In the most keenly awaited commercial decision of recent years, the Supreme Court of Canada this morning held that the Ontario Court of Appeal in Indalex Limited (Re), 2011 ONCA 265 (CanLII) was mistaken in stating that deemed trust provisions to contributions to an underfunded pension scheme trumped the interests of a Debtor in Possession lender.

The central issue involved what priority would be given to pension plan wind-up deficits, particularly in insolvency proceedings involving the plan sponsor. Indalex Limited, and its related companies went into the tank. They obtained protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, . . . [more]

On Friday, January 25, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in a tight majority judgment (five: McLachlin, Deschamps, Abella, Cromwell and Karakatsanis, against four: LeBel, Fish, Rothstein and Moldaver) that the Quebec Civil Code discriminates against common-law spouses because it does not grant them the same rights as married couples in regard to spousal support and division of property. However, and thankfully, the Court does not find that the discriminatory nature of these Civil Code provisions is unconstitutional. According to the Court’s decision, the infringement is a reasonable limit prescribed by law that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Last Wednesday, the UK Supreme Court split on the issue of whether legal advice privilege extended to legal advice provided by accountants. In other words, did the privilege attach because of the nature of the communication, rather than the status of the person communicating.

The Court split 5 to 2, holding that legal advice privilege remains the exclusive preserve of clients of the legal profession. It protects communications passing between a lawyer and his or her client, with the lawyer acting in a professional capacity in connection with the provision of legal advice.

The Prudential case involved the issue of . . . [more]

An important case on the scope of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest, Canadian National Railway v. McKercher LLP and Gordon Wallace (on appeal from the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal), was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada on January 24. The Canadian Bar Association and the Federation of Law Societies appeared as interveners.

You can watch video of the submissions here.

You can review more information about the case, including the parties’ factums, on the SCC site. . . . [more]

The Divisional Court of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford on Friday in Magder v. Ford, reversing the decision of Justice Hackland, which had ruled that Ford had violated s. 5 of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA). The implications of Justice Hackland’s decision is that Ford’s seat as mayor could have been vacated under the City of Toronto Act (COTA).

Ford argued that the pecuniary interest of donations to a football team was not a violation of the city’s Code of Conduct, which would have allowed for his . . . [more]

This week, the UK Supreme Court launched a YouTube channel that highlights short summaries of judgments.

According to a press release published by the Court:

“Video of the five-minute summary given by the lead Justice in each appeal as they deliver their judgment will now be posted on the popular video-sharing website YouTube shortly after delivery in court. The move follows the success of the Court’s live web streaming of proceedings provided in partnership with Sky News (…)”

“The Justices’ summaries aim to explain briefly the background to the appeal in hand, the decision the court has reached, and

. . . [more]

On January 15, 2013, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg released its ruling in the cases of four Christian employees who argued that they suffered from discrimination and that their employers encroached upon their right to religious freedom at work.

The lengthy decision of Justice D. M. Brown released today in York University v. Markicevic is required reading for all civil litigators in Ontario.

It contains an up-to-the-minute, detailed consideration of the governing legal principles of: Mareva injunctions; fraudulent preferences; the admissibility of subjective intent and drafts in interpreting releases; and the test for summary judgment. It also powerfully reinforces the case law requiring unsuccessful parties to file their own bills of costs if they attack the quantum of costs sought by the successful party. See Justice Brown 2013-01-21 York U v. Markicevic . . . [more]

(beyond lip service), say two members of the Ontario Court of Appeal (if you read between the lines), even if you’re the Attorney-General of Canada or the Prime Minister of Canada. See USA v Leonard & Gionet 2012 ONCA 622. . . . [more]

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice just confirmed that when an employer attempted to temporarily lay off an employee of 12 years, it actually terminated her because the temporary layoff was made without providing consideration to the employee and was not a possibility included in the employment contract.

No, you can’t sell those pictures you found on Twitter. But their owner also can’t enjoy an absurd windfall if you do.

Three years ago we saw heartbreaking images of a devastating earthquake in Haiti. Photographer Daniel Morel saw the devastation firsthand. As it is his work to do, he captured photos of what he saw. He also shared his images via Twitter. As it turned out, it seems much of what the world saw in the early aftermath were those pictures taken by Mr. Morel. We saw them not, however, through any arrangements made by Mr. Morel.

Agence France . . . [more]

GTA Linux User’s Group, Political Outreach Group (David Collier-Brown, Editor)

Slaw readers may have noticed a flurry of interest around Voltage v. Doe and TekSavvy, an effort to get the courts to compel TekSavvy to identify 2000 households which Voltage Pictures argues are engaging in commercial copyright infringement via the “bit torrent” program.

Slaw has considered the subject of discovery of IP addresses recently in two posts: https://www.slaw.ca/2009/09/13/norwich-orders-applied-to-gmail-account/ and https://www.slaw.ca/2009/09/15/york-university-v-bell-canada-enterprises-observations-and-implications-for-future-norwich-jurisprudence/.

The technical community is following such cases with both interest and trepidation, as we expected suits against individuals to be rare, and limited to $100 to $5,000 . . . [more]