RG Richardson Business & Economics

RG Richardson Business & Economics
Interactive financial ebooks

Canada high court recognizes new civil wrong of intimate partner violence - JURIST - News

Canada high court recognizes new civil wrong of intimate partner violence - JURIST - News
Canada high court recognizes new civil wrong of intimate partner violenceNews
Dwong33, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons
Canada high court recognizes new civil wrong of intimate partner violence

The Supreme Court of Canada recognized intimate partner violence as a new civil wrong on Friday. The majority said it is a “pernicious social ill” that the law must address.

Six justices decided to recognize intimate partner violence as a new tort—an act or omission that injures another, constituting a civil wrong that attaches liability. Justice Nicholas Kasirer, for the majority, accepted that intimate partner violence offends the victim’s dignity, autonomy and equality in a relationship that existing tort law fails to capture. The law cannot sufficiently compensate the victims because it fails to recognize the violence as a cumulative pattern of coercive control, its disproportionate impact on women and its aggravated distinct nature in the intimate partnership setting.

To claim the tort, a plaintiff needs to establish that the defendant intentionally engaged in the abusive conduct, arising from an intimate relationship and that it amounts to coercive control objectively. In her concurring opinion, Justice Andromache Karakatsanis would have included acts or threats of violence that cause physical or psychological harm, instead of limiting the tort to objective coercive control.

The three dissenting justices described this development as “unprecedented” in the common law tradition, as they considered the majority to be formulating the tort from a vacuum of comparative law or legal commentaries. They criticized the majority for creating legal uncertainty, as there is limited guidance on the scope of coercive control and the quantification of damages under the new tort. Several justices previously expressed this concern in the hearing.

Kate Feeney, litigation director at advocacy group West Coast LEAF, said the ruling is a “groundbreaking step” towards addressing discrimination against survivors of intimate partner violence. Niki Sharma, the Attorney General of British Columbia, also welcomed the ruling, adding that:

This ruling will make a meaningful difference for survivors and build on the work underway in British Columbia to better support them, including initiatives such as the Family Law Act modernization project, the Intimate Images Protection Act and our advancing work related to Dr. Kim Stanton’s recommendations to address systemic and legal barriers in BC’s legal system.

Relatedly, New Brunswick’s legislature is also moving to remove the limitation period for intimate partner violence victims to initiate a claim against the perpetrator.

According to police-reported data, there were 356 victims of intimate partner violence per 100,000 population in Canada in 2024. This represented a 14 percent increase from 2018. The rate of women and girls being victims of intimate partner violence was 3.5 times higher than that of men and boys in 2024.

The case, Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, concerns a wife who suffered from intimate partner violence in a 16-year marriage. The complained conduct included physical assault, humiliation, isolation of the wife from family, pressure for sex through mistreatment, and financial control. Ruling in favor of the wife, the trial judge recognized the novel tort of family violence. However, the Court of Appeal for Ontario unanimously declared that the law should not recognize the new tort.

You’ll Never Guess Trade Unions’ Position on AI Data Centers

You’ll Never Guess Trade Unions’ Position on AI Data Centers

Futurism · an hour ago
by Joe Wilkins · Artificial Intelligence



Trade unions have a centuries-long history of squaring up against the might of industrial capitalists to fight for rights that workers now often take for granted, from the eight-hour work day to the federal minimum wage to workplace safety laws.

If you were to imagine how unions are responding to the tech industry’s massive push to build AI data centers across the country — an issue that’s currently uniting the grassroots left and right to an almost unprecedented degree in opposition — you might reasonably assume they’re staunch foes of the projects.

But in the topsy-turvy world of AI, where alliances often seem to contradict traditional political categorization, you’d be dead wrong. Instead, unions are playing a pivotal role in the tech industry’s push to ram data centers through local opposition. According to the Associated Press, they’ve become a publicly visible force alongside pro-business Republicans and big tech corporations — two famously anti-labor cohorts, ironically.

The core factor underscoring this contradictory stance is construction employment. When data center developers approach communities in search of land to erect their computational complexes, one of the main carrots they wave around are jobs, both temporary construction labor and permanent full-time labor.

At this point, we know that data centers aren’t a major source for quality, full-time jobs after they’re built. They do require tons of contract construction gigs, however, which generates short-term work for building trades workers, and growth for their craft unions.

“When people say, you know, ‘data centers are the root of all evil,’ we’re just saying, ‘look, they do create a hell of a lot of construction jobs, which we live and work in your communities,'” president of the Pennsylvania Building and Construction Trades Council Rob Bair told the AP.

In effect, these unions are abandoning their communities in favor of narrow self-interest — prioritizing immediate, short-term gains while ignoring the material harm data centers inflict on their communities.

It’s not a new phenomenon, but one which has become increasingly common as trade unions have been defanged. For example, the AFL-CIO, the largest federation of trade unions in the US, infamously supported the US war on Vietnam for its stimulating effect on industry, siding with conservative and military industrial complex forces over the progressive anti-war movement.

The real tragedy here isn’t that unions have forgotten how to fight — but that increasingly, they seem to have forgotten who it is they’re fighting for in the first place.

