Skip to content

Lawyers
Andrew Porter listen

About

Andrew* brings his commanding presence to a wide range of litigation matters, including commercial disputes, professional liability actions, and quasi-criminal prosecutions. His clients regularly include corporations, shareholders, professionals as well as their regulatory bodies. Andrew stands§ up for his clients’ interests in court, having appeared in all levels of court in Ontario, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal and numerous administrative tribunals in Ontario, including the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. Andrew uses his experience and judgment to help his clients successfully navigate complex problems in short order. A seasoned advocate, he stands tall‡ against any challenge. Among other cases, he has successfully represented individuals charged with criminal offences and acted in the defence of a class action lawsuit involving a crypto-currency technology. .

Expertise

Details

  • Bio
  • Cases
  • Associations
  • Blog Posts
  • News & Media
  • Publications & Presentations
  • Recognition

Andrew Porter

is a partner at Lenczner Slaght.

Andrew's trial and appellate practice encompasses a wide range of litigation matters, including commercial litigation, professional liability, regulatory, and other public law matters. His clients regularly include corporations, shareholders, professionals, professional regulators, and other institutions. His advice and representation has proven effective both inside and outside the courtroom.

Andrew’s clients have relied on him in medical negligence actions, contentious shareholder and contractual disputes, numerous injunctions motions, in the prosecution of complex fraud matters, and in the defence of several class actions.

Andrew has appeared in the Supreme Court of Canada, at all levels of court and numerous administrative tribunals in Ontario, and in the British Columbia and Nova Scotia Courts of Appeal. He is an Adjunct Faculty member at Osgoode Hall Law School, and a co-leader of the firm’s pro bono program.

Show more

  • Canadian Bar Association

  • Ontario Bar Association

  • The Advocates' Society

  • “Next Exit, Please”: Escaping a Contractual Buy/Sell Process

    Shareholder agreements commonly contain buy/sell provisions establishing a process by which a shareholder can initiate a sale of their interest or can acquire the interest of another shareholder. The particulars of this process vary. Based on the parties’ bargain at the time the agreement is made, there are frequently unique and particular requirements to these provisions. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice emphasizes the importance of abiding by those requirements, as seen in a recent decision invalidating a purported closing of a share purchase transaction for the purchasers’ failure to comply with the specific process set out in the Shareholders’ Agreement. Justice Vella’s reasons in Leeder Automotive Inc et al v Warwick therefore offer an excellent reminder to shareholders that they disregard the requirements of a buy/sell provision at their peril.

    Andrew Porter & Sean Lewis | February 10, 2023

  • A Cautionary Tale: Admissions Against Interest in Regulatory and Subsequent Criminal Proceedings

    A recent decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal serves as a cautionary tale for regulated professionals and their counsel considering the terms of a potential resolution of discipline proceedings where related criminal proceedings may still be on the horizon. In R v Lo, the Court of Appeal upheld a trial judge’s decision during a criminal jury trial to admit into evidence the Agreed Statement of Fact (“ASF”) from a prior disciplinary hearing on related allegations before the College of Psychologists (“CPO”).

    Andrew Porter & Drew Black | October 13, 2020

  • Mutual Legal Assistance (with strings attached)

    Can a Judge impose conditions restricting the ability of a foreign country, receiving evidence pursuant to the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (MLACMA), from sharing that evidence with another country as it sees fit? Despite the obvious difficulties which arise from such an Order, Justice Nordheimer did just this in his recent decision in Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (Re), in which he attempts to strike a balance between Canada’s treaty obligations to assist in the investigation of criminal activity, and the privacy interests of third parties.

    Andrew Porter | October 4, 2016

  • Alberta Court Rejects Claim for Fraudulent Misrepresentation Inducing Marriage

    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).

    Andrew Porter | August 8, 2016

  • Much Ado About Nothing: Procedural "Unfairness" in Via Rail v. Cannon

    Is it procedurally unfair for a party to be required to proceed to a hearing if it believes, erroneously, that a deadline to file a complaint has not been met, but later learns that in fact it had been all along?

    Andrew Porter | January 15, 2016

Show more

  • Best Lawyers in Canada (2020-2024)

    Corporate & Commercial Litigation, Health Care Law, Medical Negligence (2023)

  • Canadian Legal Lexpert® Directory (2021-2023)

    Litigation - Corporate Commercial, Medical Negligence, Professional Liability

    •
scroll
Back to top