Articles

There were quite a few substantive decisions of the Court of Appeal released this week. Topics covered this week included another round of litigation in the Indian Residential School Settlement, vexatious litigants, the setting aside of an order granting summary judgement in the context of a shareholder’s agreement involving a right of first refusal, limitation periods, family law.

In Chandos Construction v Deloitte Restructuring, the Supreme Court clarified one aspect of bankruptcy law – the scope and application of the anti-deprivation rule – while leaving an unsettled area of contract law – the penalty doctrine – to be resolved for another day. Here, we consider the implications of the newly-clarified anti-deprivation rule as it applies to the construction industry.

Perhaps one silver lining to the COVID-19 Pandemic has been the accelerated implementation of technologically based tools by both the construction industry and the courts to overcome the hurdles arising from the need to maintain “physical distancing’.

On May 11, 2020, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld a sweeping order for Canada’s tax authorities to obtain customer information from Roofmart Ontario Inc. (“Roofmart”) to investigate its customers’ tax compliance.

What is articling like at a municipality right now? Read on to find out, and to hear tips for other articling students also working remotely.

In Chandos Construction Ltd. v. Deloitte Restructuring Inc., a decision released on October 2, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the anti-deprivation rule in the common law of Canada. The dispute in this case revolved around a construction contract between Chandos Construction Ltd. and Capital Steel Inc. that included a clause which provided a fee of 10% of the contract price for the inconvenience and for monitoring the work in the event of Capital Steel’s bankruptcy.