How FIFA’s Climate Solution Has Turned Into ‘Water-Gate’




How FIFA’s Climate Solution Has Turned Into ‘Water-Gate’

June 19, 2026

Reading time: 4 minutes

Full Story: Grist

Author: Tik Root



A Seattle councilmember on the field ahead of player arrivals and warm-up, June 18, 2026. (washuugenius/flickr)

This story was originally published by Grist. Sign up for Grist’s weekly newsletter here.

Anyone who hasn’t watched a soccer match since the last World Cup will notice something new: players stopping midway through each half to drink some water.

Introduced in the name of player safety, these mandatory three-minute breaks are a surprise controversy that has shoved climate change into the spotlight. “Water-gate,” blared a headline in The Independent, a United Kingdom newspaper. The chief sportswriter at the Daily Mail called the breaks a “momentum killer” and a “money-grabbing disgrace.”

Fans were equally outraged. Spectators at the match between England and Croatia booed when the referee blew the whistle, and comments poured in on Reddit. “I’m booing from home,” read one. Another said, “FIFA ruined the beautiful game.”

FIFA, the sport’s governing body and organizer of the tournament, declined to comment and referred Grist to its announcement of the policy in December. “The use of hydration breaks is part of a focused attempt to ensure the best possible conditions for players,” the statement read. Before this World Cup, cooling breaks only occurred when the wet bulb temperature—essentially a measure of air temperature and humidity combined—reached 32°C. Now the rule applies to all games, regardless of temperature, humidity, or other factors. It even applies to matches played indoors with air conditioning.

The move came after criticism of a tournament in the United States last summer, when the organization representing players, FIFPRO, said extreme heat should have cancelled matches. “It has never been more important,” the organization said in a press release before the World Cup, “to give space to scientific knowledge and find mitigation strategies that protect the health and wellbeing of our players.”

There is no doubt that rest and water can help protect players in a world where extreme heat is becoming more common and increasingly dangerous. But many fans, and even athletes, think FIFA has gone too far. “If it’s really hot, obviously it will be good to put them in. But I think you have ⁠to look at it in every game separately, in my opinion,” said Virgil van Dijk, captain of the Netherlands’ squad. One Reddit user complained, “We’re inundated with commercials.”

That’s been a frequent complaint, and it has led to speculation that FIFA implemented the breaks to boost the number of ads that are shown. Broadcasters aren’t required to go to full-screen commercials during hydration breaks—Telemundo and the BBC, for instance, don’t. FIFA also dictates that ads must start 20 seconds into the pause and end 30 seconds before play resumes. But that still creates 2 minutes and 10 seconds of extra ad time available per half, which can be extremely lucrative. The Wall Street Journal reports that a 30-second spot during early games sells for roughly $200,000 and rises to around $750,000 when the U.S. national team plays.

“They’ve essentially divided the game into quarters,” John Kosner, a former ESPN executive, told The Journal, “and made enormously valuable breaks.”

About 67 minutes into the opening game of the World Cup, the referee signaled for a mandatory hydration break. The American broadcaster, Fox, cut to commercials. But they ran longer than the respite, so players were left stalling and many viewers missed the restart entirely. Fox said it didn’t see the referee signal the start of the break because it came during a replay. FIFA doesn’t plan to punish the network. But the incident did little to quell people’s fears about commercialization—in part because the temperature at kickoff was a relatively balmy 23.3°C.

FIFA has required the breaks in all matches as an effort to be fair across a tournament that sees teams playing in 16 stadiums and three countries. That argument, though, has again done little to ease criticism. “That doesn’t ring true to me,” said Chris Taylor, the head coach of the Vermont Green FC’s men’s team, explaining that every soccer game has different stoppages and different lengths.

The Green are a climate-focused organization, so the dangers of extreme heat are particularly front of mind. Taylor sees hydration breaks as critical when the conditions warrant them, which they have numerous times during his decades-long career as a player and coach. Still, he questions FIFA’s motives at this World Cup.

“I don’t think the health of the players is their primary concern,” he said. “This World Cup has felt that every angle has been monetized.”

World Sailing Judicial Decisions

 World Sailing Judicial Decisions

Disciplinary and appeals decisions within World Sailing are determined by the Independent Bodies in accordance with the Constitution. This includes an Investigation Panel, a Disciplinary Tribunal, and a Safeguarding Disciplinary Tribunal.

Emil Gustavsson of Sweden is listed as currently suspended from all sports from February 11, 2026 to August 10, 2029. His suspension falls under according to RF statutes chapter 14 section 2 of the Swedish Sports Confederation, with this section of their general disciplinary rule book listing offenses for which an athlete, coach, official, or member can be punished or suspended:

• Abusive or insulting behavior,
• Violence or threats,
• Cheating or misleading officials,
• Violating competition rules,
• Corruption or improper influence,
• Financial irregularities,
• Conduct damaging to the reputation of sport,
• Ignoring federation decisions or suspensions.

Gustavsson had been active in the 29er Class but the publicly available suspension listing did not specify which subsection or exact misconduct applied. For additional details, click here.

