The pleadings are arguably one of the most important aspects of a civil claim, setting the groundwork for a proceeding in terms of damages, establishing the relevant issues, and informing the likelihood or possibility of settlement.

Sure, there are ways to amend your pleadings. But these typically cost time and money, and the ability to do so is not always guaranteed.

A recent Court of Appeal for Ontario decision McLean v. Wolfson illustrates some of the problems that can emerge in pleadings.

The self-represented Plaintiff alleged medical negligence during a leg surgery in 1995. Presumably to address the obvious issues . . . [more]

At the close of proceedings, especially contentious ones, parties often experience a form of buyer’s remorse, especially when they realize the discounted costs they may be entitled to, and the remainder they are still responsible for. Litigation can also be time-consuming, exhausting, and emotionally draining.

Responsible counsel often provide these warnings up-front, to set realistic client expectations, and sure that a mutual understanding around services are agreed upon, and hopefully reduced in writing. Some proceedings especially stand out as particularly futile, especially when characterized as such by the presiding judge.

Justice Dunphy recently released a decision in TSCC 2204 v. . . . [more]

Daniel Standing LL.B., Editor, First Reference Inc.

If you lost your job today, how are your chances for employment elsewhere? Depending on your industry, the answer could range from promising to dismal. In April 2020, when the pandemic was a new reality, the answer could have been different still. At that time, in the automotive industry, people were driving less. New cars gathered dust in dealers’ parking lots. Many thousands of jobs were affected, and sometimes courts were called upon to sort out the aftermath. In Hogan v 1187938 B.C. Ltd., 2021 BCSC 1021 (CanLII), Justice Gerow’s focus on . . . [more]

Over a year after Ontario introduced CaseLines to civil courts, nearly all matters are using this digital case management system. But it doesn’t mean they’re using it properly.

An unsuccessful partial summary judgment motion before Justice Dunphy in Basaraba v. Bridal Image Inc. illustrates this problem,

On December 2, 2021, the Ontario government’s Bill 27, Working for Workers Act, 2021 to promote healthy work-life balance, the right to disconnect and to further enable competitiveness by banning unfair non-compete agreements that are used to restrict work opportunities, among other employment law-related changes, received royal assent with some amendments.

Before Bill 27 was ordered for third reading, the Standing Committee on Social Policy applied amendments that were approved to some of the following provisions of the Bill: . . . [more]

Anyone even within the vicinity of the justice system in Canada these days can easily tell that it is overwhelmed. The sheer volume of cases alone is cause for concern, and that doesn’t begin to illustrate the significant delays to everyone involved.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario recently released a decision in R. v. Artis, 2021 ONCA 862 which illustrates the types of problems the bench is facing, overturning a conviction and sentence in a case where the reasons for a verdict were provided about 31 months after the Notice of Appeal was filed.

The court stated,

[11]

Written by Daniel Standing, LL.B., Editor, First Reference Inc.

Force majeure clauses are commonly included in commercial agreements to reduce the effect or risk of disruptive events that are beyond the control of the contracting parties. The concept of force majeure is related to the contract law doctrine of frustration since they both deal with the implications of an event that affects a party’s ability to comply with the contract. Force majeure provisions are distinct, however, in that they seek to define the types of events that qualify as force majeure, and they should define the contractual consequences that flow . . . [more]

Last week, I mentioned steps taken by the Supreme Court of Canada to make the law more accessible to the public. This includes case summaries provided by the Court, to provide an unofficial and streamlined overview of the case.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario has recently adopted a similar approach in Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 ONCA 779 (CanLII), providing its own summary of the 300 page decision on its site.

Beyond the length of the decision, the case involves an are of significant public interest, involving the Robinson-Huron Treaty and the Robinson-Superior Treaty. The appeal involves . . . [more]

The Supreme Court of Canada plays a special role in our constitutional democracy, but it’s often one that is not fully understood by the public, or even the legal profession.

Over 20 years ago, Lorraine E. Weinrib stated in “The Supreme Court of Canada in the Age of Rights,”

Democracy does not trump the other principles; nor is it the
raison d’etre of the Constitution. One can sum up the Court’s analysis with the following statement from an Israeli judgment elucidating the Israel’s new rights-protecting system, which is, in part, modelled on Canada’s Charter:

“true” democracy recognizes the power

Lewis Waring, Paralegal, Student at law, Editor, First Reference Inc.

In Abdon v Brandt Industries Canada Ltd (“Abdon”), an employer rightfully dismissed an employee for cause as a result of a tendency to fail to show up for work without authorization. After the employer engaged in a series of disciplinary steps, the employee’s dismissal for cause became the only reasonable option to respond to the employee’s egregious failure to fulfill their duties in the workplace. . . . [more]

Many litigants have confusion around pleading declaratory relief. In this blog post, I provide a brief summary of declaratory relief.

A declaration is a narrow remedy. A declaration confirms or denies the existence of a right. It is available without a cause of action. It is also available whether or not other consequential damages are sought (e.g. payment of damages, injunction, etc). 

In Savary v Tarion, 2021 ONSC 2409, Justice Bale of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice provides guidance on seeking a declaration from the court. Justice Bale writes that a declaration is not requested for the finding . . . [more]

While the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a sharp increase in family law conflict, these disputes have recently shifted to vaccination of minors. At times, this is being attempted contrary to one or both of the parent’s wishes.

The Health Care Consent Act, 1996 does not state a minimum age for capacity for medical decisions, but instead provides relevant factors,

Capacity

4 (1) A person is capable with respect to a treatment, admission to a care facility or a personal assistance service if the person is able to understand the information that is relevant to making a decision about