Tag Archives: civil procedure

SCC Restores Adjudicator’s Award in Residential School Settlement

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) held that courts had the jurisdiction to supervise residential school settlement agreements on an ongoing basis.
Read full article

SCC: Party Autonomy in Arbitration Trumps Access to Justice Concerns

In a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada held the concept of “party autonomy” and holding parties to a valid arbitration agreement trumped access to justice and policy concerns.  The Court allowed an appeal from the Court of Appeal for Ontario in which the majority ruled that part of a class action should be stayed and should proceed by way of arbitration even where there was a possibility of duplicating proceedings and inconsistent results.

Read more

Read full article

Failure to Immediately Disclose "Mary Carter" Agreement Will Lead to Stay of Action

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently ordered that an action be stayed (Handley Estate v. DTE Industries Limited, 2018 ONCA 324on the basis that certain parties had failed to comply with their obligation to immediately disclose a “Mary Carter” agreement.  The Court held that by originally denying the motion for a stay, the motion judge had erred in principle by failing to apply the remedy for non-disclosure of these types of agreements as specified in a previous Court of Appeal decision called Aecon Buildings v. Stephenson Engineering Limited (“Aecon”).

Read more

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Revised Civil Procedure Law Expands Right to Injunction

The revised Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (Civil Procedure Law) came into effect on January 1, 2013.  In the past, injunctive relief was available in China prior to initiating a lawsuit only in cases of ongoing copyright, patent or trademark infringement.  Under Articles100 and 101 of the revised Civil Procedure Law, however, any person may apply to a People’s Court to obtain an order to enjoin any ongoing, unlawful behavior during or before a lawsuit.  However, any order granted before a lawsuit will expire 30 days after the issuance of the order unless the applicant initiates a lawsuit, or arbitration, against the counterparty within the 30–day period.  In late January of this year, a People’s Court in Guangzhou became the first court in China to enforce the new rule.  Guangzhou Pharmaceuticals Corporation, which owns the trademark “Wang Lao Ji”, petitioned the court to enjoin Jia Duo Bao Group from using the “Wang Lao Ji” trade name in an advertising campaign.  Jia Duo Bao Group was a prior licensee of the trademark “Wang Lao Ji,” and upon termination of the license it changed the name of its products from “Wang Lao Ji” to “Jia Duo Bao.”  It then engaged in an advertising campaign claiming that “the name of Wang Lao Ji has been changed to Jia Duo Bao.”  The court held that the advertisement constituted unfair competition and ordered the Jia Duo Bao Group to immediately stop disseminating the advertisement.  As of this writing, Jia Duo Bao Group still has the right to apply to the same court for reconsideration of the order. More…

Read full article