Florida becomes first state to sue OpenAI

 Florida becomes first state to sue OpenAI


OpenAI logo under a gavel

Morning Brew Inc

Florida Man is taking on Sam Altman. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier filed an 83-page lawsuit against OpenAI and its CEO, Sam Altman, yesterday, accusing the company of releasing ChatGPT despite knowing its safety flaws.

How is this case different from others? OpenAI is wrapped up in so much litigation, its in-house legal department is running out of timecards. The company has been at the center of high-profile copyright and privacy litigation, and is also being sued by seven people claiming that ChatGPT drove individuals to suicide and other delusions. But Florida is the first state to sue the company:

  • Florida’s suit alleges that OpenAI’s “insatiable quest to win the AI arms race” and drive to make money overshadowed red flags about the technology.
  • The suit also says OpenAI puts users, especially children, at a risk of “addiction, cognitive decline, violence, and related harms.”
  • It also aims to hold Altman personally liable for harm.

In the civil suit, Uthmeier references a criminal investigation he opened earlier this year against the company for its alleged role in helping an individual plan a mass shooting at Florida State University. It remains ongoing.

OpenAI and Altman haven’t responded directly to the new lawsuit, but the company has previously denied similar claims and has said it’s working on bettering safety protocols within ChatGPT.

Big picture: Uthmeier and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, both Republicans, have broken with President Trump’s policy of deregulating AI. Public backlash against the tech has intensified—and even the Pope called on lawmakers to regulate it

A timeline of fast-moving prediction markets

 A timeline of fast-moving prediction markets

Americans have been placing bets on presidential elections since the 1880s, but it wasn’t until 1988 when three economists at the University of Iowa decided (over lunch beers) to introduce the Iowa Electronic Markets (IEM), an early prediction market that still exists today. Other private prediction markets like InTrade popped up in the early 2000s but were shut down once they attracted too much attention.

But prediction markets have truly taken off in the last year and a half, after the 2024 presidential election and a federal court win that cleared the way for more election contracts. The Trump administration’s loosening of regulations (and the Trump family’s own investments) has also supercharged their adoption.

Here’s a brief timeline of how we got here:

Jan. 2025: Donald Trump Jr. announces he is joining Kalshi as a “strategic advisor.”

March 2025: Robinhood launches a prediction market hub in its app with a Kalshi partnership.

Aug. 2025: Donald Trump Jr. also joins Polymarket’s advisory board after his venture capital firm invested in the company.

Oct. 2025: The NHL announces a partnership with Polymarket and Kalshi, the first major sports league partnership.

Dec. 2025: Kalshi partners with CNN and CNBC.

Dec. 2025: Polymarket officially relaunches in the US after a nearly four-year ban.

Dec. 2025: DraftKings, the sports betting app, launches its own prediction market.

Jan. 2026: Dow Jones, the Wall Street Journal’s parent company, partners with Polymarket.

March 2026: MLB announces a deal with Polymarket, becoming the largest US sports league to partner with a prediction market.

March 2026: The US Senate introduces a bipartisan bill to ban prediction markets from offering sports contracts.

April 2026: The CFTC sues Arizona, Connecticut, and Illinois to be the sole regulatory body of prediction markets. (State-level battles might head to the Supreme Court next year.)

April 2026: A federal court rules that New Jersey cannot regulate Kalshi’s federally approved contracts, giving the industry a major court victory.

April 2026: The Senate unanimously approves a ban on staff members trading on prediction markets.

AI cheating is everywhere

 

Beef prices drive iconic Texas BBQ joints to closure

 Beef prices drive iconic Texas BBQ joints to closure

Texas barbecue struggling

Niv Bavarsky

Everything is bigger in Texas, including the cultural damage from rising beef prices. Storied barbecue pits across the Lone Star State are shuttering, squeezed by the skyrocketing cost of their culinary touchstone, brisket, the Washington Post reported yesterday.

Droughts reducing the US cattle herd to its smallest size in 75 years and tariffs on imported beef have been blamed for the Texas barbecue crown jewel starting to cost as much as actual gems. The retail price of the cut was up 32% this month from last year, according to the USDA.

Brisket bust

Those rising beef costs are reducing brisket margins, creating an existential crisis for the purveyors of the state’s signature smoky treat:

  • Higher costs were partially responsible for the recent closure of Kirby’s BBQ, a Houston-area destination for oak-smoked brisket. They also claimed staple spots Brett’s BBQ Shop and Sabar BBQ.
  • The award-winning BBQ restaurant Burnt Bean Co. told the WaPo that it’s in “survival mode” despite lines out the door. It’s considering serving brisket only once a week.

One Texan pit master said he worries the beef crunch will reduce the regional variety of the state’s brisket scene.

Meanwhile…the US Justice Department and Texas are investigating four meatpacking giants—which control 85% of the US beef market—over allegations of anti-competitive practices that hurt ranchers and retailers.

World Cup’s hydration breaks stir up controversy

 World Cup’s hydration breaks stir up controversy. FIFA is mandating three-minute hydration breaks, pausing about 22 minutes into each half of the game for players to drink, and not since someone’s mom forgot to cut up oranges have water breaks at soccer games been so divisive. The justification for the change to the usually continuous game is to protect athletes playing in extreme heat, but FIFA has also allowed broadcasters to cut to commercials during these breaks—something Fox, the English-language US broadcaster, is taking advantage of. That could add up to more than 800 additional advertising slots during the tournament, per Bloomberg. But the extra pause has drawn complaints from some players and fans, who say it disrupts the game’s flow.

