Archive for ‘Case Comment’
According to Mr. Mehedi he was scammed. He paid $3,742 to a company to provide career development services and assist him in finding a job. Prior to paying the fees, Mr. Mehedi asserts that he was promised that the company would find him a job as a project manager with a salary of $70,000. That job never materialized.
Mr. Mehedi sued the company and its principals. He lost at trial. The trial judge found the defendants to be credible and concluded that there was no basis for finding that any of the defendants made any promises or commitments to Mr. . . . [more]
Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp, 2014 SCC 53
will change existing practice (necessarily outside of Quebec civil law cases: I leave the effect on civil law to others) where the central appellate issue is the meaning of the contract.
From the headnote:
. . . [more]
The historical approach according to which determining the legal rights and obligations of the parties under a written contract was considered a question of law should be abandoned. Contractual interpretation involves issues of mixed fact and law as it is an exercise in which the principles of contractual interpretation are applied to the words of the
In a recent case, the Superior Court upheld the Master’s decision to backdate a Statement of Claim that was issued after the expiry of the limitation period.
The limitation period for the plaintiff’s claim was to expire on November 1, 2012.
On October 31st the plaintiff’s lawyer sent the Statement of Claim along with the necessary filing fees by overnight courier from Toronto to the Ottawa Court. Enclosed was a note for the Registrar which advised that the limitation period for filing the claim was November 1st and stating “I would really appreciate if you could call . . . [more]
A recent decision from the Divisional Court provides an outrageous, and perfect example of how the legal system in the Province allows residential tenants to live rent free for over a year, and in this case, close to a year and a half.
The landlord originally applied to the Landlord and Tenant Board (the “Board”) for an order terminating the tenancy and evicting the tenant on the grounds that she had failed to pay her rent.
The first hearing was scheduled for April 8, 2013. That hearing was adjourned at the tenant’s request and was rescheduled to June 7, 2013. . . . [more]
US Supreme Court Clarifies Law on Warrantless Cell Phone Searches. Will the Supreme Court of Canada Follow?
Lower courts in both Canada and the US have been deeply divided on the application of their respective Supreme Courts’ precedents on whether the police need a warrant to search the contents of a smart/cell phone seized during a lawful arrest. On June 25, 2014, the US Supreme Court unanimously settled US law in Riley v. California, No. 13-132. The court found that privacy interests at stake outweigh any legitimate governmental interest, absent any “exigent circumstances”.
The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution provides protection against unreasonable search. A common law exception to the protection under the Amendment . . . [more]