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.
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.).
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?
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.
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.
This blog is intended to provide a brief overview of force majeure clauses and the equitable principle of frustration of contract and their potential applicability to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The death of a party during a lawsuit almost inevitably complicates the litigation. In this first in a series of blogs, we set out the procedural steps that must be taken in order to proceed with the lawsuit following the death of a party.
Security for costs is the payment of money or other security into court by a plaintiff or plaintiff by counterclaim to cover future costs orders made in favour of a successful defendant. Forcing a plaintiff to post security to cover your client’s costs is important for ensuring that your client is not left with an unenforceable costs order after successfully defeating a claim. It is also a useful tool in defending your client against frivolous claims. However, far more than just an effective costs-protection device, a successful security for costs motion can demoralize a plaintiff and even make the plaintiff think twice about continuing to pursue its claim. But when should such a motion be brought?