Barriers grow for international students seeking U.S. jobs

Barriers grow for international students seeking U.S. jobs: The ‘American dream ... is collapsing’
Published Sun, May 24 202610:15 AM EDT

Jennifer Liu
ShareShare Article via FacebookShare Article via TwitterShare Article via LinkedInShare Article via Email



3:41
Running out of options in the U.S., more international students are eyeing alternative paths abroad



Sakshi Patel has known since she was little that she wanted to study in the U.S. She says she pictured herself landing a job in New York City, the financial capital of the world, and living out her version of the American dream far from home.

Patel, who earned her master’s degree in financial management from Boston University in May 2025, says she has about two months left on her current work authorization and is job hunting full force. If she doesn’t get a job within that time, she’ll have to move back to her native India.


As difficult as it is for recent college graduates to gain their footing in one of the worst entry-level job markets in recent memory, international graduates are also having to navigate an unpredictable immigration environment in order to jump-start their U.S.-based careers and lives. Faced with additional and increasing difficulties, some international students are putting together backup plans.

After graduating last year, Patel, 23, began working as a business analyst with a nonprofit under the optional practical training program, or OPT, the work authorization available to international students after they graduate. After her one-year OPT expires this summer, though, she’ll need to find an eligible job related to her degree, then apply for a STEM OPT extension of up to two years — available to some graduates with science, technology, engineering and math degrees — in order to stay in the U.S.

Patel told CNBC Make It that she’s been “making every effort” to network and land a job in the U.S. The experience has been tough, she says, but she remains optimistic: “I came with that dream to the United States, and I still hope to live that dream.”
International graduates face additional hurdles in tight job market


Approximately 84,000 international students will earn bachelor’s degrees from American universities in 2026, according to an analysis of National Center for Education Statistics data by the Economic Innovation Group.

Sakshi Patel graduated with her master’s degree in May 2025 and hopes to secure a full-time job in finance.
Courtesy of subject


As of 2025, about 306,000 international students were working toward their master’s degrees and 153,000 toward their doctorate degrees, according to the latest available data from Open Doors, an information resource sponsored by the U.S. Department of State. Tens of thousands of these students are likely to hit the U.S. job market after earning their advanced degrees this spring.

Many new grads will enter a weakening labor market for young workers.

Job postings on Handshake, the early career site, were down 2% between July 2025 and March 2026 compared with the same period the year prior, and down 12% from 2019-2020, just before the Covid pandemic. The unemployment rate for recent college grads age 22 to 27 stood at 5.6%, according to New York Fed data for March 2026, compared with 3.1% for all college graduates and 4.2% for all workers.

There are students concerned about whether the U.S. is a place where they can build their careers.

Erica Ford
International career development coach, Cornell University


Erica Ford, an international career development coach at Cornell University, says job hunting has gotten more difficult for students in recent years, including for the 300 international students she directly supports each year.

Students in STEM fields who would have been in high demand in previous years are now happy to get just one job offer, Ford says. Doctoral candidates are seeing a drop in research jobs and are pivoting to industry opportunities, and those going into the nonprofit sector are seeing their potential employers conduct layoffs, she adds.

The low-hire job market negatively affects students as a whole, but international students have to navigate additional barriers, such as temporary work authorizations, Ford says.

“Some of the most common concerns are: Are employers still hiring international students right now?” she says. “Am I being screened out because of my temporary work authorization or because I said that I would need sponsorship in the future?”

Whether due to immigration policy changes, the tighter labor market or a combination of multiple factors, data shows employers scaling back on opportunities for international grads: The share of full-time job postings offering visa sponsorship dropped from 10.9% in 2023 to just 2.6% in 2026, according to Handshake data provided to CNBC Make It, with the tech sector seeing the steepest decline.

Before, there was this golden standard of coming to the U.S., staying in the U.S., [and] realizing your American dream. This dream is collapsing.

David Li
Ph.D. candidate in Madison, Wisconsin


Beyond the job market, international graduates face additional hurdles in a challenging immigration environment under the second Trump administration.

For example, application processing for some immigration benefits, including the OPT program, has been paused for people from countries that are part of President Donald Trump’s travel ban, Inside Higher Ed reports, leaving many F-1 visa holders in limbo and unable to begin working after graduation.
Students are ‘parallel planning’ as their ‘American dream ... is collapsing’


Many international students are responding to the job market and immigration hurdles by taking more time to find opportunities and “parallel planning,” Ford says.

They’re still pursuing opportunities in the U.S., she says, “but they’re also looking either back home or in a third country that’s not home and not the U.S.,” especially across Europe, Southeast Asia, Canada and Australia.

David Li, 29, a doctoral candidate in political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, says he plans to start looking for postdoctoral programs and jobs in academia in September. Given federal funding cuts to U.S. universities, he’s also considering opportunities in Europe, his native China and elsewhere in Asia, he says.

