Tag Archives: Fogler Rubinoff

ILN Today Post

LITIGATION DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC: IS YOUR MATTER URGENT?

On March 17, 2020, the Ontario Superior Court began restricting the matters that would be heard amidst COVID-19 concerns. For civil and commercial matters in Toronto, the Court will only be hearing matters related to outstanding warrants or urgent and time sensitive motions that pose a risk of immediate and significant financial repercussions if they are not dealt with. This leaves an important question unanswered: what is considered urgent? Read the full article.

Read full article
ILN Today Post

IS YOUR BUSINESS ESSENTIAL?

On March 23, 2020, Ontario Premier Doug Ford ordered that that all non-essential
stores and services be closed by Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 11:59 p.m. (the “Order”). This Order follows a series of orders made by the provincial government, pursuant to its powers under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act’, made in an attempt to slow the spread of COVID-19 and protect Ontarians during these unprecedented times. Read more…

Read full article
ILN Today Post

EMPLOYER OPTIONS DURING COVID-19: WORK-SHARING PROGRAM

Many employers wish to avoid layoffs during this unprecedented economic
climate. An option for employers is to work with their employees to create
alternative employment arrangements. Work-Sharing is one program available
to employers and employees that can accommodate a temporary reduction in
business activity due to events beyond the control of the employer, such as
COVID-19. Read more…

Read full article
ILN Today Post

COVID-19 AND SHAREHOLDERS MEETINGS: NOW WHAT?

We have received several inquiries from clients asking for guidance regarding their shareholders meetings in light of the rapidly evolving novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”) pandemic and the need to socially distance ourselves. With the annual general shareholder meeting (“AGM”) season upon us, this article seeks to provide information relating to (i) the options available for holding AGMs in light of the COVID-19 concerns and (ii) the procedures to be followed in the event that an issuer decides to change the date, time or location of its inperson AGM due to COVID-19. Read more…

Read full article
ILN Today Post

CORONAVIRUS AND CONDOMINIUMS — MARCH 12, 2020 UPDATE

Given the widespread public concern relating to coronavirus (COVID-19), which the
World Health Organization has now declared to be a pandemic, we are writing to
address some condominium specific issues. For any particular condominium
situation, specific legal advice should be sought. This update is intended to provide
only a broad overview of the issues and approaches and is current to today’s date. Read more…

Read full article

WILL THERE BE TRADEMARK TROLLS IN CANADA OR ARE THEY ALREADY HERE?

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Canadian Trademarks Act amendments, which are allegedly coming into force in early 2019, include the removal of the requirement that a trademark applicant declare that it has been using its trademark before it files the application or before registration in Canada. The amendments are meant to bring Canada’s laws in line with international treaties. The Canadian government wants these changes to simplify the registration process.

Read more

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Living in Splendid Isolation: Ten Lessons Learned Enforcing an Ontario Judgment in Mexico

Introduction

This article presents a cautionary tale for any person who wishes to take legal proceedings against an individual or company resident in Mexico.

More than 25 years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye[1], represented a sea change in the way Canadian courts recognized and enforced foreign judgments.  The “foreign” aspect of Morguard involved British Columbia plaintiffs seeking to enforce an Alberta judgment.  Writing for the court, Justice La Forest rejected the centuries’ old principles regarding recognizing and enforcing foreign judgments which were anchored in the concept of territoriality.  He held that modern states like Canada should no longer live in “splendid isolation” from the rest of the world and should give effect to judgments made in other countries.  In arriving at its conclusion, the court relied heavily upon the concept of comity which had been adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States.  It held that comity would “impel sovereigns to mutual intercourse”. 

Read full article

Supreme Court of Canada Orders Estate Trustee to Exercise Discretion to Benefit Beneficiary

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Cowper-Smith v. Morgan, 2017 SCC 61, on December 14, 2017 relating to siblings disputing the entitlement to their mother’s estate.
As early as 1992, Elizabeth and Arthur Cowper-Smith of Victoria, BC, had made it clear that after their deaths, their property would be divided equally among their three children, Gloria, Max and Nathan.  Shortly before he died in 1992, Arthur explained such intention to his children to avoid family discord.  However, after their father’s death, the children became estranged from each other.  Gloria first fell out with Nathan.  She wrote him letters demanding that he not raise his voice in her mother’s home or entertain “gay males”.  When he went on an overseas trip, Gloria changed the locks to the family home although Nathan’s belongings were still inside.  He broke in but Gloria had the police escort him out.  Nathan eventually moved to Edmonton.
Read full article

Court Of Appeal Vacates Its Security for Costs Order in Ecuadorian Litigation against Chevron

When I last reported on this case Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corporation 2017 ONCA 827, less than a month ago, I reported that Justice Gloria J. Epstein of the Ontario Court of Appeal had ordered that the Ecuadorian plaintiffs post security for costs of more than $942,000 in order to continue with an appeal from a summary judgment order dismissing their against Chevron Canada.  In a decision released on October 31, 2017, a three judge panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously reversed Justice Epstein’s decision and vacated her order.  The panel (Justices Hoy, Cronk and Hourigan) held that the unique factual circumstances of this case compelled the conclusion that the interests of justice required that no order for security for costs be made.  Unlike their colleague, Justice Epstein, the panel concluded that the motion for security for costs was simply a tactical move made by Chevron to end the litigation.

Read full article

UK Court Says Dishonesty Not An Essential Element of Cheating

In a judgment given on October 25, 2017, five justices of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom held unanimously that dishonesty was not an essential element of the civil tort of cheating.

In Ivey v. Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2016] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of Mr. Justice Mitting of the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice.  Lord Hughes wrote the decision for the court (Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Kerr and Lord Thomas all agreed). 

Read full article