News & Blog
Featured News
Professional Liability and Regulation - On the Docket
-
It is commonly accepted that the evidence of expert witnesses must be impartial and that they owe a duty to the court to give fair, objective and non-partisan opinion evidence.
Class actions are common in the financial services sector. The relatively low bar for certification of such claims as class proceedings means that many such claims are certified. Yet certification is by no means automatic: where the litigation will not be significantly advanced through the resolution of common issues, courts will typically be reluctant to certify an action as a class proceeding.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has reinforced the principle that a persons privileged communications with his or her lawyer should be strictly protected, except in narrow circumstances.
In Salasel v. Cuthbertson (2015 ONCA 115), the Court of Appeal provided welcome clarification on the doctrine of absolute privilege, in a decision that revisited the case of Hassan Rasouli.
In Horri v The College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Divisional Court reaffirms the importance of consistency and justification when a professional regulator sanctions one of its members. Penalties for misconduct should fall within the range established by previous case law, and regulators should exercise caution before departing from precedent on the basis of “changing social values.”
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.
“If my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a wagon” –Yiddish proverb
Over a decade after Ontario’s Limitations Act, 2002 came into force, courts are still grappling with when a cause of action is discoverable and a limitation period starts to run. An increasingly litigated question relates to whether a limitation period runs while efforts are ongoing to fix the error that gave rise to the plaintiff’s claim. The Court of Appeal for Ontario recently addressed this issue in Presidential MSH Corp v Marr, Foster & Co LLP.
When one person negligently causes an accident, the law is clear about their responsibility. But when negligence acts on the part of a number of different parties combine to create a single accident, how should responsibility for that accident be apportioned between them? This was recently addressed by the Ontario Court of Appeal in its recent decision in Parent v Janandee Management Inc.
All professionals deal with difficult clients from time to time. Difficult clients are often characterized by an aversion to receiving negative opinions and a refusal to heed the counsel of the professionals they have retained. A natural temptation when dealing with such clients might be to stop giving negative opinions to them and to instead focus on simply completing the tasks which the client has instructed. However, as the recent decision in Western Troy Capital Resources Inc v Genivar Inc demonstrates, in order for professional firms to avoid potential liability, they must ensure that they state their negative opinions clearly to their clients, especially in circumstances where a professional believes that the work which they are being retained to complete is futile.
