Articles 2020

Matters covered this week included the dismissal of a proposed class action against the LCBO regarding the sale of beer in Ontario, the viability of claims by police officers against Crown attorneys for negligence and misfeasance in public office, summary judgment motions in child protection proceedings under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, motions to change spousal support orders, and a residential tenancy dispute involving a missing cat.

This article is an analysis of the Court of Appeal decision in Imeson v. Maryvale (Maryvale Adolescent and Family Services), 2018 ONCA 888 (“Imeson”). In Imeson, the Court of Appeal emphasized the importance of the judicial gatekeeping role for expert witnesses and clarified the boundaries of proffering “participant expert” evidence at trial.

This article reviews the case law and commentary on whether there is a role for section 3 counsel in circumstances where the client is unable to communicate their instructions or wishes.

Summaries of this week's Court of Appeal cases.

Lessons learned from the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Das v George Weston Limited regarding dispositive motions and costs awards.

This is a timely article that canvases 2017 and 2018 case law for family law lawyers regarding the treatment of spousal and child support obligations on the death of the payor, and the corresponding rights and obligations that must be considered by family law lawyers when drafting Agreements and consent Orders.

This document informs family law practitioners of the April 1, 2019 court fees increase for their clients' matters.

The Canadian Bankers Association has a list of bank officials to contact regarding the discharge of mortgages, which will be routinely updated and was last updated on January 28, 2019.

What does the representation and warranty of "good working order" for chattels and fixtures in agreements of purchase and sale for real property mean? The authors summarize their recent experience reviewing the scarce case law on this subject.

Facebook discovered a data breach in 2013 due to the inadvertent interaction between two of its features. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada (“Commissioner”) investigated the cause and aftermath of the breach and decided that the remedial measures Facebook implemented following this breach was sufficient. Would that decision be upheld by a Court in a claim for negligence? What additional but practical technical measures could Facebook have implemented to avoid being found negligent?