6 July 2018By 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.
28 June 2018By Eden Kaill
Ontario may soon have a new option for those wanting to become lawyers without ending up in unmanageable amounts of debt.
20 June 2018By 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.
14 June 2018By 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).
4 June 2018By 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.
29 May 2018By 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.
22 May 2018By 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.
15 May 2018By 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.
10 May 2018By 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.
3 May 2018By 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.