September 23, 2016;  Kim Nusbaum

Lawyers are continually reminded of the importance of pleadings—and, perhaps not surprisingly, of naming the correct corporate entity as defendant. So what if a party name is slightly off? What may look like a simple misnomer could in fact end your lawsuit. Justice Daley of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed this issue in Anderson-Munroe v. Sheraton Hotels.

August 11, 2016;  Lars Brusven

In Ontario, if a product harms consumers, a manufacturer may apologize without risk of the apology being used as an admission of liability in subsequent civil proceedings. Indeed, Ontario’s Apology Act expressly protects defendants from their apology being used in a determination of fault or liability.

August 08, 2016;  Andrew Porter

A recent Alberta trial decision reads like something out of an antiquated law school casebook in which damages are claimed based on the disappointment of one spouse (usually the husband) about the past conduct or character of the other (usually the wife).

July 04, 2016;  Laura Robinson

Many counsel have undoubtedly been asked by their clients what remedies are available in the face of an opposing party who opts not to comply with a court order. In Ontario, a party may bring a motion for a contempt order to enforce an order requiring a party to do an act (or abstain from doing an act) other than the payment of money. While certain litigants may be enticed by the option of...

June 09, 2016;  Andrea Wheeler

Misfeasance in public office is a difficult claim to prove. A successful action requires plaintiffs to demonstrate that a public officer engaged in deliberate misconduct knowing that such misconduct was likely to cause harm to the plaintiff. In many cases, evidence of the requisite mental element is lacking.

June 03, 2016;  Robert Trenker

Brevity is not always a virtue, especially when a trial judge’s decision leaves the palate of an appellate court dry. The line between insufficient reasons and succinctness was explored most recently in Dovbush v. Mouzitchka.

August 20, 2015;  Eli S. Lederman

In a recent decision, the Ontario Superior Court awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale which constituted 75% of the costs actually incurred by the successful party. The decision demonstrates the possibility of a generous costs award on a partial indemnity scale where the issues at stake are important and complex, and both written materials and oral submissions are of high calibre.

June 26, 2015;  Mark Veneziano

Lo Faso brings up the tension between fair and just court process and ensuring that all facts are available to adjudicate a dispute.

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.

October 14, 2014;  Jaclyn Greenberg

Lazy litigants beware: not only is your (in)action subject to a dismissal motion under Rule 24 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, it is also subject to the court's inherent jurisdiction. According to the Ontario Court of Appeal in Wallace v. Crate's Marine Sales Lotd, 2014 ONCA 671, inordinate delay in pursuing an action could be construed as an abuse of process, and as undermining the...

September 25, 2014;  Lindsay Beck

At least one Superior Court judge seems to think so. In a decision on costs, Justice David Brown made the following comment regarding the claims for photocopying: