Articles 2020

There is still room for printing in today's paperless office (and it's not just for paper-only audiences like courts).

Changes to marijuana laws present lawyers with new opportunities, but their best practices remain the same: don't dabble, comply with the rules of professional conduct, investigate sufficiently, and protect clients' confidentiality.

Following are the summaries for this week’s civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. In Shah v LG Chem Ltd, the Court of Appeal certified a class action for claims of conspiracy at common law and conspiracy to price fix under the Competition Act, in relation to lithium-ion batteries. The Court determined that the concept of “indeterminate liability” in negligence law should not be imported into the analysis of common conspiracy or Competition Act claims.

An analysis of the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Janicek v. Janicek, 2018 ONCA 679, with respect to the interpretation of terms of a Will pertaining to the division and sale of a family farm.

A critical analysis of Sweetnam v. Lesage and the risk of severe cost consequences to estate trustees who take unreasonably adversarial positions in litigation.

An overview of the changes to the Construction Act in relation to the new bonding requirements and related Regulations.

Commenting on Girouard v Canada (AG), 2018 FC 865, the author argues this case is an example of a trend towards more administrative decision-makers that have unlimited powers. This trend has profound implications for the Rule of Law, as it places such decision-makers alongside the Constitution as beyond reproach. But the administrative state is not a constitutional mandate. The Canadian Judicial Council is vested with powers by its enabling statute. It does not have inherent power.

In Wang v Canada, the Court of Appeal held that habeas corpus applies not only to detention in prison, but in any situation where the applicant’s liberty is curtailed, such as house arrest. Other topics included a professional negligence claim against a lawyer, a jurisdictional dispute in respect of an oppression claim, a summary judgment for fraud, and an appeal of a jury’s damage award in an MVA trial.

This 'rapid fire' Q&A session with Lad Kucis is intended to give a brief insight into the career journey of a well-known Bay Street health lawyer. Primarily targeted at law students considering a career in health law, the piece offers a three-dimensional perspective of this lawyer's experiences of the practice area, and his advice for new lawyers.

In Migilalo v Royal Bank of Canada, 2018 FC 525, Ms. Migilalo discovered that there had been an unauthorized access to her private financial information with her Royal Bank of Canada accounts. She opted to seek damages pursuant to the provisions of the Personal Information Protection and Information Act. Was it the appropriate choice given her circumstances?