Li says the increasing strains around immigration have “shaken the confidence” of his peers who aspire to study and work in the U.S. Two years ago, if someone got an offer from a U.S. university to study, it was assumed to be their best option, Li says, but not anymore. He says many of his younger peers are now considering studying and starting careers in Hong Kong and Singapore instead.

“Before, there was this golden standard of coming to the U.S., staying in the U.S., [and] realizing your American dream,” Li says. Now, “this dream is collapsing.”

10:56
Why Gen Z job hunting is out of control right now


The U.S. issued 97,000 fewer F-1 visas to international students to study full-time in the U.S. for the 2025-26 academic year than for the previous year, a 36% drop, according to an analysis of U.S. Department of State data by The Chronicle of Higher Education.

The growing obstacles could have long-term impacts on incoming scholars, Ford says: “There are students concerned about whether the U.S. is a place where they can build their careers.”

The loss of international grads in the U.S. could also have broader economic consequences.

Former international students from American universities have gone on to found one-quarter of U.S. startups valued at $1 billion or more, according to a 2022 analysis from nonprofit NAFSA: Association of International Educators.

The impact of the loss could be especially significant in STEM fields. Researchers say a one-third reduction in the number of international STEM graduates could lead to annual gross domestic product losses of $240 billion to $481 billion over the next decade, according to an October 2025 working paper published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.

“The research literature provides strong and consistent evidence that high-skill immigration drives U.S. productivity and economic growth, with the largest effects from STEM-trained immigrants ... [arising from their] effects on new business formation, scientific discovery, and the patenting of new economic ideas,” the authors wrote.

Trump has previously said it’s a good practice to allow international students to study in the U.S., particularly those from China, and that reducing their numbers could cause financial harm to the university system, Fox News reported in November.

Those comments stand in contrast to some of his administration’s policies, including moves to revoke thousands of student visas, limit international student enrollment, and cap the length of time students can stay in the country.
First jobs are just the beginning of immigration challenges


Despite the tough job market, Ford, of Cornell, reminds international students that employers are still hiring and encourages them to embrace networking by taking actions such as attending conferences or messaging hiring managers, instead of relying only on online applications.

“In a market in the condition that we’re in right now, taking that extra step to build relationships and make personal connections makes a huge difference,” Ford says.

Doing so could help international students “be more than a candidate on paper” and build professional relationships in the U.S., where they may have limited connections compared with domestic peers, Ford says. They may also benefit from gaining a better understanding of how the U.S. recruitment market and timeline work differently from that of their home countries.

Even graduates who secure a job after college aren’t free of ongoing immigration stressors. That’s the case for Xinran Xu, 24, who is from China, earned her master’s degree from the University of Michigan in 2025 and works as a statistician at a medical device company outside Minneapolis.

Xu’s OPT expires this month. She says her company has been supporting her in working with an immigration attorney, paying the appropriate fees and helping her apply for an H-1B visa that would allow her to continue working in the U.S.; her petition is currently under review, she says.

I just want to use that time to make a fair effort [at getting a job in the U.S.] so that I don’t have any kind of regrets.

Sakshi Patel
job seeker in Boston


The Trump administration’s recent changes to the H-1B visa process have already caused a stir: In September, the White House announced a $100,000 fee for new H-1B visa recipients coming to the U.S. The change didn’t directly affect Xu since she was already residing in the U.S., but the move signaled to her that the process for work authorization seems to be getting more restrictive.

More uncertainty could lie ahead: In March, the Department of Labor proposed a new rule that would increase the minimum salaries required for employees seeking H-1B visas by 21% to 33%, depending on their designated job level. The proposed change could lead to fewer opportunities for younger international workers, who are earlier in their careers and less likely to command higher salaries.

Xinran Xu says changes to immigration policies today make it feel more difficult to build a life in the U.S. than for previous foreign-born workers.
Courtesy of subject


Staying in the U.S. in effect means preparing to confront changing immigration policies. Xu says establishing a life in the U.S. feels harder for international grads today than it was before.

“I’m just expecting a bumpy road throughout the next five years,” she says.

As for Patel, in Boston, she says that ultimately “if my destiny is in India, I will get a job in India.” But even if she ends up moving back home, she says, she’ll still try to find a way back to the U.S.

Until her OPT authorization ends in the summer, she says, “I just want to use that time to make a fair effort so that I don’t have any kind of regrets.”

— CNBC’s Nathaniel Lee contributed to this report.

Canvas cyberattack shuts down schools’ sites

 Canvas cyberattack shuts down schools’ sites

Students on Harvard University campus

Getty Images

Procrastinating Intro to Romantic Lit students at thousands of schools were granted a surprise extension on their final essays. Canvas, the platform that about half of all colleges and universities in North America use to manage assignments and share grades, shut down all its sites for a few hours on Thursday, after its parent company, Instructure, suffered a massive cyberattack—just in time for final exams.

Instructure reported late Thursday that Canvas was back for most users, but not before schools like Penn State canceled some exams scheduled for Thursday and Friday.

