2 March 2020By Daniel Babin
On December 19th, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) handed down its judgments in the Bell-NFL-Vavilov trilogy of cases (“Vavilov”)1 that significantly altered the approach to judicial review of administrative decisions. The majority provided much needed clarity and simplification to the method of determining the applicable degree of judicial deference when an administrative decision is appealed to a court, commonly known as the “standard of review”. The majority also provided additional guidance for reviewing courts to follow when conducting reasonableness review.
19 December 2019By Brendan Monahan
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently considered the doctrine of frustration in the context of a real estate transaction in Perkins v. Sheikhtavi, 2019 ONCA 925 (“Perkins”). In this case, the Court upheld the motion judge’s finding that the Ontario government’s announcement of a new tax on non-resident home buyers did not “frustrate” the relevant agreement between the parties. The Court therefore upheld the motion judge’s award of damages against the appellant resulting from the failure to close the purchase of a home.
6 August 2019By Uri Snir
In its recent decision in Hunt v. Worrod,1 the Ontario Court of Appeal set aside an order for costs against Legal Aid Ontario (“LAO”). The Court found that, as a government sponsored funder of legal aid, LAO is not required to assess the merits of the cases it funds.
2 August 2019By Michael Bookman
In its recent decision Hurst v. Hancock1, the Court of Appeal for Ontario reminds contracting parties of their options when faced with an anticipatory breach of contract or repudiation. When one contracting party repudiates its contractual obligations, the other contracting party may accept the repudiation and sue or it may wait until performance of the contract is due and fails to materialize before bringing a claim. This choice featured prominently in the underlying issues on the appeal.
4 July 2019By Uri Snir
In a recent decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, the Court denied certification of a proposed class action by a group of investors who suffered losses allegedly caused by their financial advisor. The Court held that the Plaintiffs were unable to establish an identifiable class, and that a class action was not the preferable procedure for litigating the claims.
21 June 2019By Eden Kaill
Those of us who work in professional environments (especially law firms) tend to have some significant hesitation around the idea of second-hand clothes. We need to look put-together, and most of us don’t have the time or energy to go through the racks at Value Village in the hopes that one of the ten suits they have at any given time will be both nice and in the right size. We worry that used clothes will look cheap, that second-hand stores smell funny, and that we won’t find anything that fits.
21 May 2019By Uri Snir
In a recent decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal set aside a partial summary judgment for fraud.
The Court held that partial summary judgment should only be granted where the motion judge is satisfied that the issues being resolved on partial summary judgment can be readily bifurcated from the issues proceeding to trial.
2 May 2019By Michael Bookman
The Ontario Court of Appeal’s recent decision in ALS Society of Essex County v. Windsor (City), 2019 ONCA 344, offers important guidance on the question of whether class members are “parties” in class action litigation. While class members are not “parties” in the normal sense, the Court of Appeal held that they are akin to parties, as their rights are being adjudicated by the court in the class proceedings.
30 April 2019By Brendan Monahan
In TELUS Communications Inc. v. Wellman, 2019 SCC 19, a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that business customers with claims against TELUS will have to pursue their claims through arbitration, and cannot “piggy back” on a consumer class action.
30 April 2019By Cynthia Spry
It’s fascinating to see the changes technology is making in the law. We did a three-week trial in December that was completely electronic. It was liberating. There was no schlepping of fifteen bankers’ boxes of documents to court on the first day, no agonizing over which binders we needed to lug back to the office for that evening’s cross-examination preparation, and no need to cover everything in colour-coded stickies to be able to find that crucial document at a moment’s notice. It also saved a considerable amount of court time, because we could all navigate between the documents so much more quickly.