Expertise
-
Practice Areas:
- Bar Admissions:
- Education:
- University of Toronto (2020) JD
- University of Ottawa (2017) BA (History and Political Science)
Details
- Bio
- Cases
- Associations
- Blog Posts
- News & Media
- Publications & Presentations
Christine Windsor (she/her)
is an associate at Lenczner Slaght.
Christine maintains a broad litigation practice, with a focus on complex commercial disputes and professional negligence matters. She has appeared before all levels of Court in Ontario and has represented clients before the Consent and Capacity Board.
Prior to joining the firm, Christine practiced at a national firm where she gained extensive experience litigating commercial and securities-related disputes and professional negligence claims.
Christine received her JD from the University of Toronto Faculty of Law. She was the recipient of the Jeffrey W. Egner Prize in Labour Law, the Warren K. Winkler Prize in Labour Law, and the Laskin Prize in Constitutional Law.
-
The Estate of Michael G De Groote v DC Entertainment Corporation
Counsel to the successful respondent in a motion for leave to appeal a costs order to the Divisional Court. (Prior to joining Lenczner Slaght)
-
Counsel to a neurologist at trial and at the Court of Appeal involving the alleged delayed diagnosis of a spinal dural arteriovenous fistula. (Prior to joining Lenczner Slaght)
-
2496300 Ontario Inc v Farm Mutual Reinsurance Plan Inc
Counsel to the successful moving party in a motion for security for costs. (Prior to joining Lenczner Slaght)
-
Fuchigami v. Ontario College of Teachers
Counsel to the successful respondent in the judicial review of a decision of the Investigation Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers. (Prior to joining Lenczner Slaght)
-
Counsel to a non-party in a motion to examine the non-party for discovery in advance of trial. (Prior to joining Lenczner Slaght)
-
Counsel to an intensive care physician in a Form G application under Section 37(1) of the Health Care Consent Act. (Prior to joining Lenczner Slaght)
-
Counsel to an intensive care physician in a Form G application under Section 37(1) of the Health Care Consent Act. (Prior to joining Lenczner Slaght)
-
Park v Flo-Health Inc; Sekhon v Flo-Health Inc
Counsel to Flo-Health in Ontario and British Columbia class actions alleging improper disclosure of customer information. The actions plead privacy and consumer protection claims.
-
The Advocates’ Society
-
Ontario Bar Association
-
Canadian Bar Association
-
Toronto Lawyers’ Association
-
Supreme Court of Canada Holds that Bankruptcy May Erase Some Penalties Imposed by Regulators
In Poonian v British Columbia (Securities Commission), a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada clarified provisions in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”) that govern when a bankrupt is not released from a claim upon an order of discharge. The Supreme Court concluded that while bankruptcy may release bankrupts from administrative penalties, it will not release them from orders to pay amounts obtained by fraud.
-
Pay to Play: Court of Appeal Enforces Full Payment of Lender Fee
Barring a very narrow set of circumstances, sophisticated parties with equal bargaining power are generally held to the terms of their agreement. 660 Sunningdale GP Inc v First Source Mortgage Corporation is a recent example where a commercial developer, 660 Sunningdale GP, was ordered to pay the entirety of the lender fee to the lender, First Source Mortgage Corporation, even though the loan did not proceed.
-
Lenczner Slaght Welcomes Christine Windsor
Canada’s leading litigation firm continues to strengthen its talent pool, knowledge, and experience with the addition of a new associate.
-
No Harm, No Remedy: Limiting Principles Under the Ontario Consumer Protection Act
Jonathan Chen and Christine Windsor co-authored the article "No Harm, No Remedy: Limiting Principles Under the Ontario Consumer Protection Act", published in Class Action Defence Quarterly. In this article, Jonathan and Christine discuss Hoy v Expedia Group Inc, analyzing the limitations for class proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act for consumers seeking damages without providing proof of individual loss. They emphasize that consumer protection legislation is not a vehicle for seeking remedies that overcompensate claimants.