“Boomerang” and Partial Summary Judgment Motions
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.
When can a defendant seek further security for costs?
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.
Tales from the Crypt: Cryptocurrency and a case review of Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Costodian Inc. et al.
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.
Anti-Black Racism and Relief from Commercial Forfeiture
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.
Honestly Speaking: The Supreme Court Has Expanded the Duty of Good Faith in the Performance of Contracts
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.
Can artificial intelligence make legal research more cost-effective without compromising quality?
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.
Commercial Lease Enforcement and Rent Payments in the Age of COVID-19
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.
Layoffs and COVID-19: Isolating the Issues
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?
COVID-19, Force Majeure Clauses and Frustration of Contract
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.
Two sides of same coin: Derivative action and oppression remedy
One of the most fundamental principles of Canadian corporate law is that a corporation has a legal personality distinct from its shareholders. At common law, shareholders were precluded from bringing their own action in respect of a wrong done to the corporation. Even majority or controlling shareholders had no personal cause of action for a wrong done to the corporation.