A recent Supreme Court of British Columbia decision reveals that an award for aggravated and/or punitive damages is not automatic where termination for cause is not justified and upheld by the court. . . . [more]
Archive for ‘Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions’
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court of Canada published a statistical overview of its work for the decade from 2006 to 2016.
It provides data on the following:
- “Cases Filed”
- “Applications for Leave Submitted”
- “Appeals Heard”: by category of law, by regional origin, as of right/by leave
- “Appeal Judgments”: the number of judgments rendered each year, how many were unanimous, how many were delivered from the bench/reserved
- “Average Time Lapses”
On 18 February 2013 the Minister of national Revenue moved ex parte for an order under section 231.2(3) of the Income Tax Act, authorizing him to impose on KPMG LLP a requirement to provide information relating to certain of its unnamed clients, including their identities, and documentation relating to their participation in an offshore company tax structure.
KPMG moved for an order quashing the ex parte order. It sought a declaration that the sections of the Income Tax Act which authorized the order were of no force or effect because they unjustifiably infringe the protections of life, liberty and security . . . [more]
The U.S. 2016 presidential election and post-election is causing much debate, criticism, and protest outside of America. Canadians have actively participated in public marches and protests in response to Trump’s comments and proposed policies, as well as the recent U.S. ban on entry to that country from certain Muslim nations. According to a recent CNN/ORC poll, more than eight-in-10 Americans have said that the U.S. was more deeply divided on major issues in 2016 than in the past several years.
With this in mind, we need to ask where does political talk fit in the workplace? Or more importantly, . . . [more]
The existence of racism in our legal system is no surprise.
David Tanovich has written extensively how the Charter has still largely been ineffective in addressing racism in the criminal justice system. Faisal Mirza has explained how mandatory minimum sentences disproportionate affect black Canadians, and he wrote this in 2001, before the additional sentences added in 2009.
We can go even further back to 1993, and the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System, which described a widespread and prevalent prejudice against blacks as follows:
. . . [more]
First what we are dealing with at root, and
Written by Cristina Lavecchia, paralegal, editor at First Reference
An Applicant recently went before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (Tribunal), alleging that the Respondent failed to pay settlement monies owed to him per the schedule agreed to in Minutes of Settlement. The Applicant sought full payment of the general damages amount agreed to in the settlement and a further $1,000 for the harm caused by the breach. Although the Tribunal found there to be a contravention of settlement, it deemed that the delay in receiving the monies was relatively minor, and therefore an award of compensation was not warranted. . . . [more]
SCOTUSblog, the well-known American blog devoted to analysis of the United States Supreme Court, has been providing great coverage of US President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit) to fill the vacancy left on the top court of our Southern neighbour by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016.
Here are some links. Each of the SCOTUSblog posts below contains extensive links to news, commentary and analysis:
- Reactions to the Gorsuch nomination (January 31): “In reaction to President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch, politicians and interest groups are
After the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2015 decision in Chevron Corp. v. Yaiguaje, where the Court affirmed the ability of our legal system to hear foreign enforcement actions, the matter has returned to the Ontario Superior Court. The original stay by Justice Brown in 2013 was set aside by the Court, but the issue of the corporate separateness what not addressed until now.
A series of summary judgments, heard together, and a separate decision to amend the statement of claim further to add Chevron Canada Capital Company (“CCCC”), were recently released, shedding light on whether the corporate veil . . . [more]
To combat link rot, the Supreme Court of Canada today launched an online archive of Internet Sources Cited in SCC Judgments (1998 – 2016).
Link rot refers to broken URLs or to URLs that direct to the original site but whose corresponding document has been removed or relocated without any information about where to find it.
. . . [more]
“The Office of the Registrar of the SCC, recognizing that web pages or websites that the Court cites in its judgments may subsequently vary in content or be discontinued, has located and archived the content of most
One of the inherent limitations of the decision is that it was decided on summary judgment. The defendant failed to file a defence, and failed to appear on the motion, sending an email to the plaintiff stating, “… nor am I filing a defence so you can do what you need to.”
Here was yet another privacy tort, and one with the promise to provide . . . [more]
Orthodox Jews are no strangers to court in Canada. We have them to thank for the seminal s. 2(a) case in Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem and the infamous “ghet” case in Bruker v. Marcovitz (where arguably only one party was observant).
Civil disputes between Orthodox Jews are less prevalent though, in part given a perceived belief by some that it is prohibited. Consider Maimonides’ (Rambam) statement in Hilchos Sanhedrin 26:7 in the 12th c. CE,
. . . [more]
Whoever has his case judged by non-Jewish laws or courts, even if their laws are the same [as the Torah]… It is as if he
The much anticipated appeal in Awan v. Levant was released today by the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Superior Court of Justice decision, now largely upheld on appeal, was important because it deals with defamation against a lawyer, but also provided salient points for understanding the nuance of online defamation in the modern era.
Central to the plaintiff’s claim of defamation was that he was referred to as a liar by the defendant. Justice Feldman, for the court, referred to paras 26-27 of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson,
. . . [more]
 … Brown’s