11 September 2018
By Michael BookmanA 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 2018
By Michael BookmanThe 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 2018
By Eden KaillI’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 2018
By Cynthia SpryThe 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 2018
By Brendan MonahanUnder 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 2018
By Uri SnirIn 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.
27 July 2018
By Eden KaillBarrister’s Robes. Personally, I love the whole court regalia, but that may be because I’m not a lawyer and don’t have to wear it. I do sometimes wonder how people in American courtrooms know who the lawyers are. But why and under what circumstances do Canadian lawyers wear their robes?
23 July 2018
By Cynthia SpryIn Di Gregorio v. Sunwing Vacations Inc., the Ontario Court of Appeal dealt with the jurisdiction of Ontario courts to hear claims for breach of contract even where the existence of the contract is itself disputed.
16 July 2018
By Uri SnirIn response to its November 2017 empirical study, entitled Missing Out: Millenials and the Markets (which I previously summarized here), the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) has released a further study.
6 July 2018
By Daniel BabinIn our June 20, 2018 blog post, we noted that in National Bank Financial Inc. v Canaccord Genuity Corp. the British Columbia Supreme Court held that non-solicitation clauses in employment agreements between financial advisors and their employers may be found invalid for public policy reasons, as the interests of clients must be put ahead of those of the firm.
By contrast, in the recent decision of MD Physician Services Inc. v. Wisniewski, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a trial decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice enforcing a non-solicitation clause, and finding that the advisors (and their new employer) were liable for breach of such clause. The Court of Appeal specifically approved the lower Court’s application of specific criteria to the question of whether or not such a clause should be enforced.