Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 10 MAY 2013

Umm...Did That Really Happen? But We're Live!! "Nedelcu" Revisited

Dutton, Brock LLP
Explore more from Dutton, Brock LLP

A discussion on the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Nedelcu (2011).

CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Paul Martin
Paul Martin

I really hate giving mea culpas. Just ask the partners of this law firm; or my wife! It therefore struck me like a Monday morning insurer's audit when I realized that the Supreme Court of Canada had recently meddled in, and reversed, a decision that I commented favourably upon in this Newsletter just over a year ago.

In our Winter 2011 edition, I wholeheartedly embraced the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Nedelcu (2011), 7 M.V.R. (6th) 10 and suggested that this well-reasoned judgment provided the green light for civil litigants to stop delaying their lawsuits because of a fear that the tortfeasor/accused might somehow have their examination for discovery evidence turned against them at a subsequent criminal trial.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

The Coldcard Exploit: Why Victims May Have Two Routes To Recovery

A five-year-old firmware defect in Coldcard hardware wallets has enabled attackers to systematically drain an estimated $116 million in Bitcoin from over 5,200 victims since July 2026. This unprecedented exploit raises critical questions about manufacturer liability and creates two distinct legal pathways for recovery: blockchain tracing against the perpetrators and potential litigation against Canadian manufacturer Coinkite for product defects that undermined the fundamental security promise of devices mar
CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
WeirFoulds LLP
WeirFoulds LLP
Article

Ontario’s New AI Rules: What Lawyers And Expert Witnesses Need To Know

Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure now include strict amendments requiring lawyers and expert witnesses to certify the authenticity of every citation and authority used in court materials. These new anti-hallucination provisions impose significant penalties for presenting AI-generated fabricated authorities, fundamentally shifting accountability for artificial intelligence use in litigation.
CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Soloway Wright
Soloway Wright
Article

Plaintiffs Awarded A Total Of $800,000 In Damages For Defamation (Murdy v. Barrette)

A Canadian court awarded $800,000 in damages to a couple defamed by serious false allegations of sexual assault and criminal misconduct spread through social media. The case examines how factors like the severity of accusations, use of social media platforms, and a defendant's failure to mount a defense can dramatically escalate defamation damages beyond typical awards.
CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Gardiner Roberts LLP
Gardiner Roberts LLP
Article

Not Beyond Reproach: Alberta Court Confirms Jurisdiction Over Alberta Energy Regulator

The Alberta Court of King's Bench has confirmed its jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief against the Alberta Energy Regulator despite a broadly worded statutory privative clause. This landmark decision, arising from Sumerian Oil & Gas's application to stay a suspension order affecting approximately 900 wells, represents one of the first considerations of the Supreme Court of Canada's recent Democracy Watch ruling and may significantly impact future disputes involving AER orders.
CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
MLT Aikins LLP
MLT Aikins LLP