Mareva and Anton Piller orders are two extraordinary forms of civil injunctive relief that may be granted prior to a full trial. Often, these orders are obtained without notice. To obtain these types of relief, the threshold to meet is high because the consequences are significant.
Parties to a lawsuit are often surprised to learn that the accusations thrown at them, and at times deeply personal information about them, may be filed in the court system and open to the entire public. Instinctually, many parties may wish to have certain personal information disclosed in the litigation not form part of the public record.
Investors often consider cryptocurrency and digital assets to be global assets and are not cognizant of the jurisdictional and legal issues that can apply in the event of a dispute. For Canadians investing in such assets, the applicable legal jurisdiction should not just be considered to be a peripheral issue.Canada is home to a large and growing community of retail and institutional investors, and its courts and regulatory bodies are increasingly being asked to address disputes involving global crypto platforms. Yet, unlike in the United States - where the Congress recently passed the Genius Act to create a clearer regulatory framework - Canadian law remains somewhat unsettled.
An analysis of Rule 9.01(1) and (2)and Lev v. Lev. In estates and trusts related matters, both Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure and Manitoba’s Court of King's Bench Rules permit litigation being brought against a trustee without joining beneficiaries as parties subject to certain exceptions. In Manitoba, failure to join beneficiaries will be fatal to the attack on a trust. In Ontario, however, we could not find one case that addresses this issue. The purpose of this blog is to review the Manitoba case in question and assess the viability of such a defence to an attack on a testamentary document in Ontario.
Justice Kurz’s recent decision, McNeil v. Kaloustian, highlights some of the risks associated with obtaining a Certificate of Pending Litigation (commonly known as a “CPL”) without notice. A CPL is a document registered on title to a property to provide a notice and warning to the public that the property is subject to a court dispute. Registering a CPL has the practical effect of restraining all dealings with the property (financing, mortgaging, sale, etc.).
Generally, buyers who are unable to close the purchase of real estate risk losing their deposits, even if the seller suffers no loss. However, there are instances where a seller would be required to return the buyer's deposit regardless of several factors.
You signed the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “APS”) to purchase a new development property, you paid the deposit, but the seller has since breached their own obligations under the APS. You are now having second thoughts about moving forward with the purchase of that new home. Can you get out of the APS?
The Supreme Court of Canada in Smith v. Jones described solicitor-client privilege as the highest privilege recognized by the courts. In its recently issued judgement in Continental Bank of Canada v. Continental Currency Exchange Canada Inc. 2022 ONSC 647 CanLII, the Superior Court of Justice underscored the sanctity of the privilege and provided a stark reminder to litigants of the powerful remedies available to the court when an opposing party accesses confidential and privileged information which is relevant to the issues in the litigation.
One of the most frustrating times for litigants is when a court issues an order against their adversary and it is ignored with impunity. In many cases, the non-compliant litigant is given several chances to adhere to the court’s order without facing sanctions. Watching your adversary flout the rules and treat court orders as suggestions can make the innocent litigant feel as if the court’s orders can be undermined or ignored. This angst gives rise to frustration, bewilderment and the question: is there a way to deal (effectively) with parties that disregard court orders?
The legal system largely responded to the COVID-19 pandemic by being forced to take advantage of technological advances that had long been ignored. The Rules of Civil Procedure were updated to allow for service by email and filing using online portals; the system transitioned to Zoom hearings and using CaseLines for working with documents.Many of these changes were, according to most in the profession, long overdue and are likely to remain the norm even after the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic is behind us.