends us to the language of the common law, or to the sui generis concept that is the reconciliation of common law and aboriginal perspectives. Historic accommodations of Aboriginal tenure in Quebec employ a now-defunct set of concepts. Ethnographically, traditional tenure can not be translated from indigenous laws to the terms of civil law without losing much. Discussing the New Relationship Agreement 2008 (Paix des Braves) that now uses traditional Cree 鈥渢raplines鈥� as a unit of forestry management in Quebec, this presentation will consider the risks and benefits of the sui generis interest in land.

---

Dr Anne Sanders: "Prenuptial Agreements, Comparative Law and the Notion of Contract"

September 14, 2011, 12:30-2:00, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

The sixth workshop in the 2010/2012 series 鈥淟es intraduisibles en droit civil鈥� will be given by Dr Anne Sanders.

Abstract: The recent UK Supreme Court decision of Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42 has brought prenuptial agreements into the focus of not only English family law, but comparative law too.

Although the majority of the justices considered irrelevant the question whether prenuptial agreements should be understood as contracts, the argument made here is that the different notions of contract in English and German law may help to explain why such agreements have not been enforced for so long in England and what comparative contract law can learn from the notion of prenuptial agreements in the different legal systems.

---

Jean-Guy Belley: "Contrat et confiance. Traduire le fait relationnel en droit civil"

March 11, 2011, 12:30-2:00, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

The fifth workshop in the 2010/2011 series 鈥淟es intraduisibles en droit civil鈥� will was given by professor Jean-Guy Belley.
Abstract (only available in French): Quelle est la traduction/qualification juridique ad茅quate de la relation d鈥檃ffaires entre un franchiseur et ses franchis茅s : contrat innom茅 imposant une obligation de loyaut茅? relation fiduciaire d茅coulant de la vuln茅rabilit茅 du partenaire ? relation de confiance ? relation d鈥檌nterd茅pendance asym茅trique? D鈥檕没 vient la difficult茅 de traduire/qualifier la relation de franchise en droit, plus particuli猫rement en droit civil : des mots disponibles et autoris茅s? des particularit茅s de cette forme d鈥檕rganisation 茅conomique? du paradigme classique , lib茅ral, du droit priv茅? 脌 quel genre dont la franchise serait une esp猫ce peut-on se r茅f茅rer pour d茅finir juridiquement cette relation?

---

Alexandra Popovici: "Translation as foundation: trusts in Quebec civil law"

February 11, 2011, 12:30-2:00, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

The fourth workshop in the 2010/2011 series 鈥淟es intraduisibles en droit civil鈥� was given by Alexandra Popovici, graduate student at Universit茅 Laval and researcher at the Paul-Andr茅 Cr茅peau Centre for Private and Comparative Law (formerly the Quebec Research Centre of Private & Comparative Law). Using the story of the Quebec trust as an illustration of a translation of an intraduisible, this workshop was an occasion to reflect on the fundamental nature of translation in the creation of legal thought.
听

听

---

Professor Fran莽ois Ost: "Intraduisible? Qu'entendez-vous par l脿?"

January 24, 2011, 12:30-2:00, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

The third workshop in the 2010/2011 series 鈥淟es intraduisibles en droit civil鈥� was given by Professor Fran莽ois Ost, vice-chancellor at the Facult茅s universitaires Saint-Louis, Belgium. As a philosopher of language, Fran莽ois Ost reflected on what it means for something to be 鈥渦ntranslatable鈥�. He argued for the necessarily imperfect character of translation (as is the case with respect to language itself), dismissing in this way two simplifying theses: that of 鈥渙mnitranslatability鈥� and that of the impossibility of translation. As a philosopher of law, he then explored comparative law鈥檚 particular function as a type of translation.

---

Professor Giorgio Resta: "The Commodification of Personality Rights: A Comparative Perspective"

November 24, 2010, 12:30-2:00, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

This second workshop was given by Professor Giorgio Resta, Associate Professor of Comparative Law at the University of Bari, Italy (since 2002) and Visiting Professor (2010/2011) at the Faculty of Law, 捆绑SM社区.

This workshop explored the legal issues surrounding an increasingly important problem: the commodification of personal identity. What are the historical roots of the category of 鈥減ersonality rights鈥� that appear, for example, in Title 2, Book One of the Civil Code of Qu茅bec? Does the English word 鈥減ersonality鈥� represent a perfect equivalent of the French personnalit茅, of the German Pers枚nlichkeit, or of the Portuguese personalidade? And what is the relationship with the competing notion of 鈥減rivacy鈥�, not only in terms of conceptual taxonomies, but also with regard to the operational rules? The most recent scholarship in this area has suggested that there is a 鈥渢ransatlantic clash鈥� between two western cultures of privacy, one rooted in the idea of liberty and the other in the idea of dignity. Has this difference in approach led to two (or more) different models of regulation?

---

Professor Richard Hyland: "Is the Gift a Contract?"

October 8, 2010, 12:30-2:00, room 202, New Chancellor Day Hall

This first workshop of the academic year was given by Professor Richard Hyland, Distinguished Professor at Rutgers Law School. Among many other publications, Professor Hyland is the author of Gifts: A Study in Comparative Law (Oxford: OUP, 2009) a book that has attracted a great deal of scholarly attention.

A chapter of Gifts: A Study in Comparative Law can be consulted via (subscription required).

"The Civil Law and its Codes: Journey Through the Americas"

The Quebec Research Centre of Private and Comparative (now known as the Paul-Andr茅 Cr茅peau Centre for Private and Comparative Law) and the Grupo Hispano de la Facultad del Derecho co-organized the 2009-2010 Civil Law Workshops on the theme of "The Civil Law and its Codes: Journey Through the Americas"

November 16, 2009
Prof. Olivier Moreteau,
"De revolutionibus ... la place du code civil en Louisiane et dans l'univers du droit quatre cents ans apr猫s Copernic"

December 7, 2009, 12:30PM to 2:00PM
Jimena Andino Dorato, Nelcy L贸pez Cuellar and Graciela Jasa-Silveira,
"The place of the Civil Code in dialogue with the Constitution"
Room 16, Chancellor-Day Hall
Faculty of Law, 捆绑SM社区
3644 Peel Street, Montreal
听

January 15, 2010, 3:30PM to 5:00PM Prof. Luis Mu帽iz Arg眉elles, "On Conditions Favoring Recodification: A Comparison of the Puerto Rican and Argentine Attempts with the Quebec Civil code Revision" Room 16, Chancellor-Day Hall Faculty of Law, 捆绑SM社区 3644 Peel Street, Montreal February 15, 2010, 12:30PM to 2:00PM Sophie Morin, "Identit茅s et codes civilistes" Room 202, New Chancellor-Day Hall Faculty of Law, 捆绑SM社区 3644 Peel Street, Montreal March 15, 2010, 12:30PM to 2:00PM Prof. Julio C茅sar Rivera, "Le Code Civil : son r么le comme source de droit priv茅 argentin" Room 202, New Chancellor-Day Hall Faculty of Law, 捆绑SM社区 3644 Peel Street, Montreal 听

April 9, 2010, 12:30PM to 2:00PM Prof. Jos茅 Ant么nio Gediel, "L'茅mergence des droits de la personnalit茅 en droit civil br茅silien: le corps humain et son statut juridique actuel" Room 202, New Chancellor-Day Hall Faculty of Law, 捆绑SM社区 3644 Peel Street, Montreal May 19, 2010, 12:30PM to 2:00PM Prof. Beno卯t Moore, "Rapport synth猫se" Room 202, New Chancellor-Day Hall Faculty of Law, 捆绑SM社区 3644 Peel Street, Montreal 听

"Trusts in Civil Law"

As part of the Civil Law Workshops Series for 2008-2009, the Quebec Research Centre of Private and Comparative Law (now known as the Paul-Andr茅 Cr茅peau Centre for Private and Comparative Law) organized a series of conferences around the theme of "Trusts in Civil Law". The aim of this series was to study how different civilian traditions around the world conceptualize the Trust.

These workshops took place from 11:30 AM 鈥� 1:00 PM in Room 202 of Chancellor Day Hall located at 3644 Peel Street, Montreal.

September 12, 2008
F. Barri猫re (Universit茅 Panth茅on-Assas, Paris II)
"La fiducie ou le r茅veil chaotique de la Belle au bois dormant"

.

November 21, 2008
M. McAuley (Trusts Practice Group, Appleby, Bermuda)
"Truth and Reconciliation : Notions of Property in Louisiana's Civil and Trust Codes"

.
.

January 19, 2009
J. Talpis (Universit茅 de Montr茅al)
M. Graziadei (University of Turin)
"Recognition of Common Law Trusts in Civil Law Jurisdictions"

.

February 13, 2009
A. Hofri-Winogradow (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
"Trusts in Israel/Palestine: A Chequered History"

.

March 6, 2009
M. Cantin Cumyn (捆绑SM社区)
"R茅flexions autour de la diversit茅 des modes de r茅ception du trust dans les pays de droit civil"

.

May 1, 2009
L. Ho (University of Hong Kong)
"Trusts in China: Property or Contract?"