A hacking group called ShinyHunters took credit for the attack, which it claimed affected 8,800 universities and K-12 schools around the globe and 275 million people’s data. It’s unclear exactly how many users or schools were targeted, as hacker groups sometimes exaggerate the impact to gain media attention or to get a ransom, according to TechCrunch. Some users at Harvard reported seeing a message from the hackers on the school’s Canvas login page during the outage.

The outage was temporary, but:

  • Instructure first noted a cybersecurity incident on May 1, when it found that some Student IDs, names, and emails, as well as messages between users on Canvas, were breached.
  • Hackers also told some school officials that they’d need to negotiate a settlement with them by May 12 or data would be leaked.

Big picture: ShinyHunters has taken credit for a slew of similar high-profile breaches, hacking and exposing users’ personal information from some of the biggest data-hoarders in the country like Microsoft, Ticketmaster, and Salesforce.

Referendum bid by Alberta separatists stuck in legal limbo

 

Referendum bid by Alberta separatists stuck in legal limbo, even if petition has enough names

Legal case brought by First Nations over treaty rights prompted temporary injunction in April

Text to Speech Icon
Listen to this article
Estimated 6 minutes
Man stands in front of stacks of legal boxes
Mitch Sylvestre, head of the group Stay Free Alberta, is shown on Monday with boxes of petitions being delivered to Elections Alberta. The group wants to trigger a referendum on whether Alberta should separate from Canada, however, ongoing court battles have temporarily trapped the bid in limbo. (Alice Burgat/Radio-Canada)

Are Albertans going to be voting on separatism anytime soon? A petition with more than 300,000 signatures — well over the required threshold — seeking such a referendum was submitted to Elections Alberta on May 4.

But that key step in the process comes amid an ongoing court case about treaty rights, which means things are stuck in limbo for the time being.

How we got here

Separatist petitions have been the subject of multiple court actions in the past year.

The current petition by Stay Free Alberta, submitted by organization leader Mitch Sylvestre, is actually the second one spearheaded by the group.

The group’s first petition was referred to court last July by chief electoral officer Gordon McClure, who was seeking a ruling on whether it violated the Constitution. In December, Court of King’s Bench Justice Colin Feasby ruled that separatism couldn’t be pursued under the provincial Citizen Initiative Act — partly because of Constitutional concerns and partly because it could violate First Nations' treaty rights.

But the UCP government sidestepped those issues less than a day before the ruling was delivered.

It introduced changes to the law, removing the requirement that the question can't contravene the Constitution, and ending the ability of Elections Alberta to seek court review of the legality of proposed questions.

While Feasby condemned the sudden alterations to the legislation — he wrote that it “disrespects the administration of justice” — the changes allowed the separatists to simply refile their petition under the new rules.

That second petition was also taken to court, this time by First Nations who argued provincial separation would be unconstitutional on the grounds that it would violate treaties negotiated with the Crown.

Court of King’s Bench Justice Shaina Leonard issued an interim injunction in April  blocking Elections Alberta from verifying the collected signatures until she issues a final ruling.

If there are enough signatures, will there be a referendum?

Not necessarily. The April 10 injunction essentially put a temporary freeze on the citizen initiative process. Even though signatures were still allowed to be collected, the ruling prohibits the chief electoral officer from undertaking the necessary work to validate the signatures and certify the petition.

But the Citizen Initiative Act isn’t the only way to get Alberta’s separation from Canada onto a ballot — the other is through the Referendum Act.

Under that option, the premier could simply add that question to the list of nine others that will be put to voters on Oct. 19. This could happen even if the petition is not certified.

The provincial government has not ruled out any options.

In a statement to CBC News on Thursday, Justice Minister Mickey Amery said the province is waiting for Leonard’s decision and, potentially, the verification process by Elections Alberta.

“Our government has been clear: we support a strong and sovereign Alberta within a united Canada,” said Amery.

“This means Alberta remaining a province of Canada while advancing provincial autonomy and fighting to undo Ottawa policies that harm Albertans and intrude on our constitutional rights.”

Why are treaty rights relevant?

The arguments made in court by several First Nations regarding a potential independence referendum broadly centre on the rights conferred by Treaties 6, 7 and 8, which were signed between the Crown and First Nations in 1876, 1877 and 1899 — years before Alberta officially became a province in 1905.

Treaty rights are formalized in the text of treaties, but they also need to be interpreted in the context of the era and circumstances in which those negotiations took place.

First Nations “never gave up their way of life and they never gave up those treaty rights, which includes, of course, hunting, gathering and fishing,” says Rebeca Macias Gimenez, an associate professor and constitutional law expert at the University of Alberta.

“But it’s much bigger than that — it includes their participation in Canada [with] a nation-to-nation relationship.”

Under the Constitution, if a province infringes on these rights, it has to justify its reasons for doing so.

Lawyers for the province and the separatist group argued in court last month that the referendum process does not engage treaty or constitutional rights at this stage and should be allowed to continue.

What about the privacy breach?

Adding further complexity to the political landscape, a different separatist group was recently ordered by a judge to take down a digital database containing the personal information of voters.

Elections Alberta obtained a court injunction against the Centurion Project, which it accused of obtaining and misusing the province’s list of electors.

