April 01, 2015;  Anne E. Posno

At trial, the Judge held that the plaintiff and the defendant real estate agents should share the 10% commission on the sale of a plaza and gas station.

March 23, 2015;  Dena N. Varah

Administrative lawyers and regulators should take note: in Swart v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Prince Edward Island the Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal provided express guidance in the prosecution of complaints against doctors.

March 19, 2015

In Ontario, either party in a civil action can demand that its case be decided by a jury. In Kempf v. Nyugen (2015 ONCA 114), the Court of Appeal for Ontario addressed the question of when a case can be removed from a jury's hands because it is too complex, in a decision that strengthens the right to have civil cases decided in jury trials.

March 13, 2015;  Mark Veneziano

Following the Ontario Court of Appeal's 2010 decision in Dynasty Furniture Manufacturing Ltd. v. Toronto Dominion Bank (2010 ONCA 514), many legal observers believed that the court had closed the door on a bank's liability for negligence in the absence of actual knowledge of fraudulent activities conducted through an account of its customer.

March 12, 2015;  Anne E. Posno, Chris Kinnear Hunter

On an appeal from a Rule 21 motion, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Personal Health Information Protection Act, S.O. 2004, c. 3, Sch. A (PHIPA) does not create an exhaustive code precluding a civil action for intrusion upon seclusion.

February 26, 2015;  Chris Kinnear Hunter

The Court of Appeal addressed the admissibility and permissible use of surreptitiously recorded video surveillance evidence at trial in its recent decision Iannarella v. Corbett, 2015 ONCA 110.

February 23, 2015

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently had a chance to consider the law regarding exclusion clauses in the lease context.

February 17, 2015;  Scott Rollwagen, Lindsay Beck

Law and fact, deference and correctness seem no less muddled than ever, as judges begin to interpret the Supreme Court's decision in Sattva Capital Corp v. Creston Moly Corp, 2014 SCC 53. In Sattva Capital, the Court held that pure contractual interpretation matters generally raise issues of mixed fact and law requiring deference, unless it is possible to clearly identify extricable issues of law.

February 05, 2015

The Court of Appeal has affirmed the robust gatekeeping function to be exercised by trial courts in the admission of expert evidence (Meady v. Greyhound, 2015 ONCA 6).

September 16, 2014 (Toronto);  Brian Kolenda

The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53 ("Sattva") appeared to herald a new era of deference to arbitrators: on at least ordinary questions of law, courts are now to review arbitration awards on a reasonableness standard. Saatva also confirmed that questions of contractual interpretation are usually questions of mixed law and fact. This...