Legal Blog: General Law

Simplified Rules

Major amendments to the Simplified Rules (Rule 76) come into force on January 1, 2020. A listing of the changes follows:

• The monetary limit has been increased from $100,000 to $200,000.
• Simplified Rules trials cannot be conducted with a jury.
• Maximum discovery has been increased from 2 hours to 3 hours.
• There is only one method of trial; it is the equivalent of the previous summary trial. Evidence in chief must be delivered by way of affidavit and the parties may then cross-examine orally.
Continue Reading >

Injunctions, Mareva and Norwich

Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 282 v. Yahoo! Inc., 2017 Ont SCJ

A Norwich order is a form of equitable relief that, if granted, requires a 3^rd party to a potential action to disclose information that is otherwise confidential. The governing factors follow: has the applicant raised a valid, bona fide or reasonable claim; was the 3^rd party, from whom the information is sought, involved in the acts complained of; is the 3^rd party the only practicable source for the information; can the 3^rd party be indemnified for costs to which it may be exposed because of the disclosure; and do the interests of justice favour the disclosure? In this case, the court ordered Yahoo to disclose the identity of a person sending defamatory emails.

Limitations Act

Lauesen v. Silverman 2016 Ont CA

The plaintiff was unhappy with the settlement from the moment of the settlement and felt she had received too little. Ultimately, she claimed that her lawyer negligently advised her to enter into the settlement agreement, but that she did not know that there was negligence until her new lawyer obtained an expert report indicating that there was catastrophic impairment. The court held that the limitation period ran not from the settlement date, even though the plaintiff thought that she received too little, but from the date that she realised that her lawyer could have negligently advised her. Although she felt she had received too little at the time of the settlement, she had no basis to believe that her lawyer had advised her incorrectly at that time.

Personal Liability

Canadian Appliance Source Inc. v. Utradecanada.com Inc. 2016 Ont SCJ

The plaintiff wanted to add parties to an action. The judge held that no evidence needs to be filed to support that motion, unless there was prejudice or abuse of process. The judge held that a pleading in which the new parties were said to have improperly and unlawfully misrepresented themselves and their corporation was sufficient to raise a tenable claim to strip the corporate veil.

Just Another Puff Piece

This year, 4/20 feels different to me; not so taboo.  Canadians appear, to me, to be ready for legalised-recreational cannabis use. According to a recent Globe and Mail/ Nanos poll, the majority of Canadians (nearly 70% of those sampled) believe that cannabis should be legalised.

Based on a quick review of pot-related headlines in 2016, Canada is headed towards legalised-recreational cannabis use.[1]

This led me to wonder: why, how, and when was the use of pot prohibited? Let’s start at the beginning.

Law Firm’s Interview

Running a successful business can lead to legal disputes. Imagine, your supplier, client, or competitor wrongs you (the “Harm”). No matter how hard you try to settle the Harm, the wrong-doer continues to dismiss your concerns, ignore you, or even worse, insult you. The Harm starts to eat at you: you think about it on the drive to work; you think about it at lunch; and when you get home at the end of a long day, you find yourself obsessing over it while brushing your teeth. It infuriates you. You decide that you need to take action. You decide to enforce your legal rights.

Litigation and alternative dispute resolution are stressful topics. To make the matters worse, how do you find a good lawyer? Maybe you ask  a friend for a referral. Maybe you scour the internet and find a blog posting related to your case written by a lawyer. However it happens, you settle on the name of a law firm or a lawyer. You schedule a meeting at the firm. You attend and find yourself sitting in a conference room surrounded by leather-bound books across the table from a lawyer.

So what happens next? It is time for you to interview your potential lawyer. Litigation is a battlefield. Is this the gladiator you want to send into war? Remember to ask the important questions.

CASL in Force

Canada’s anti-spam legislation (“CASL”) came into force July 1, 2014. Since then, the CRTC has been dealing with thousands of complaints: see the CBC article here: CRTC flooded

Anti-Spam

Canada’s new Anti-Spam Legislation (“CASL”), comes into force on July 1, 2014. The legislation generally prohibits the sending of commercial electronic messages (“CEMs”) without the recipient’s consent. Presumably, the legislation was enacted to rid us of the scourge of unwanted and unsolicited emails. How effective it will be is another matter. No doubt, it will reduce unsolicited emails from reputable Canadian businesses. However, will offshore entities really care about Canadian legislation – probably not. Will the purveyors of malware, viruses, and phishing care about Canadian legislation – definitely not.