Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:40:17.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The History of Canadian Immunity from Seizure Legislation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2011

Daniel Getz
Affiliation:
Bull, Housser & Tupper LLP. Email: [email protected]

Abstract

Perhaps surprisingly, a number of Canadian jurisdictions have been at the cutting edge of legal exemptions from seizure or attachment processes for artworks on loan. Starting with the curious case of Hermitage treasures displayed in Winnipeg in the mid-1970s and using other intriguing examples, this article traces the historical origins of Canadian legislation with particular regard to the international context. The current state of the law in Canada is summarized and compared to that of other international jurisdictions.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Cultural Property Society 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agence France-Presse. “Swiss Seize Pushkin Paintings in dispute with Russia.” ⟨http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/1584/swiss-seize-pushkin-paintings-in-dispute-with-russia/⟩.Google Scholar
Assemblée Nationale. Journal des Débats, Vol. 17, No. 57. Québec: L'Éditeur Officiel due Québec, 1976, 30 June 1908.Google Scholar
Bigg, Claire. “Switzerland Raises Russia's Ire by Seizing Prized Art Collection.” Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty. ⟨http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1062994.html⟩ (16 November 2005).Google Scholar
British Columbia. Debates of the Legislative Assembly (Hansard): 32nd Parliament, 2nd Legislative Session. Victoria. 1980.Google Scholar
Legislative Assembly of Alberta. Alberta Hansard. Edmonton: Queen's Printer, 1985.Google Scholar
Legislature of Ontario. Official Report (Hansard) Daily Edition, Second Session, 31st Parliament. Toronto: Queen's Printer, 1978.Google Scholar
Manitoba Legislature. Debates and Proceedings, Volume 23. Winnipeg: Queen's Printer, 1976.Google Scholar
National Assembly of Québec. “Bill No. 59: An Act Respecting the Exemption From Seizure of Foreign Cultural Property,Québec City: Québec Official Publisher, 1976.Google Scholar
O'Connell, Anna. “The United Kingdom's Immunity from Seizure Legislation.” London School of Economics and Political Science Law, Society and Economy Working Papers 20 (2008).Google Scholar
Ontario Ministry of Culture. “Application Guidelines for Determination under the Foreign Cultural Objects Immunity from Seizure Act,” Toronto: Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2006.Google Scholar
Palmer, Norman. Art Loans. London: Kluwer Law International, 1997.Google Scholar
Palmer, Norman. “Adrift on a Sea of Troubles: Cross-Border Art Loans and the Specter of Ulterior Title.” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 38 (2005): 947–95.Google Scholar
Richardson, John, and Zafran, Eric, eds. Master Paintings from The Hermitage and The State Russian Museum Leningrad. New York: M. Knoedler, 1975.Google Scholar
Sarraf, Ronen. “The Value of Borrowed Art.” Brooklyn Journal of International Law 25 (1999): 729–58.Google Scholar
Votes and Proceedings of the National Assembly of Québec: Fourth Session of the Thirtieth Legislature, No. 57. Québec City: Québec Official Publisher, 1976.Google Scholar
Weller, Matthias. “Immunity for Artworks on Loan? A Review of International Customary Law and Municipal Anti-Seizure Statutes in Light of the Liechtenstein Litigation.” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 38 (2005): 9971039.Google Scholar
Zerbe, Rodney M.Immunity From Seizure for Artworks on Loan to United States Museums,” Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business 6 (1984): 1121–45.Google Scholar