News & Blog
Featured News
Public Law - On the Docket
-
The Liquor Control Board of Ontario has lost a protracted dispute with the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) over its right to collect the personal information of wine club members in the recent case of Liquor Control Board of Ontario v. Vin De Garde Wine Club, 2015 ONSC 2537.
In 2017, the Canada Food Inspection Agency (the “CFIA”) determined that wines produced by Psagot Winery, a vineyard located within an Israeli settlement in the West Bank, could be sold in Canada with a “Product of Israel” label to meet “country of origin” labelling requirements required under the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act and the Food and Drugs Act. This decision was challenged by Dr. David Kattenburg, a Canadian activist, on the basis that the wine was in fact produced on occupied Palestinian territory and not within Israel, making the labelling of “Product of Israel” false and misleading and therefore contrary to the applicable legislation.
Yesterday’s decision from the Supreme Court of Canada in Wilson v. AECL will no doubt generate (and has already generated: e.g. here, here) significant commentary.
Until recently, there was some uncertainty as to whether, in some circumstances, the decisions of private organizations might be subject to judicial review.
Laws against price-gouging have come to Ontario. On Saturday, March 28, 2020, the provincial government issued a press release announcing that it was enacting an Order to prohibit price-gouging. The press release announced that that Order “prohibits persons, including retailers, from selling necessary goods for unconscionable prices”. The press release also announced that the definition of unconscionable prices would be “consistent with well-established principles from the Consumer Protection Act.”
An interlocutory injunction is a valuable tool to maintain the status quo between parties, pending the resolution of litigation. Most disputes over whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted will depend on whether there will be “irreparable harm” if an injunction is not granted. However, as Guelph Taxi v Guelph Police Service shows, it is also critical that the party seeking an injunction give a meaningful undertaking to pay damages if the injunction is granted but the party is ultimately unsuccessful.
The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and the National Concern Doctrine: A Rights-Based Approach?Over the past two days, the Supreme Court of Canada heard appeals from decisions of the Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario Courts of Appeal on the constitutionality of the federal government’s Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (the “GGPPA” or the “Act”).
To what extent can, or should, courts review decisions by government decision-makers? Administrative law is all about finding the right balance.
The Supreme Court of Canada announced this spring it has plans to revisit that balance and the standard of review for administrative decisions in a trilogy of cases to be heard by the Court in the fall of 2018. Its recent decision in West Fraser Mills Ltd v Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal and Workers’ Compensation Board of British Columbia, released last week, might hint at how.
In the season of giving the Supreme Court of Canada has given lawyers and legal scholars the greatest gift of all: a new approach to the standard of review.
The Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed a robust and plaintiff-friendly framework for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments against state supporters of terrorism under the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, SC 2012 c 1 (the “JVTA”).
