is a lawyer at Lenczner Slaght.
Patrick’s diverse practice ranges from copyright law, to fiduciary and partnership law, and to insurance and professional liability matters. With an extensive background in many areas of private law, Patrick has a special interest in disputes involving fiduciary obligations, and the rights and duties of the parties to a contract.
Prior to joining Lenczner Slaght, Patrick clerked for the judges of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. At law school, he worked as research associate for Professors Stephen Waddams, Patrick Macklem and Abraham Drassinower, and assisted in the publication of cutting-edge research in the fields of copyright law and human rights. In his previous career, Patrick taught medieval history at Trinity College, Dublin, and at St Hugh’s College, Oxford.
Counsel on a successful appeal at the Ontario Court of Appeal seeking to recover the deposit on an abortive real estate transaction
Counsel to Toshiba in a software licensing dispute involving point-of-sale systems.
Counsel on a successful appeal at the Ontario Court of Appeal seeking to enforce a debt secured by a guarantee and a general security agreement
Counsel to the Defendants in a class proceeding alleging that various brands of network-branded payment cards were subject to activation, dormancy, and other fees that constitute misrepresentations, breach of contract, and breaches of various provincial consumer protection legislation and related regulations.
Counsel to GCNA in a priority dispute in the context of a receivership. Asserted that subrogated claims under the construction lien act constituted trust claims within the meaning of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. Also challenges unions’ trust claims as being defeated by timeliness requirements under the CLA. GCNA’s appeal will be heard by a five-judge panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal in October, 2018.
Is it improper for an opinion expert to hire his or her own lawyer to help prepare an opinion? That was the issue in the recent decision of Justice Perell in Wright v. Detour Gold. Justice Perell ruled that there was nothing improper in an expert retaining counsel to assist with the preparation of the opinion. The reasons are interesting in their conceptualization of the expert’s overriding duty to the Court, and for their interpretation of the recent Supreme Court of Canada case, White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co., concerning the admissibility of opinion evidence.