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.

From the Terms of Use:

“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

Almost exactly one year ago, I shared a decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice which created a new privacy tort (the second after Jones v. Tsige) for public disclosure of private facts.

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,

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,

[26] … Brown’s

[This post is being published simultaneously on our blog]

Each year we compile lists of the most popular cases in the past year. This year is no exception, because one of the comforting things in life is consistency, and the most read cases on CanLII.org give you that this year. Five of the cases on the list were on last year’s list too, and the top two cases are unchanged from last year; four of the cases on this year’s list were on the top 10 list in 2014.

As ever we invite discussion of the cases . . . [more]

Defamation is an injury of sorts. Granted, it’s not a bodily harm exactly of the type we see in motor vehicle collisions, or the other types of intangible harms we see in non-pecuniary damages. Instead, defamation deals with a harm to a reputation.

The issue has come to a head in Ontario, with one of the most prominent players in the personal injury industry claiming foul against the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA) over a CPD they conducted on marketing and the Rules of Professional Conduct,

Personal injury law firm Diamond & Diamond has lashed out at organizers of

Written by Cristina Lavecchia, Editor, First Reference

The Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) recently dismissed an application where an employee claimed that her employer threatened her with discipline for exercising her right to refuse unsafe work. Why? The employee did not have the right to delay the employer’s investigation of her work refusal, to wait until her preferred union representative completed a personal matter and attended at the workplace. . . . [more]

We like to believe that our citizenship is integral to our identity. Unless we renounce it, we like to believe it cannot be taken away from us, and that is why we cherish it so much.

Of course that changed in 2014 with Bill C-24, which strengthened the ability of the government to revoke citizenship. Unless it was obtained fraudulently, the government was not able to enact this measure in modern times.

The number of revocations under Bill C-24 have actually increased under the new government, which appeared to criticize it while in opposition and restored citizenship to some . . . [more]

Written by Cristina Lavecchia, paralegal, Editor, First Reference

In a recent decision (Misetich v. Value Village Stores Inc.), the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the Tribunal) questioned the value of various past case laws that have introduced and applied different tests for family status discrimination, including the Johnstone test. More specifically, the Tribunal disapproved of the existence of distinct “tests” for establishing family status discrimination. . . . [more]

The Supreme Court of Canada, in Royal Bank v Trang, made a privacy decision that will bring a sigh of relief to lenders and creditors.

A judgment creditor asked the sheriff to seize and sell a house to satisfy the judgment. To do that, the sheriff needed to know how much was owed on the mortgage on the house. The mortgage lender didn’t have express consent to provide the information, and said PIPEDA prevented it from giving it. Lower courts agreed.

But the SCC took a more practical approach. The issue was whether there was implied consent to release . . . [more]

Causation in law is a legal fiction. The philosophical underpinnings behind compensation in tort law require some finding of fault, in order to restore the party to their original position. The but-for test used to evaluate these claims is the compromise the law has developed to hold someone accountable for harm suffered by another party.

However, not all forms of compensation in law are administrated by tort law. Injuries suffered by workers as part of the workforce, in particular, have been carved out into a no-fault regime, specifically for the purpose of resolving these issues more efficiently, more effectively, and . . . [more]