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.
1 September 2018By Michael Bookman
The Court of Appeal for Ontario recently released its decisions in six appeals regarding Ontario’s Anti-SLAPP legislation1. The Court’s reasons and interpretation of the legislative provisions, particularly on matters related to the burden of proof, provide crucial guidance regarding motions to dismiss claims that defendants allege are abusive.
31 August 2018By Eden Kaill
I’ll admit that I kind of love generic corporate art – massive abstract paintings in hotel lobbies, huge and vaguely unsettling sculpture pieces outside bank towers. But here at the Babin Bessner Spry offices, our art is anything but generic.
27 August 2018By Cynthia Spry
The Law Times recently asked me about the Supreme Court’s decision in Haaretz.com v. Goldhar, 2018 SCC 28 (“Goldhar”), and specifically, for the takeaway on convenient forums, in light of the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17 (“Van Breda”).
13 August 2018By Brendan Monahan
Under what circumstances can a motion judge decide a contested factual issue using the expanded fact-finding powers under rule 20.04(2.1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Rules”) without oral evidence? That was one of the issues before the Ontario Court of Appeal in a recent decision, 2212886 Ontario Inc. et al. v. Obsidian Group Inc. et al., 2018 ONCA 670. In that case, the Court set aside a partial summary judgment, finding that it was not “in the interest of justice” to determine a key contested factual issue on the basis of a paper record alone.
8 August 2018By Uri Snir
In a recent penalty ruling by the Law Society Tribunal, Mr. Darwin Anthony Yantha (the “Licensee”) was ordered to surrender his licence to practice law in Ontario, despite the panel’s acknowledgment that the Licensee’s clinical depression and alcoholism were the cause of his recklessness in billing practices. It was this recklessness in billing practices that led to disciplinary proceedings commenced by the Law Society of Ontario (“LSO”) in which the panel concluded that the Licensee had knowingly (recklessly) engaged in dishonest or fraudulent conduct.