The agency seeds fake names into lists of electors it provides to political parties. An investigation found that the Centurion Project was using a list that had been legally given to the Republican Party of Alberta.

Alberta RCMP is investigating the matter following a complaint by the Alberta NDP. The party said it had turned over video from an April 16 event hosted by the Centurion Project in which the database was demonstrated by searching for former Alberta premier Jason Kenney’s personal information.

While the court case against the Stay Free Alberta petition is not related, University of Alberta political scientist Feo Snagovsky said the database controversy underscores the questions around legitimacy for both sides of the separatist debate.

“On the one hand, it creates widespread skepticism that the petitions and the signatures on the petition were gathered legitimately,” he said, adding that “I think Elections Alberta has its task cut out for it ahead of it to verify those petitions.”

On the other hand, if the separatist movement “is shut down by a legal process, there's going to be a wide range of people who think, well, they're just trying to silence us and they're shutting down our ability to exercise our democratic rights, which is in fact, what they are already saying about the Government of Canada.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Taylor Lambert

Journalist

Taylor Lambert is the producer of investigative and enterprise journalism at CBC Edmonton. His books and longform reporting about Alberta have won numerous awards. Send tips in confidence to taylor.lambert@cbc.ca, or anonymously via SecureDrop.

Max Notes on the Market

 

Max Notes

All for them. None for you.

We’re going to talk about AI and the stock market today. Not for investment purposes or to try and predict something, but to illustrate the severity of capital concentration risk in the United States economy. Money makes the world go ‘round, and right now it’s being sucked into a gigantic black hole with no guarantee that it’s coming out the other side. This has real-world consequences for us all.

 

Before we dive in, there are three concepts you need in your pocket before we get into it: Initial Public Offering (IPO), Valuation, and Market Capitalization. If you’re not in the investment world, these are just words you probably hear floating around in the ether. They’re not complicated, just important to the context of a rather astounding development.

 

An IPO is the moment a private company sells shares of itself to the public for the first time. Before that moment, ownership is limited to founders, employees, and private investors (venture capital firms, sovereign wealth funds, wealthy individuals, etc). After the IPO, anyone with a brokerage account can buy in.

 

Valuation is what the market—or in the case of a private company, its investors—believes the entire company is worth at a given moment. It’s not based on what the company has earned. It’s based on what people believe it will earn. Which means it is, by definition, a bet on the future.

 

Market Cap is the total dollar value of all a company’s shares combined. If a company has 100 million shares outstanding and each share trades at $10, the market cap is $1 billion. It’s the simplest shorthand for a company’s size as the market sees it. When people say Apple is a $3 trillion company, they mean its market cap is $3 trillion.

 

Three straightforward concepts to level set because 2026 is shaping up to be unlike any other year in the history of public equity markets—driven not by hundreds of companies across dozens of sectors, but by just three IPOs, with valuations that strain credulity and market caps that have no historical precedent.

 

Moving forward, keep this number in your head: $200 billion dollars. That’s roughly the combined amount that OpenAI, Anthropic, and SpaceX are expected to raise if all three manage to list in the same calendar year, which is looking increasingly possible. And that’s assuming they each sell only about five cents on the dollar of their total value to the public. Companies this large don’t sell themselves wholesale at IPO. They float a small slice, typically 5–10% of total shares, retaining the rest for founders, employees, and early investors. Five percent of a trillion-dollar company still generates tens of billions in a single offering.

 

And that single figure could exceed the total proceeds raised by every U.S. IPO with a market cap above $50 million from 2022 through the first quarter of 2026, combined. Four years of the American IPO market, swallowed whole by three companies in one year. That is not a prediction about the future of the economy. That is a description of what is already in motion.

 

Comparables

The concentration of capital flowing into artificial intelligence is not just a story about big numbers. It’s a story about a fundamental reorientation of where investment goes in the American economy, and who gets left out of it.

 

For most of the past two decades, total U.S. R&D spending across all sectors—private industry, federal government, universities, nonprofits—ran at roughly 3% of GDP. In dollar terms, that meant somewhere between $400 billion and $700 billion annually by the early 2020s, spread across thousands of companies, research institutions, and sectors: pharmaceuticals, aerospace, automotive, agriculture, energy, materials science, defense, software.

 

The National Science Foundation put U.S. gross domestic R&D expenditure at $923 billion in 2022. Enormous, yes. But broadly distributed. A pharmaceutical company developing cancer treatments, and a university lab studying soil microbiomes, and a defense contractor working on propulsion systems all drew from the same general ecosystem of capital, talent, and institutional support.

 

Now look at what has happened in the past two years.

 

The four largest hyperscalers—Amazon, Google, Meta, and Microsoft—spent $443 billion on infrastructure in 2025 alone. Goldman Sachs projects total ecosystem-wide AI capital expenditure (CapEx) of $765 billion this year, scaling to $1.6 trillion annually by 2031, and $7.6 trillion cumulatively through the end of the decade. Amazon alone is committing $200 billion this year, a figure that will push it to negative free cash flow. The hyperscalers, to fund this, raised $108 billion in debt in 2025 alone, with projections of another $1.5 trillion in total debt issuance over the coming years.

