4 December 2018By Eden Kaill
Every law firm’s Twitter account, Babin Bessner Spry included, has a standard list of follows: Colleagues, other firms, bar associations, other legal associations like TLA and the Advocates“ Society.
These are often informative, but not always the most entertaining. Thank goodness for my favourite sub-category of Law Twitter:
Hilarious Law Twitter!
26 November 2018By Uri Snir
The Ontario Court of Appeal has further clarified the distinction between litigation expert witnesses and participant expert witnesses. The distinction is crucial in determining what type of evidence is admissible at trial.
In this recent decision, the Court held that much of the expert evidence given at trial should have been inadmissible. It allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial in the underlying sexual assault action.
12 November 2018By Michael Bookman
Canada is one of the only industrialized countries in the world to lack a national securities regulator. That may be about to change after the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) concluded in Reference re Pan Canadian Securities Regulation that a proposed national cooperative for the regulation of the capital markets was indeed constitutional. The SCC has given the green light to a cooperative capital markets regulatory system fashioned collectively among some of the provinces and territories and the federal government.
1 November 2018By Brendan Monahan
In Hashemi-Sabet Estate v. Oak Ridges Pharmasave Inc., 2018 ONCA 839, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently considered the principles relating to the enforcement of an accepted Rule 49 offer to settle. In this case, the Court upheld a motion judge’s decision granting judgment in accordance with an accepted Rule 49 offer. The Court also held that it was open to the motion judge to find that counsel for one of the parties had intentionally submitted inaccurate information to advance her clients’ position, without hearing viva voce evidence on that issue.
23 October 2018By Uri Snir
On September 26, 2018, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice sentenced Daniel Tiffin to six months in jail for violations of the Securities Act (the “Act”). Tiffin and his company, Tiffin Financial Corporation (“TFC”) (collectively, the “Respondents”), were convicted of:
18 October 2018By Cynthia Spry
In a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the court found that a corporation without share capital, apparently incorporated for the purpose of commencing the litigation, after the majority of the events in question, was not a “proper person” to claim oppression within the meaning of section 250(e) of the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act (the “CNCA”).
12 October 2018By Michael Bookman
In Chagnon v. Syndicat de la fonction publique et parapublique du Québec, 2018 SCC 39, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed the intersection of the constitutional privilege afforded to legislative bodies and the rights of their unionized employees.
7 October 2018By Cynthia Spry
The Law Times recently wrote an article about a case in which a woman who alleged she had been assaulted and sexually harassed in the workplace was granted limited intervenor status in the perpetrator’s ensuing wrongful dismissal claim. In case you also read the Law Times article and wanted more detail about the legal basis for the decision, this blog post provides it.
18 September 2018By Brendan Monahan
What is the appropriate remedy when a loan agreement fails to contain an “express statement of the yearly rate or percentage of interest” within the meaning of s. 4 of the Interest Act (the “Act”)? That was one of the questions before the Ontario Court of Appeal in Solar Power Network Inc. v. ClearFlow Energy Finance Corp., 2018 ONCA 727.1 In that case, the Court allowed the appeal of an application judge’s decision and held that where an agreement contains multiple rates of interest, the Act only imposes an interest “cap” of 5% on the rate that runs afoul of s. 4.
11 September 2018By Michael Bookman
A married couple retains tax lawyers to challenge assessments made by the Canadian Revenue Agency (“CRA”). Their counsel advise that their case is strong and recommend an appeal of the CRA’s decision. Two years later, the couple’s tax lawyers reverse their position; what was once a strong case is now deemed weak. The couple, already invested in the CRA challenge, retain new counsel and continue the litigation.