It was recently reported in the media that after signing a peace bond, Jian Ghomeshi apologized in court on May 11, 2016, for his “sexually inappropriate conduct” towards a former co-worker who accused him of sexually assaulting her. Following the apology, the Crown withdrew the criminal charge of sexual assault for which Ghomeshi was slated to stand trial on June 6, 2016. . . . [more]
Archive for ‘Case Comment’
A panel of 3 Divisional Court judges have overturned a ruling of the Landlord and Tenant Board (“LLTB”) and have ruled that a landlord is prohibited from terminating the tenancy relationship with his tenant until she dies.
The landlord and tenant are brother and sister. In 2006 they entered into a tenancy agreement which permitted the sister to live in the brother’s basement for the rest of her life in exchange for $500 per month in rent. The written tenancy agreement explicitly stated that the tenancy was not for a fixed term.
In 2014 the brother attempted to terminate the . . . [more]
An Ontario Superior Court Judge has expressed his hope that legislative changes will be made to stop unscrupulous tenants from “gaming the system”.
The facts of the case are straight forward and rather appalling.
The tenant entered into an agreement to lease a condominium in downtown Toronto starting in September, 2015. The rent for the first month cleared but the rent for October bounced. The tenant has not paid another cent since that time, although he continued to reside in the unit.
The landlord served a “Notice to End Tenancy Early for Non-Payment of Rent” on October 16, 2015. On . . . [more]
Are Landlords Entitled to Take Photos for the Purpose of Listing or Sale Without the Consent of the Current Tenant?
A panel of three Ontario Divisional Court Judges have held that residential landlords are not permitted to photograph a property while it is occupied by a tenant unless the lease explicitly permits such photographs to be taken, or the landlord obtains the express consent of the tenant.
The Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board ordered a tenant to be evicted when she refused to allow the landlord access to the property for the purpose of photographing it so that it could be listed for sale. The tenant refused on the basis that her privacy would be invaded if photographs of her . . . [more]
The Ontario Court of Appeal has reaffirmed that in cases where there is a continuing breach of contract the limitation period for bringing the lawsuit resets each day as the continuing breach continues to occur.
The ruling occurred in the context of a commercial leasing dispute. One of the clauses of the lease required the tenant to carry on its business on a continuous basis from the leased premises. Although the tenant continued to pay rent, it failed to operate from the leased premises as required by the lease. The landlord sued the tenant after the end of the . . . [more]
About a year and a half ago I wrote a post about a plaintiff, Mr. Mehedi, who believed that he was scammed. The facts of the case are summarized in my prior post.
Mr. Mehedi lost at trial and then the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. About a month after his appeal was dismissed, Mr. Mehedi saw a segment on CBC’s Marketplace which purportedly exposed the scam to which he had fallen victim.
Mr. Mehedi attempted to have his trial re-opened so that he could use the CBC Marketplace segment as fresh evidence. He was directed . . . [more]
In the case of Armstrong v Lendon, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice concluded that the employer had to pay 21 months of reasonable notice plus aggravated damages for the manner of termination which caused humiliation, embarrassment and the loss of self-esteem. The court did not buy the employer’s argument that there was just cause for the termination, especially since the allegations for cause were made after the fact. . . . [more]
I happened upon an interesting story on a website called Collective Evolution entitled, “Canadians Sued The Bank Of Canada & Won. Mainstream Media & Government Blacks Out Story.” The report stated:
“The truth is, The Bank of Canada used to issue debt free loans to the government, which meant that the nation would not go into debt to private banking institutions. When that changed, private bankers/corporations essentially gained control and ownership of the country.”
This struck me as a potentially conspiratorial piece on a sketchy website but certainly intriguing enough that I wanted to know more. So I’ve . . . [more]
In a word. No.
The Ontario Court of Appeal has reaffirmed, definitively, that an employer’s financial circumstances are not relevant to the determination of reasonable notice in a particular case.
The lower court judge had awarded teachers who had their employment terminated from their school 12 months of pay in lieu of notice. However, the judge reduced this by half, to 6 months, in large part due to the financial circumstances that the school was in. The lower court judge cited a passage from a prior decision that noted that “The law does not ignore the dilemma of the . . . [more]
In Markoulakis v SNC-Lavalin Inc., the Ontario Superior Court of Justice concluded after considering the Bardal factors that long-serving employee Eftihios (Ed) Markoulakis was entitled to 27 months of common law reasonable notice following his termination from a senior role at SNC-Lavalin. The court noted that notice beyond 24 months is within the court’s discretion in exceptional cases. Clearly, this was one of those cases. . . . [more]
Household pets are a cherished part of many families. Yet, in the words of Auxier J. in Pezzente v. McClain, 2005 BCPC 352 (CanLII), the law remains “coldly unemotional” towards companion animals, which continue to be considered “just another consumer product.” Nonetheless, there is good reason for continuing to restrict the compensation available in pet death or injury cases. A line of cases out of Ontario has begun to award more than just replacement value and incurred costs to owners of wrongfully injured or killed pets – and it may be setting a precarious precedent.
In Ferguson v. . . . [more]
In 2012, the Copyright Modernization Act was enacted to make a number of significant changes to Canada’s existing copyright regime. One of the primary goals of this new legislation was to ensure that Canada did not open the floodgates to “copyright trolls” (copyright plaintiffs who file lawsuits simply to extort quick settlements) and devolve into the shocking state of copyright litigation south of the border. The federal government hopes to balance the rights of copyright holders with the privacy rights of the alleged copyright infringers. The Act now has a statutory limit of $5,000 on damages for all non-commercial copyright . . . [more]