Civil Procedure

Vancouver Airport Authority v Commissioner of Competition: “Public Interest” Privilege Comes Crashing Down to Earth

“Privilege” is a common-law doctrine that prevents the compulsory disclosure of documents or information that is against the public interest. As Justice L’Heureux-Dubé explains: The doctrine of privilege acts as an exception to the truth-finding process of our adversarial trial procedure. Although all relevant information is presumptively admissible at trial, some probative and trustworthy evidence […]

The Ontario Court of Appeal Assumes Jurisdiction over Absent Foreign Claimants

On October 17, 2017, the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”) released Airia Brands Inc v Air Canada, 2017 ONCA 792 [Airia], an important decision in which the ONCA clarified and restated the test for determining when Ontario courts can assume jurisdiction over class actions involving absent foreign claimants. This decision provided much-needed clarity on the […]

SCC Interveners Order Raises Questions Ahead of Trinity Western Hearing

By this point, it is a virtual certainty that the outcome of the joint-appeal for Trinity Western University et al v Law Society of Upper Canada and Law Society of British Columbia v Trinity Western University et al will be a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Morasse v Nadeau-Dubois : Powers of Contempt and Freedom of Expression

In the spring of 2012, thousands of students in Quebec took to the streets to protest proposed increases in university tuition fees. Student organizations held votes opposing the increases and declared that students were “on strike.” Students formed picket lines at many institutions that prevented other students and professors from accessing buildings. Some individuals turned […]

Interview with Allan Hutchinson: Legal Advocacy and Tragedy in Light of Neville-Lake v. Muzzo

Last year, TheCourt.ca posted an article discussing the fatal impaired driving incident that resulted in the death of all three of Jennifer and Edward Neville-Lake’s children. Daniel, Harrison and Milly were all under the age of ten. Jennifer’s father Gary—the children’s grandfather—was also killed in the crash. The sole survivors were their grandmother and great-grandmother, […]

Daniels v Canada : Out of the Wasteland, Into the Fray

For centuries, the Métis and non-status Indian populations of Canada have been lost in a “jurisdictional wasteland.” Both the federal and provincial governments swayed between legislating over the two groups at certain times and denying all constitutional responsibility at others. Not only did this seesaw deprive Métis and non-status Indian people of essential programs and […]

For Pre-Trial Issues, It’s Not a Matter of Proof: Gaur v Datta

Judges should assume facts in claims are true when considering whether to strike out a pleading under Rule 21 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rules”). In a case earlier this month, Gaur v Datta, 2015 ONCA 151, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned a motion judge’s ruling in a 3-0 decision, allowing the appellants […]

Lawyers Can Help Shape Expert Reports: Moore v Getahun

Lawyers and experts can and should work together to prepare expert reports, declared the Ontario Court of Appeal ("ONCA") in a recent unanimous decision. In late January, ONCA ruled in Moore v Getahun, 2015 ONCA 55, that allowing lawyers and experts to discuss the contents of expert reports while those reports are being prepared is […]

Judge Raises Questions About the Neutrality of Expert Witnesses: Moore v Getahun

A recent Ontario Superior Court ruling has the potential to have a serious impact on evidence law. The medical malpractice suit has sparked conversations among lawyers throughout Ontario and across Canada and has prompted civil litigators to ask what meets the test of allowable communication with their expert witnesses.

Police Investigating Police in Romanic v Johnson

In this case, the Ontario Court of Appeal addresses a civil suit brought by a former policeman against the Niagara Regional Police Department (NRPD), several individual police officers and a former employee. The appellant alleged the torts of negligent investigation and malicious prosecution following the NRPD’s criminal investigation of the appellant.