As of Oct. 1, 2020, significant changes to the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 come into effect in Ontario. These changes were part of the legal omnibus Bill 161, which received Royal Assent on July 8, 2020.

The amendments are intended to ensure that claims proceed more quickly, with greater opportunity to dismiss certain claims at an earlier stage. It supporters claim that it provides courts a more balanced framework to determine which chases are best suited for certification.

Some of the amendments are based on the Law Commission of Ontario (LCO) report in July 2019, including recommendations on the timing . . . [more]

Every week we present the summary of a decision handed down by a Québec court provided to us by SOQUIJ and considered to be of interest to our readers throughout Canada. SOQUIJ is attached to the Québec Department of Justice and collects, analyzes, enriches, and disseminates legal information in Québec.

PÉNAL (DROIT) : Il n’est pas incompatible avec les arrêts Snooks c. Procureur général du Canada (C.A., 2020-04-24), 2020 QCCA 586, SOQUIJ AZ-51684237, 2020EXP-1076, et Paul c. Lalande (Archambault Establishment), (C.A., 2020-05-08), 2020 QCCA 632, SOQUIJ AZ-51686241, 2020EXP-1242, que la Chambre criminelle de la Cour supérieure continue d’entendre les . . . [more]

If a lawyer fails to prepare his client for mediation, and bullies her into a settlement, a court may find the lawyer negligent and award damages to the client amounting to the difference between what she settled for and what she likely would have obtained in court (or arbitration). That is what happened in Raichura v Jones, 2020 ABQB 139, a recent decision from the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench.[1] In this case, the lawyer was ordered to pay damages of $131,939. In other words, this case is a lawyer’s nightmare. The facts may be uncommon, but . . . [more]

By Lewis Waring, Paralegal, Student-at-law, Editor, First Reference

In Underhill v Shell Canada Limited, 2020 ABQB 341, the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta decided that a senior employee had been wrongfully dismissed after she became tangled up in a subordinate’s attempt to bid on a project independently of the employer.

The employer’s reason for the senior employee’s dismissal had been that she had engaged in misconduct in her handling of the subordinate’s bid attempt. However, the court found that her behaviour was not serious enough to merit her dismissal for cause. Instead, the employer should have responded to . . . [more]

Periodically on Thursdays, we present a significant excerpt, usually from a recently published book or journal article. In every case the proper permissions have been obtained. If you are a publisher who would like to participate in this feature, please let us know via the site’s contact form.

Trump, Twitter & The Law

Author: Sheldon Burshtein

ISBN: 978-1-988824-61-1 (Trade Paperback)
Publisher: Durvile
Page Count: 796
Publication Date: September 1, 2020

Regular Price: $49.95 (Paperback)

Excerpt: Preface and Chapter 12: The Rule of Law [footnotes omitted]

Writing about the presidency of Donald J. Trump is like building a sandcastle too close . . . [more]

Marx predicted that a Communist revolution would arise in a mature capitalist society like England or Germany. Instead, it took root in backward economic Tsarist Russia. Sometimes you take what you can get.

The revolution has arrived in Canadian legal education. Nobody started it. COVID-19 forced it upon us. The question is where this revolution will lead?

This fall, every law student in Canada will take most or all of their courses online through distance learning. Last fall, almost every law student in Canada could have expected to complete their three years of legal studies without taking a single course . . . [more]

Each Wednesday we tell you which three English-language cases and which French-language case have been the most viewed* on CanLII and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about.

For this last week:

1. Climans v. Latner, 2020 ONCA 554 (CanLII)

[71] As I explain on the first issue, the trial judge found that the parties were spouses within the meaning of s. 29 of the FLA because they “cohabited” for a period of not less than three years. To determine whether the parties had cohabited, the trial judge applied s. 1(1) of the FLA . . . [more]

In my last Slaw post, I discussed Morgan J.’s decision in Canadian Civil Liberties Association v. Attorney General of Ontario (CCLA v. AG Ont.) to grant standing to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to challenge the government’s requirement that gas station operators post a sticker on each gas pump. The standing decision stands for two major points: the CCLA’s expertise did not have to relate to the selling of gas or regulations governing it, but it was sufficient that it related to constitutional issues; and it had shown its interest by identifying its concerns to the government . . . [more]

Here are excerpts from the most recent tips on SlawTips, the site that each week offers up useful advice, short and to the point, on practice, research, writing and technology.

Research & Writing

Have a Copy of the Bill to Refer to When Searching Hansard
Susannah Tredwell

Hansard is a very useful tool when trying to determine the intent of an act. Researchers often look at a specific section of an act and what it was intended to achieve. … . . . [more]

What happens if someone infringed your patent application after you have filed your patent application but before it is granted? In many instances, this can be a surprisingly long period of time – typically several years. It can also be a crucial time in the development and commercialization for a new company. The Patent Act provides some relief, but you can only get a remedy after the patent has granted.

As an example, for patents granted in 2019, the median duration patent applications are pending between filing (international or national filing date) and grant at the Canadian Intellectual Patent Office . . . [more]

Two significant anti-SLAPP cases have been released, in conjunction, by the Supreme Court.

Bent v. Platnick deals with a motion in a defamation action that was initially successful in getting dismissed. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision, and the Court upheld the appeal, specifically on the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success. The case involved the reputation of a doctor on a lawyers’ listserv, which bolstered the interests in having the matter adjudicated on the merits.

The Court in 1704604 Ontario Ltd. v. Pointes Protection Association affirmed the Court of Appeal decision, which has largely become the leading authority in . . . [more]