Clients place a considerable amount of trust and confidence in their professional advisors (hereafter referred to simply as “professionals”) in the belief that, with their professional expertise, a particular outcome may be achieved. When the professional’s acts or omissions cause the client to suffer loss, the client is often faced with the following choice: sue the professional and pursue their legal rights through the courts, or allow the professional to take steps to try and remediate the issue.
The purpose of this article is to provide counsel with practical advice concerning the strict legal and procedural requirements which will need to be met before an Ontario court will recognize and enforce a U.S. judgment.
This blog seeks to explore and review “boomerang” and “partial” summary judgment motions, as well as to provide a brief overview on summary judgment motions in general.
Courts may order a plaintiff to pay money into court in certain prescribed situations as security for the defendant’s anticipated costs of the litigation. This is available to a defendant in circumstances where there is a likelihood that a defendant will have difficulty recovering costs from a plaintiff at the end of the litigation if the plaintiff loses and is ordered to pay costs to the defendant.
The wild swings in cryptocurrencies have created ripple effects in the world’s economy. This new type of currency has grown in value and popularity, in part, by the increased adoption by retail and institutional investors alike. There is little doubt that litigation will follow. One recent case is Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Costodian Inc. et al. Justice Hainey’s decision is quite interesting, because it provides a concise summary of how the respondent cryptocurrency exchange functioned and how complicated the process really is.
In Elias Restaurant v. Keele Sheppard Plaza Inc., 2020 ONSC 5457, a Toronto landlord and property manager terminated a commercial lease and sought to evict the owners of a Caribbean restaurant from their shopping plaza. Although the jurisprudence is rife with these types of commercial tenancy disputes, this one is of particular note.
The recent decision of C.M. Callow Inc. v. Zollinger, 2020 SCC 45, by the Supreme Court of Canada, has expanded the duty of good faith in the performance of contracts, by broadening the types of conduct that can lead to a finding of a breach of that duty.
The way in which legal research is conducted has evolved significantly in the past few decades with the advent of vast online directories such as Westlaw, LexisNexis, and CanLII. However, the process remains time-consuming, costly, and demanding, given the increasing complexity of the law and volume of information that must be gathered and synthesized. To address these challenges, new legal software products have been developed which apply artificial intelligence and machine learning to the process of legal research.
This blog focuses on the significant impacts that commercial landlords and tenants are facing and explores the difficult considerations that the court may have to make in determining how to allocate losses that both commercial landlords and tenants are inevitably experiencing during this time.
Given the unprecedented disruption wrought by COVID-19 in Ontario and around the world, both employers and employees may be asking themselves the following questions: 1. what is the difference between a layoff and being dismissed?; 2. does an employer have a statutory or common law right to lay off an employee absent a contractual provision explicitly or implicitly permitting layoffs to take place?; and 3. can an employee claim that a “layoff” is really wrongful dismissal and seek damages?