2,040 results found

Should the Court consider why a donor is making or revoking a Power of Attorney? This was the question before the Court in Pirie v Pirie, 2017 ABQB 104.

The Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Rabinowitz v. 2528061 Ontario Inc., 2026 ONCA 21 (Rabinowitz), revisits the application of section 8 of the Interest Act (the “Act”)...

In a significant development for civil claims against foreign states, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Haftlang v. Iran has ordered $200 million in compensatory and punitive damages against Iran.

Explore how vesting orders in insolvency proceedings can bar claims for unpaid Crown royalties, while examining the potential ongoing liability that co-lessees may face. Understand the implications of federal defence industrial strategy on mergers and acquisitions within the Canadian market, and learn how Alberta courts are clarifying security measures in legal proceedings.

When settlement funds are unreasonably delayed after a personal injury case resolves, should plaintiffs be forced to continue paying high-interest litigation loan charges? An Ontario Superior Court decision examines whether defendants can be held responsible for post-settlement financing costs when payment is substantially delayed, potentially opening a narrow avenue for recovery in cases involving prolonged fund releases.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal recently affirmed the test for confirming a cause of action and thus resetting a limitation period under the NL Limitations Act.

Pro Bono Ontario has relaunched its Court of Appeal amicus program, a joint initiative with the Court of Appeal for Ontario designed to support self-represented litigants with motions. The program now allows self-represented litigants to consult with volunteer lawyers before court appearances, and in some cases, these volunteers can make submissions on their behalf before judges.

In Brunette v. Legault Joly Thiffault, 2018 SCC 55 (Brunette), the Supreme Court of Canada confirms how standing rules in the Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR, c C-25.01 (CCP) apply in situations where shareholders want to sue on their own behalf to recover losses to the corporation they own.

The new Limitation Act came into force on June 1st, 2013.

The E-Hearings Task Force, convened at the request of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and consisting of representatives of The Advocates' Society.

As Canada continues the fight against COVID-19, reopening efforts are underway across the country. Courts are also beginning to ease COVID-19 imposed restrictions ...

When negotiating contracts with international parties, counsel should consider how their clients would, if necessary, serve judicial documents on counterparties based outside of Canada.

Legal fees can fluctuate significantly from month to month depending on the stage and complexity of your matter. Understanding why your bill may be higher or lower in a particular month can help you plan ahead, manage your retainer, and avoid unexpected financial surprises.

Section 151 of British Columbia's Wills, Estates and Succession Act (WESA) provides a legal mechanism for beneficiaries to pursue claims on behalf of an estate when executors refuse to act. This provision becomes particularly relevant in cases involving executor conflicts of interest, asset recovery disputes, or when legal action is necessary to preserve estate value. Understanding the statutory requirements and procedural complexities of section 151 applications is essential for protecting beneficiary righ

MAY 31, 2007 - The Supreme Court of Canada today unanimously upheld the Alberta Court of Appeal ruling in Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta, under which Canada's federally chartered banks - eight of which were jointly the appellants in the case - are subject to provincial regulatory regimes with respect to the distribution of the kinds of insurance banks have been permitted, under the Bank Act, since 1991, to distribute in their branches.

On January 15, 2013, the Honourable Justice Quigley of the Ontario Superior Court granted summary judgment to Abbott and Takeda, denying Apotex’s claim for disgorgement of profits on the basis of unjust enrichment.

Courts in Canada are presumed to be open and accessible to the public.

On April 30, 2007, the US Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. In it, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and restored the decision of the District Court, which had rejected a claim of patent infringement. The Supreme Court held that the allegedly infringed patent was invalid on the grounds that it was obvious in light of prior art.