 

This is what concentration risk looks like. The entire historic R&D ecosystem is being eclipsed by a single-sector buildout controlled by a handful of private and semi-private entities. And if we talk about the three companies on the IPO slate we’re talking about Sam Altman, Dario Amodei and Elon Musk. The New Yorker profile of Altman basically confirmed that he’s a pathological liar and a sociopath. Amodei has said in nearly every interview that he thinks AI is going to destroy us. And Elon Musk tried to dismantle the U.S. government. This all sounds fine! Anyway, back to R&D.

 

The WIPO Global Innovation Index 2025 found that global R&D growth slowed to just 2.9% in 2024 and is projected to fall further to 2.3% in 2025—the weakest expansion in over a decade. Goldman Sachs noted that traditional industries “have been starved of capital spending” since the Global Financial Crisis, and the AI buildout has deepened that trend because hyperscaler spending stays within the AI infrastructure ecosystem rather than flowing outward into the broader productive economy. AI boosters will argue that this is normal, and in fact, necessary, because AI is going to supercharge innovation on behalf of these sectors. It’s a point worth arguing, but we should be clear that this remains entirely theoretical.

 

Then there’s the public side of the ledger, where the retreat is deliberate. The Trump administration’s FY2026 budget proposed a 22% cut to total federal R&D, including a 36% cut to non-defense R&D specifically. The NSF faces a 56% reduction. The NIH faces 43%. The Department of Energy, 31%. Nature reported that after adjusting for inflation, the proposed decrease in non-defense research funding would roll spending back to 1991 levels. Congress has blunted the worst of it in enacted bills, but thousands of active grants have already been cancelled or suspended, and the structural damage to university research pipelines is already underway.

 

Which brings us to 2026, and what may be the most consequential IPO season in the history of financial markets.

 

In a normal, healthy IPO year in the U.S., somewhere between 150 and 250 companies go public across a wide range of sectors: healthcare, industrial, consumer, technology, energy, financial services, real estate. The dot-com peak of 2000 saw 406 U.S. IPOs. The 2021 SPAC boom generated 1,035 offerings. We were on pace for a healthy IPO season this year, but things have slowed down as the Iran war drags on and uncertainty abounds.

 

The number of filings is less interesting than the valuations that we’re seeing in AI. To give you a sense of comparable offerings that are familiar to most, Facebook listed at $81 billion and Uber at $75 billion.

 

Contrast these with SpaceX, which is targeting a valuation of $1.5 trillion at listing—nine times the size of the largest American IPO ever. OpenAI is preparing to file S-1 documentation in the coming weeks, per the New York Times, with a target valuation of $850 billion to $1.1 trillion. Anthropic, currently valued at $380 billion in the private market following its February Series G, is being discussed at $850 to $900 billion at IPO, with bankers suggesting the offering could raise more than $60 billion.

 

Combined, these three companies represent approximately $3 trillion in prospective market capitalization. To put that in context: that’s roughly the size of France’s GDP.

 

And the sectors represented? Artificial intelligence and rockets. That’s it. No healthcare breakthroughs. No new energy companies. No consumer brands, no industrial innovators, no agricultural technology, no materials science. Three companies, one technology wave, a narrow slice of humanity’s productive activity—absorbing capital that in any previous era would have been distributed across hundreds of firms and dozens of sectors.

 

What This Means

The question isn’t whether these are transformative companies. It’s not even whether they’re good companies. The question I’m asking is a different one: who owns the upside?

 

When Facebook went public in 2012, any American with a brokerage account could participate on day one. The democratization of equity ownership—imperfect, unequal, but real—has historically meant that transformative wealth creation at least partially flows back into the broader economy through retirement accounts, pension funds, and public market participation.

 

The IPOs coming down the pike look different. Every company that goes from private to public has a group, or several groups of preferred investors that put in early money and expect a larger payout for taking a risky position. The difference with these companies is that they’ve already taken in such enormous sums of investment capital through multiple rounds and secondary market trading that they’ll be the true beneficiaries of compounding returns before a single retail share ever trades.

 

OpenAI CFO Sarah Friar has confirmed that retail investors will get an allocation. But the bulk of the value creation—the distance between early private valuations and eventual public price—has already accrued to a very small group of venture funds, sovereign wealth funds and strategic corporate investors.

 

The $725 billion in hyperscaler CapEx this year, the $7.6 trillion projected through 2031, the $3 trillion in IPO market cap bearing down on public markets; all of it is being built on a narrow foundation. A handful of chips, most of them manufactured in Taiwan. A handful of companies. A handful of investors. A handful of decisions, made in San Francisco, Riyadh, Abu Dhabi and a few rooms in Washington DC.

 

It’s not a conspiracy, it’s a structural observation. Capital concentrates, and it always has. But the velocity and the scale of capital concentration at a time when public R&D budgets are being slashed and social safety nets are being cut is like nothing we’ve ever seen before.

 

In other words…All for them. None for you.

Read more

RG Richardson Communications News

I am a business economist with interests in international trade worldwide through politics, money and banking. Interactive Internet VoIP and secure eMail Communications. The author of RG Richardson City Guides has over 300 guides, including restaurants and finance.