Energy Law
Print this page
OVERVIEW
Energy is becoming a growing sector in the Canadian landscape. Our Energy Law Group provides a broad range of litigation and dispute resolution services to clients operating in the energy and electricity industries. We have assisted our clients in the complete spectrum of power generation technologies from nuclear, hydro, coal, and natural gas to renewable sources of energy and provided them with representation in litigation arising from the transmission and distribution of electricity. We have recently acted on various complex matters involving the construction, operation and ownership of energy infrastructure projects.
Our Energy Law Group has the industry-specific knowledge and experience required to assist clients with the development of practical dispute resolution and risk management strategies.
Featured Cases
-
Howe v. Solart LLL Corp, 2018 ONSC 3169 (Successfully resisted two-day motion to add client as a defendant in $19.5M class action)
-
Major Partner Wind Energy Corp. v. Ontario Power Authority, 2015 ONSC 6902 (Div. Ct.) (Motion to dismiss judicial review application for delay)
-
Skypower CL 1 LP v. Ontario Power Authority, 2015 ONCA 427 (successfully resisted appeal on grounds of abuse of process)
-
Skypower CL 1 LP v. Ontario Power Authority, 2014 ONSC 6950 (S.C.J.) (successful motion to strike claim for misfeasance in public office and unjust enrichment)
-
Skypower CL 1 LP v. Ontario (Minister of Energy), 2012 ONSC 4979; 355 D.L.R. (4th) 168 (Div. Ct.), leave to appeal to Court of Appeal refused M41770, March 8, 2013
SERVICES
- Litigation
- Dispute Resolution
- Risk Management
CHAIR(S)
MEMBER(S)
FIRM CASES
PUBLICATIONS
View All
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.
Improperly sued? Can you recover costs if the action is dismissed? Rule 23.05
In order to protect limitation periods, especially in cases where liability is yet to be determined, there is an obligation on counsel to identify, name, and pursue all parties who may be liable to the plaintiff(s). However, as the discovery process begins, parties often become aware that they have added in a party that will bear no liability to the plaintiff(s). Often, parties are able to consent to a dismissal or discontinuance without costs; however, there are cases in which defendant(s) will not go out without costs. In these cases, parties can move for a ruling under Rule 23.05...
All-Inclusive and Without Costs Rule 49 Offers
In 1985, Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure was introduced to encourage parties to make and accept reasonable offers to settle. This has had the effect of discouraging parties from delaying the judicial process and increasing costs unnecessarily. Rule 49 has had a considerable effect on litigants by virtue of the risk of a large costs award following trial.
To trigger the cost consequences under Rule 49, an offer must meet strict requirements: