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.

The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) can apply to not-for-profits. PIPEDA applies to organizations that collect, use or disclose personal information in the course of commercial activities. While commercial activities may seem to be a blanket statement indicating that PIPEDA applies only to for-profit corporations, the relevant authorities suggest otherwise.

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.

Appeals to the public for donations are a feature of everyday life. Appeals that occur on a regular basis are usually conducted by registered charities and other organizations having the benefit of experienced fundraisers and professional advice. However, after a disaster, spontaneous appeals frequently occur as well. Although the organizer of a spontaneous appeal may not be aware of it, their public appeal is at the centre of a complex web of trust and charity law, much of which is obscure and inaccessible. For example, what happens when an informal fundraising campaign raises more money than needed for its stated purpose? What happens to the remainder? Who does it belong to? Does it have to be returned? In the era of social media and crowdfunding platforms like GoFundMe, Kickstarter, and Indigogo, these complicated issues are likely to become exacerbated.

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.

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.

Instead of amending the Ontario Corporations Act  (OCA) to address antiquated flaws dealing with not-for-profit corporations, the Ontario Legislature opted to start fresh with a new statute, removing not-for-profit corporations from the jurisdiction of the OCA. On January 1, 2013, the Ontario Not-for-profit Corporations Act, 2010 (the “ONCA”) comes into force. The ONCA's main objective is to allow not-for-profit corporations to operate within a simpler, more logical operational structure.  This legislative change will affect 16% of all employees in Ontario.  Once the ONCA comes into force next January, the new legislation will give effect to these principles in six key ways. Read about this and which organizations will be affected.