Criminal, Regulatory & Administrative Law

Print this page

OVERVIEW

Our Criminal, Regulatory, and Administrative Law Group assists our clients in defending charges laid by police, government agencies, and self-regulatory organizations under the Criminal Code of Canada, the Provincial Offences Act, and other regulatory legislation.

We also assist our clients in Coroner Inquests.

SERVICES

Our Criminal, Regulatory, and Administrative Law Group has responded to complaints and defended criminal, quasi-criminal, and regulatory charges commenced under the following statutes:

  • Law Society Act;
  • Occupational Health and Safety Act;
  • Technical Standards and Safety Act;
  • Human Rights Act;
  • Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act;
  • Environmental Protection Act;
  • Securities Act;
  • Police Services Act;
  • Private Investigators and Security Guards Act;
  • Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act; and
  • Criminal Code of Canada.

 We have also represented clients in licencing, public policy, and legislative matters.

For the benefit of our clients, McCague Borlack LLP also offers a “24/7” Emergency Response Team. We will attend whenever and wherever our clients seek on-scene assistance that may arise with respect to any type of incident.

CHAIR(S)

MEMBER(S)

Next arrow
Prev arrow

PUBLICATIONS

View All
Default Causation And Standard Of Proof For A Hypothetical Pre-Trial Loss

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.

A police original Misfeasance Claims against Crown Prosecutors - Case Study: Ontario (Attorney General) v. Clark, 2021 SCC 18

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.

A jury original Jury Questions: When to Ask for Reasons - Case Study: Cheung v. Samra 2020 ONSC 4904

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...