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.

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.

The past decade has given rise to the ‘sharing economy', which has since become ubiquitous and has raised an assortment of legal issues for stakeholders and policymakers as a result.

In Heller v Uber Technologies Inc. the Ontario Court of Appeal reversed a decision to uphold an arbitration (and effectively, forum selection and choice of law) clause in an Uber services agreement, finding it both unenforceable and unconscionable.

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.

On February 18, 2015, Justices Sharpe, van Rensburg and Pardu of the Court of Appeal for Ontario released their long-awaited privacy law decision in Hopkins v. Kay. Despite the fact that the Personal Health Information Protection Act ("PHIPA") is a "lengthy and detailed statute" that comprehensively addresses "the collection, use, disclosure, retention and disposal of personal health information", the Court affirmed that plaintiffs are still entitled to raise the common law tort for breaches of privacy in circumstances involving health information.

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.

Class action litigation arising out of cyber and privacy risks is increasing in Canada. The cases involve a broad range of privacy and cyber risks including lost portable electronic storage devices, uploads to an unsecure website, improper disposal of computer equipment, unauthorized access and dissemination by rogue employees, cybercrime and business practices. More breaches, increased breach notifications, widespread media reports and growing concern about privacy rights have all likely contributed to the increase in class action proceedings. In addition, the recent recognition of a new tort for invasion of privacy by the Ontario Court of Appeal in 2012 has resulted in certification of privacy class actions based on the new tort. This paper will discuss examples of Canadian cyber and privacy cases which have been certified as class actions, cases that have settled, and cases that have been recently commenced as proposed class actions.

The Ontario Court of Appeal's recent decision in Zurich Insurance Company Ltd. et al. v. Ison T.H. Auto Sales Inc. sets out important principles on the issue of who has the right of carriage and control of litigation in circumstances where there is a combined subrogated and uninsured claim.