“Autumn is a second spring when every leaf is a flower.” Albert Camus Dear Readers, Welcome to Fall 2015! We are excited to bring you this latest edition of RTB as you get ready for the changing of the season. In this edition, we have a very interesting collection of decisions that you need to…
Practice Area: Litigation
Court Awards Consultant 8 Months’ Notice for 2 Years of Service
A recent case demonstrates that despite an agreement characterizing the relationship as one involving an independent contractor, there is always the risk upon termination that the relationship may ultimately be found to require…
Ontario Court Issues Significant and Conservative Decision on Scope of Privacy Tort
On August 31st, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued a significant decision on the scope of the common law privacy tort – both declining to recognize a cause of action based on “public disclosure of private facts” and…
Ontario Court of Justice Dismisses OHSA Charges Where Worker’s Unauthorized Act Led to Injury
In a recent decision, R. v. ABS Machining Inc., the Ontario Court of Justice dismissed Occupational Health and Safety Act (“OHSA”) charges against an employer where the injured worker’s unexpected and unauthorized act led to his injury. The decision confirms that employers can succeed in defending charges on the basis of due diligence when workers…
Federal Court Confirms “Family Status” Applies to Mother-in-Law
In Canada (Attorney-General) v. Hicks, the Federal Court held that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (“CHRT”) did not err when it found that Human Resources and Services Development Canada (“HRSDC”) discriminated against Mr. Hicks in refusing to approve expenses associated with maintaining temporary dual residences after a relocation from Halifax to Ottawa. After Mr. Hicks…
Raising the Bar – Ninth Edition
Dear Friends, Welcome to summer! We’re very pleased to bring you this pre-beach edition of Raising the Bar. In this edition, we’ll guide you through important recent decisions on topics ranging from offers to settle, to case management, to costs, to the question of when is enough discovery “enough”. We will also Shine a Light…
BCCA Affirms Order Requiring Google to Render Domains Unsearchable
Last Thursday, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia issued an important decision in Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Google Inc. about the power of a domestic court to make orders against non-party, internet “intermediaries” – in this case, search engine provider Google. The matter involved an order made to help a network hardware manufacturer enforce…
Court of Appeal Holds that Non-Party and Participant Experts Need Not Comply with Rule 53.03
Cases dealing with expert evidence have recently been considered by appellate courts. We have discussed two of those cases in our FTR Nows, Court of Appeal Holds that Counsel May Review Draft Expert Witness Reports and SCC Clarifies Test for Qualifying as an Expert Witness. In Westerhof v Gee Estate, the Court of Appeal for…
Courts Differ on Termination Provisions and Need for Future Compliance with ESA
Over the last few years, courts have been reluctant to enforce different “ESA only” termination provisions due to ambiguity. However, not all judges have taken the same position with respect to what constitutes an ambiguous termination provision. The following two cases offer differing views on termination provisions in employment contracts and future compliance with the…
(Yet Another) Ambiguous “ESA-only” Termination Provision Unenforceable
Another “ESA-only” termination provision in an employment contract has been found unenforceable by the Ontario Superior Court. In Howard v Benson Group, the Court decided that the termination provision providing only Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”) minimum entitlements was ambiguous; therefore, the common law applied and the plaintiff was entitled to reasonable notice of termination….