Ontario Court Finds Non-Solicitation Clause Valid Based on Unique Dealer Structure

6 July 2018

By Daniel Babin

In our June 20, 2018 blog post, we noted that in National Bank Financial Inc. v Canaccord Genuity Corp. the British Columbia Supreme Court held that non-solicitation clauses in employment agreements between financial advisors and their employers may be found invalid for public policy reasons, as the interests of clients must be put ahead of those of the firm.

By contrast, in the recent decision of MD Physician Services Inc. v. Wisniewski, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a trial decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice enforcing a non-solicitation clause, and finding that the advisors (and their new employer) were liable for breach of such clause. The Court of Appeal specifically approved the lower Court’s application of specific criteria to the question of whether or not such a clause should be enforced.

Read More

Ryerson Law School: Contributing to a lawyer glut, or opening the door to accessible justice?

28 June 2018

By Eden Kaill

Ontario may soon have a new option for those wanting to become lawyers without ending up in unmanageable amounts of debt.

Read More

B.C. Court Finds Non-Solicitation Clause Invalid for Public Policy Reasons

20 June 2018

By Uri Snir

A recent decision from the British Columbia Supreme Court suggests that non-solicitation clauses in employment agreements between financial advisors and their firms may be found invalid for public policy reasons, as the interests of clients must be put ahead of those of the firm.

Read More

Law Society Tribunal Dismisses Discipline Case over Failure to Accommodate Mental Illness

14 June 2018

By Shakaira John

In Law Society of Ontario v. Burtt, the Law Society Tribunal recently dismissed a disciplinary case against a Toronto lawyer, finding that the Law Society of Ontario (the “LSO”) had failed to satisfy its duty to accommodate the lawyer’s disability (mental illness).

Read More

The Duty of Good Faith Performance: an Unfettered Right to Terminate is Not Unfettered

4 June 2018

By Cynthia Spry

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently found that a termination clause in a contract that appeared, on its face, to provide an unfettered right of termination is subject to the duty of good faith contractual performance set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71.

Read More

Ontario Court of Appeal Declines to Pierce Corporate Veil in the Name of Justice

29 May 2018

By Khrystina McMillan & Daniel Babin

This is our third blog post on the ongoing saga of the Ecuadorian villagers’ attempts to enforce an Ecuadorian judgement against Chevron Canada Limited (“Chevron Canada”) in Yaiguje v. Chevron Corporation. Our October 16, 2017 post concerned an order for security for costs ordered against the Ecuadorian villagers, and in our November 6, 2017 post we discussed the Court of Appeal’s decision to set aside the security for costs order.

Read More

Court of Appeal Narrows the Scope for Duty of Care between Supplier and Retailer

22 May 2018

By Uri Snir

The Court of Appeal recently overturned a summary judgment awarded in favour of Mr. Sub franchisees for reputational harm stemming from the 2008 listeriotic outbreak.
In 1688782 Ontario Inc. v. Maple Leaf Foods Inc., the Court of Appeal held the motion judge erred in finding the supplier of ready-to-eat (“RTE”) meats owed a duty of care to retailers for pure economic losses suffered from the negative publicity associated with the recall of meats.

Read More

Update: British Columbia Joins Trend of Giving Enhanced Powers to Investment Industry Regulators Despite Doubts that such Powers Protect Investors

15 May 2018

By Khrystina McMillan

and Shakaira John

In a recent post, we discussed securities legislation introduced in Manitoba that would add Manitoba to a growing list of provinces that have provided greater legal authority to self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”), purportedly to strengthen investor protection. British Columbia has now also passed amendments to provincial securities legislation that grant SROs enhanced enforcement powers. Despite the momentum the trend has gained, it remains unclear whether the goal of investor protection is in fact served by bolstering SRO collection powers.

Read More

Ontario Court of Appeal Holds that Limitation Periods for Contribution and Indemnity Claims are Subject to Discoverability

10 May 2018

By Khrystina McMillan

In a decision released May 7, 2018, the Court of Appeal settled the conflicting body of case law as to whether section 18 of the Limitations Act, 2002, SO 2002, c 24 (the “Act”) sets out an absolute two-year limitation period for claims of contribution and indemnity. In Mega International Commercial Bank (Canada) v Yung, the Court of Appeal overturned a summary judgment dismissal of a third party claim for contribution and indemnity as statute barred, holding that – contrary to the motion judge’s decision – section 18 of the Act does not displace the discoverability principles.

Read More

Could a Law Firm Be Vicariously Liable for the Actions of a Lawyer Practicing “In Association”?

3 May 2018

By Uri Snir

In Wallbridge v. Brunning, the Court of Appeal for Ontario set aside a summary judgment granted in favour of the defendant partnership of lawyers, Williams Litigation Lawyers (“Williams”). By sending the issue of Williams’ liability to trial, the Court of Appeal has potentially opened the door to a law firm being found vicariously liable for the actions of a lawyer who practices “in association” with it.

Read More