PUBLICATIONS

First Published in Advocates Quarterly. This paper addresses whether the same principles regarding the “real and substantial possibility” standard of proof apply to a hypothetical past loss claim as they do to a hypothetical future loss claim, and the interplay between the two standards of proof applicable to hypothetical claims: balance of probabilities for the “but for” causation test, and “real and substantial possibility” for damages.

In Ontario, s.4 of the Limitations Act, 2002, (“Act”) establishes a two-year limitation period for a claimant to commence an action, which begins to run once the claim is discovered. However, there exists an exception for those claimants that are “incapable” to commence the proceeding.

In this case study, a man suffering from mental illness and psychotic delusions, killed his son and later commenced an action against the drug company...

You have just been sued for breach of contract by a former business partner.

As you skim through a legal document that sets out a laundry list of your alleged failures and faux pas, a few paragraphs jump out at you. Why does the document make reference to an argument over the design of your company's logo? And why is there commentary on the not-so-secret office romance between two of your employees? As far as you can tell, neither of these issues have anything to do with the contract in dispute.

In the recent decision of Caryk v Karlsson,1 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice refused to compel Erik Karlsson's wife to provide evidence relating to allegations that she was cyberbullied by the partner of one of her husband's former teammates. In doing so, Mullins J. provided an overview of the Norwich Order remedy, and found that the interests of justice would not be well served by granting such an Order. This decision is noteworthy because it confirms that the Norwich Order is an extraordinary form of relief that will only be granted in very limited circumstances. This holds true even in cases dealing with allegations of cyberbullying.

In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that common interest privilege (“CIP”) is a principle of Canadian law. This principle is unlike solicitor-client privilege, in that communication between counsel and a third party may be considered privileged if the shared information is to benefit both parties, especially with respect to the furtherance of a commercial transaction. The court overturned a Federal Court decision which held that that CIP is not a principle of Canadian law.

Passionate political supporters often choose to convey their message in a manner that grasps observer's immediate attention, regardless of how it may be interpreted. This is the precise fashion in which Fredrick Bracken decided to transmit his electoral support for the current United States President, Donald Trump, while at Niagara Parks. In choosing Niagara Parks as his political forum, Mr. Bracken prompted, for the first time, the Court of Appeal's interpretation and constitutional analysis of section 2(9)(a) of Niagara Parks Act, Regulation 829...

Defamation law, mostly conceived in an old-media world, historically balanced one person's right to freedom of speech with another's to not have his or her reputation unfairly attacked. The emergence of social media has made it more difficult to navigate the application of these long-standing principles. Unlike the traditional letter to the editor, comments on social media can be posted instantly, often in the heat of emotion, and many people who post comments do so under the mistaken belief that they will remain anonymous. Social media has the ability to create a false sense of intimacy, as users may mistakenly believe they are only speaking to a small, well-known group of individuals...

In an important decision released June 2, 2017, the Court of Appeal of Ontario considered the novel issue of whether a taxi company is liable for a sexual assault allegedly committed by one of its drivers, absent any fault on its part.

A unanimous Court of Appeal ruled that the taxi company was not vicariously liable, suggesting that not all employers are vicariously liable for the intentional acts of their employees, even when their clientele may find themselves in the most vulnerable of situations.

There can be no doubt that cyberbullying is a new and disturbing development that significantly impacts society these days. It has resulted in various high-profile suicides involving teens and has contributed to some of the most horrific events of recent years.

A troubling variation of the commonly understood scope of cyberbullying is the sharing online of private and highly intimate videos of a sexual nature that were never intended to be shared publicly, colloquially referred to as 'revenge porn'.

Not surprisingly, this new form of bullying raises new societal issues, including new potential exposure for insurers.

Today the Ontario Court of Appeal released its long-awaited decision inMoore v. Getahun, dealing with significant issues in relation to the preparation and use of expert witness reports at trial, including the scope of permissible communications between counsel and expert witnesses.

On March 8, 2013, the Ontario Court of Appeal in the case of Cavanaugh v. Grenville Christian College (2013 ONCA 139) ruled that students, who had allegedly suffered various forms of abuse at a private Anglican school at the hands of its headmasters, had no cause of action against the Anglican Diocese. Writing for the court, Justice Doherty held that the Diocese owed the students no duty of care.