2,040 results found

In a decision this week that will bring welcome relief to pension plan administrators, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the Ontario Superior Court’s ruling in Hembruff v. Ontario Employees Retirement Board. The Superior Court had decided that pension plan administrators have a duty to inform members of possible changes to plans when such modifications are highly likely or almost certain to be implemented, even if the changes have been neither considered in detail, nor authorized by regulat

The Alberta Court of Appeal has recently added to the ongoing debate over who is or isn’t an employer in the human rights context.

On January 1, 2020, significant changes to Ontario's Simplified Procedure and Small Claims Court processes will take effect

On July 18, 2011, Ontario’s Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) issued its highly anticipated decision in Erickson v. Director, Ministry of the Environment, finding that the appellants who had challenged the issuance of a renewable energy approval (REA) for the Kent Breeze Wind Project (the Project) had failed to show that it will cause serious harm to human health.

The Honourable Madam Justice Ellen Picard, Madam Justice Marina Paperny, and Mr. Justice Peter Martin of the Alberta Court of Appeal recently handed down the decision in Canadian Natural Resources Limited v Arcelormittal Tubular Products Roman S.A., 2013 ABCA 87.

Blakes has undertaken a leadership role in supporting pro bono legal initiatives in Canada and recently represented the Family Service Association of Toronto (FSAT) in a landmark family law case.

Public company directors and offi cers, and their lawyers, were given some guidance by the Ontario Court of Appeal in late 2005 on the question of their potential liability for forecasts made in a prospectus, in circumstances where there may be a change in a “material fact” between the date the fi nal prospectus is issued and the closing date of the intended transaction.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has nominated Chief Justice Glenn D. Joyal of Manitoba's Court of King's Bench to fill the Western Canada seat on the Supreme Court of Canada. This historic appointment marks Manitoba's first representation on the nation's highest court in over a decade and maintains the tradition of regional representation and functional bilingualism at the Supreme Court level.

On Friday, April 2, 2004, the Ontario Court of Appeal released a decision that may have a significant effect on how receivers and trustees in bankruptcy realize on the assets of a business where a trade union holds bargaining rights for employees of an insolvent company

Heated debate over the future of business-related patents in North America continues. North of the border, innovative businesses await the outcome of argument recently heard by Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal in the Amazon.com appeal, with a decision (and likely an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada) expected within weeks.

In Viaguard Accu-metrics Laboratory v. Standards Council of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal recently confirmed that parties unsatisfied with an administrative decision must exhaust...

In Rolley v. MacDonell, the defendant brought a motion for leave to rely on surveillance video recordings as substantive evidence. Three rounds of surveillance were carried out over a period of one year.

When siblings disagree about who should serve as power of attorney for a parent with dementia, each often claims the parent trusts only them. A mediator explores why family members in these disputes frequently overlook the most likely explanation: that Alzheimer's disease itself is causing the parent to make contradictory statements to different children.

Lenczner Slaght is keeping a close eye on the latest news regarding the proposed civil justice reforms in Ontario.

The legal doctrine of res judicata exists to prevent the same dispute from being litigated more than once. Res judicata is grounded in two principles of public policy. First, the state has an interest in upholding finality in litigation; second, that an individual is not punished more than once for the same offence.

Across the country courtrooms are facing significant delays and backlogs, which is beginning to have severe impacts on Canadian business relying on the court system for dispute resolution.

Under Rule 2.1, this court may stay or dismiss a proceeding that appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.

While the appeals arose from distinct interlocutory issues, they were heard together for reasons of efficiency.