20 June 2018By Uri Snir
A recent decision from the British Columbia Supreme Court suggests that non-solicitation clauses in employment agreements between financial advisors and their firms may be found invalid for public policy reasons, as the interests of clients must be put ahead of those of the firm.
14 June 2018By Shakaira John
In Law Society of Ontario v. Burtt, the Law Society Tribunal recently dismissed a disciplinary case against a Toronto lawyer, finding that the Law Society of Ontario (the “LSO”) had failed to satisfy its duty to accommodate the lawyer’s disability (mental illness).
4 June 2018By Cynthia Spry
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently found that a termination clause in a contract that appeared, on its face, to provide an unfettered right of termination is subject to the duty of good faith contractual performance set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71.
29 May 2018By Khrystina McMillan & Daniel Babin (Summer Law Student)
This is our third blog post on the ongoing saga of the Ecuadorian villagers’ attempts to enforce an Ecuadorian judgement against Chevron Canada Limited (“Chevron Canada”) in Yaiguje v. Chevron Corporation. Our October 16, 2017 post concerned an order for security for costs ordered against the Ecuadorian villagers, and in our November 6, 2017 post we discussed the Court of Appeal’s decision to set aside the security for costs order.
22 May 2018By Uri Snir
The Court of Appeal recently overturned a summary judgment awarded in favour of Mr. Sub franchisees for reputational harm stemming from the 2008 listeriotic outbreak.
In 1688782 Ontario Inc. v. Maple Leaf Foods Inc., the Court of Appeal held the motion judge erred in finding the supplier of ready-to-eat (“RTE”) meats owed a duty of care to retailers for pure economic losses suffered from the negative publicity associated with the recall of meats.
15 May 2018By Khrystina McMillan
and Shakaira John
In a recent post, we discussed securities legislation introduced in Manitoba that would add Manitoba to a growing list of provinces that have provided greater legal authority to self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”), purportedly to strengthen investor protection. British Columbia has now also passed amendments to provincial securities legislation that grant SROs enhanced enforcement powers. Despite the momentum the trend has gained, it remains unclear whether the goal of investor protection is in fact served by bolstering SRO collection powers.
10 May 2018By Khrystina McMillan
In a decision released May 7, 2018, the Court of Appeal settled the conflicting body of case law as to whether section 18 of the Limitations Act, 2002, SO 2002, c 24 (the “Act”) sets out an absolute two-year limitation period for claims of contribution and indemnity. In Mega International Commercial Bank (Canada) v Yung, the Court of Appeal overturned a summary judgment dismissal of a third party claim for contribution and indemnity as statute barred, holding that – contrary to the motion judge’s decision – section 18 of the Act does not displace the discoverability principles.
3 May 2018By Uri Snir
In Wallbridge v. Brunning, the Court of Appeal for Ontario set aside a summary judgment granted in favour of the defendant partnership of lawyers, Williams Litigation Lawyers (“Williams”). By sending the issue of Williams’ liability to trial, the Court of Appeal has potentially opened the door to a law firm being found vicariously liable for the actions of a lawyer who practices “in association” with it.
25 April 2018By Cynthia Spry
In Cunningham v. Wiltzen, the Alberta Court of Appeal recently dealt with an appeal of a trial judge’s findings regarding an investment adviser’s liability for breach of his duty of care.
10 April 2018By Khrystina McMillan
In a decision released last week, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that section 138.3(6) of Ontario’s Securities Act cannot be used to avoid the “statute-bar monster”. In Kaynes v BP, P.L.C., the Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge’s decision to strike eleven of fourteen secondary market misrepresentation claims in a putative class action on the grounds that they were statute-barred. In doing so, the Court of Appeal rejected the plaintiff’s submission that the court could treat all the misrepresentations as a single representation under section 138.3(6) to extend the limitation period for the eleven statute-barred misrepresentations.