PUBLICATIONS

First Published in Advocates Quarterly. This paper addresses whether the same principles regarding the “real and substantial possibility” standard of proof apply to a hypothetical past loss claim as they do to a hypothetical future loss claim, and the interplay between the two standards of proof applicable to hypothetical claims: balance of probabilities for the “but for” causation test, and “real and substantial possibility” for damages.

The Supreme Court of Canada slammed the door shut on misfeasance claims against Crown prosecutors in one of their most recent rulings. In an 8-1 decision, the Court reinforced the immunity of Crown prosecutors in their prosecution of criminal matters due to their unique positions in the justice system that requires them to be free from fear of civil liability in the execution of their duties.

In Ontario, there is a well-established practice of asking jurors to provide reasons for their verdicts. The jury is not absolutely required to provide this information. There is a presumption of integrity regarding general verdicts; simply because the jury did not explain its verdict is not a ground for appeal.

The exception to this presumption arises in professional negligence cases...

In Ontario, s.4 of the Limitations Act, 2002, (“Act”) establishes a two-year limitation period for a claimant to commence an action, which begins to run once the claim is discovered. However, there exists an exception for those claimants that are “incapable” to commence the proceeding.

In this case study, a man suffering from mental illness and psychotic delusions, killed his son and later commenced an action against the drug company...

You have just been sued for breach of contract by a former business partner.

As you skim through a legal document that sets out a laundry list of your alleged failures and faux pas, a few paragraphs jump out at you. Why does the document make reference to an argument over the design of your company's logo? And why is there commentary on the not-so-secret office romance between two of your employees? As far as you can tell, neither of these issues have anything to do with the contract in dispute.

Ontario's Conservative government recently proposed Bill 100, also known as the Protecting What Matters Most Act, which primarily addresses new budget measures. Also contained within the Bill, however, is the proposed repealing of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act [PACA] which was enacted in 1990 and governs how litigation is commenced against the Provincial Crown. It will be subsequently replaced with the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act [CLPA]. The CLPA proposes substantial changes to Crown liability, including limitations thereon, and sets out the procedural rules that will apply in proceedings against the Crown.

This article takes a high-level perspective of the regulation of the fur farming industry in Canada, with a specific focus on the predominant fur-bearing species raised on fur farms in Canada: minks and foxes.

Canada's robust fur trade saw over 2.3 million minks and foxes bred on fur farms in 2017, generating approximately $800 million dollars. As of 2017, there were over 200 mink and fox fur farms across Canada, which produced over 2 million pelts. Even now, there is a trend towards the use of mink fur in eyelash extensions. However, despite the size of the industry, the legislative framework is surprisingly inconsistent and often under-regulated. 

After a comprehensive regulatory consultation period with Canadians, municipal, provincial, and territorial governments, law enforcement officials, public health representatives, stakeholders, and Indigenous governments and representative organizations, among others, the federal government published the Cannabis Regulations to support the coming into force of the Cannabis Act (the “Act”) in the Canada Gazette on July 11, 2018.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has struck down the mandatory minimum sentence for possession of child pornography. The Appellant, Nathaniel John, in R v John, 2018 ONCA 702, successfully convinced three judges that imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence of six months imprisonment is grossly disproportionate to the conduct of a reasonably hypothetical offender, using, for example, a youth “sexting”.

To what extent must service technicians warn their customers of particular risks associated with the product they are servicing? After presiding over a seven-day trial on liability alone, Madame Justice S. Gomery grappled with this very question and provided a framework to help answer it in her recent decision in Maxrelco v Lumipro Inc., 2018 ONSC 3638.

This decision explains what factors would trigger the duty to warn and in what circumstances would they attract liability.

In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that common interest privilege (“CIP”) is a principle of Canadian law. This principle is unlike solicitor-client privilege, in that communication between counsel and a third party may be considered privileged if the shared information is to benefit both parties, especially with respect to the furtherance of a commercial transaction. The court overturned a Federal Court decision which held that that CIP is not a principle of Canadian law.

Today the Ontario Court of Appeal released its long-awaited decision inMoore v. Getahun, dealing with significant issues in relation to the preparation and use of expert witness reports at trial, including the scope of permissible communications between counsel and expert witnesses.