2,040 results found

On Thursday, June 22, 2006, the Supreme Court of Canada released its much-anticipated decision in Rogers Communications Incorporated v. Buschau (Buschau).

Bankers to the oil and gas industry should be wary of applying customer’s funds held in accounts with the bank against obligations owed to the bank where the customer is known to be an “Operator” under a Joint Operating Agreement.

The Court's decision confirms that, despite the uncertainty introduced by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 and Wastech Services Ltd v Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, 2021 SCC 7, the bar for overturning an arbitral award on the basis of procedural unfairness or inadequacy of reasons remains high in Alberta, and dismissed the challenge in its entirety.

The most important change to the Act resolves a serious problem that arose as a result of the decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal in Arcelormittal Tubular Products Roman S.A. v Fluor Canada Ltd. et. al, 2013 ABCA 279.

The Limitation Act, SBC 2012, c 13 is intended to simplify the process for civil claims and bring B.C.'s limitation periods in line with the modern approach adopted in many other provinces, including Alberta.

On June 24, 2015, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Ziebenhaus v. Bahlieda, upholding the Divisional Court's ruling that Superior Court judges may order the examination of a party by a non-health practitioner.

In British Columbia (Superintendent of Pensions) v Western Forest Products Inc ((2006) Carswell BC 1536 (BCSC)) the superintendent of pensions applied to the court for an order compelling the debtor to comply with the reporting provisions of the provincial pensions legislation.

While the core principles have changed little, emerging technologies, evolving litigation tactics and increasingly sophisticated investigations are prompting courts to examine where privilege begins...

Even, as in "Mir Steel UK Ltd v Morris", [2012] EWCA Civ 1397, where the clause allocating that risk didn’t clearly spell out how far it was intended to go.

On January 22, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Commissioner of Competition v. Tervita Corporation, its first merger decision under the Competition Act since 1997.

We have been closely monitoring the evolving situation surrounding COVID-19. With the recentlyannounced suspensions...

On May 8, 2012, an MFDA Hearing Panel of the Atlantic Regional Counsel released its reasons on what was essentially a motion to strike a Notice of Hearing issued by the Mutual Fund Dealers Association.

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently released two decisions about dismissals for delay.

The recent decision in R. v. Sloka has raised difficult questions about how the justice system responds to allegations of sexual assault in medical settings where there is a clear power imbalance. This case highlights the challenges of addressing allegations of sexual violence in professional settings, where trust, vulnerability, and authority intersect...

The Supreme Court of Canada will determine whether the federal government has the constitutional authority to classify plastic manufactured items as toxic substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. This landmark case challenges the legal foundation of Canada's single-use plastics ban and could reshape how environmental regulations are enforced across the country.

This is a motion in a family law case brought by the wife requesting the husband to complying with earlier orders for disclosure, failing which to pay penalty pursuant to Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules.

In our recent client update entitled Unenforceable Guarantees: Lenders Take Note! we reviewed the surprising Ontario Superior Court decision in Royal Bank of Canada v. Samson Management & Solutions Ltd.

When a judgment creditor needs to collect on a debt but lacks crucial information about the debtor's assets, British Columbia law provides two powerful investigative tools: examinations in aid of execution and subpoenas to debtor. These court-supervised processes compel judgment debtors to disclose their financial information under oath, revealing bank accounts, properties, and other assets that can be targeted for collection.