“You may have won a million dollars!” … or not, if you don’t happen to have the pre-selected winning number. Various bonus prizes for early birds are also offered. This is a common marketing device, but the Supreme Court of Canada held unanimously in Richard v Time 2012 SCC 8 that it offended the Quebec Consumer Protection Act. Mr. Richard got $1000 in damages for being misled (no misles were involved), plus $15,000 in punitive damages, plus his costs at trial (where he had won) and on appeal (where he had lost), and on a solicitor-client basis in the SCC. . . . [more]
Archive for ‘Case Comment’
It hasn’t taken long for a court to apply the new tort of invasion of seclusion first recognized by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Jones v. Tsige January. While not providing a great deal of added nuance, the Small Claims Court’s decision in Connolly v. Telus Communications Co.,  O.J. No. 464, does provide some new insights. While providing little new insight into the substance of this new tort, the case is somewhat remarkable for its very subject matter.
First, it involves a lawsuit by an aggrieved Telus customer sued his mobile service provider over its perceived mishandling . . . [more]
Summary (added Feb. 19, 2012)
The Supreme Court of Canada stated in R. v. Sheppard,  1 S.C.R. 869 at para. 24, 2002 SCC 26 that
at the trial level, the reasons justify and explain the result. The losing party knows why he or she has lost. Informed consideration can be given to grounds for appeal. Interested members of the public can satisfy themselves that justice has been done, or not, as the case may be.
It is my opinion that the reasons in this case do not adequately . . . [more]