Legal Feeds
Canadian Lawyer

This Week's Issue

Ex-judge orders public arbitration hearing

Shannon Kari - Monday, April 21, 2014

In one of the few rulings on holding public arbitration hearings, a case that will determine the amount of private sector payments to help fund the Blue Box program in Ontario this year will be an open proceeding, a retired Ontario Court of Appeal judge has ruled.
Robert Armstrong, who’s adjudicating the dispute, concluded that arbitration hearings are “presumptively private” but found it’s a rebuttable presumption.

“An open and transparent hearing process in this case will serve the public interest and will not detract from the parties’ ability to achieve a fair and just result,” wrote Armstrong in a decision issued last month.

The hearing, scheduled for April 23, is to resolve a dispute between the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the City of Toronto, and Stewardship Ontario, an industry organization for companies that import or manufacture prod...

Read more

Court transcript overbilling inadvertent, company says

A Toronto- and Ottawa-based court reporting company has broken its months-long silence to defend itself against claims that it knowingly overcharged clients that included the Federal Court and the Tax Court of Canada.

Law firms embracing tech startups

When lawyer Debbie Weinstein took on BelAir Networks as a client 12 years ago, the technology startup was more a promising idea than a company. She wasn’t sure when, if at all, BelAir could pay its legal fees.

Family Law: Case on unjust enrichment could lead to unjust results

Among the noteworthy Ontario Court of Appeal family law decisions this year is Martin v. Sansome, a case that involved the interrelation between the property equalization provisions of the Family Law Act and the principle of unjust enrichment between married spouses.

Focus: File-sharing cases sent down narrow path

While observers have suggested a recent Federal Court decision ordering Ontario-based Internet service provider TekSavvy Solutions Inc. to release the names of 2,000 of its customers to film production company Voltage Pictures LLC was a victory for copyright holders, it sends file-sharing cases down such a narrow path that it may not be profitable to follow.

Inside Story

Monday, April 21, 2014

The federal government has announced several new appointments of judges based in Ontario.

In Ottawa, Justice Kevin Phillips of the Ontario Court of Justice moves to the Ontario Superior Court in Ottawa. A judge since August 2013, Phillips replaces Justice Michael J. Quigley, who became a supernumerary judge last year. The court has now transferred his position to Ottawa. Prior to becoming a judge, Phillips worked as a Crown attorney in Ottawa.

At the Tax Court of Canada, John Owen, a lawyer with Bennett Jones LLP in Toronto, replaces former justice François Angers following his resignation in October.

Other appointments at the federal courts include Justice Richard Boivin to the Federal Court of Appeal. A Federal Court judge since 2009, he replaces Justice Johanne Trudel, who became a supernumerary judge in November.
In addition, Department of Justice lawyer René Leblanc, McCarthy Tétrault LLP’s Martine St-Louis, and George Locke of Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP have...

more Inside Story

Falconer: Covenants urges students to make sure others follow it. That student who discovers they are gay "becomes a target." #TWU
Falconer: What happens if a student determines they are gay at #TWU? With all due respect, Khun didn't give me an answer.
Bencher Julian Falconer: This is one of the days history will use to judge us. My 13 yr. o. will read these transcripts in the future.
Mercer: Analogies of apartheid and others "actually are relevant." Has to do with excluding people for who they are. #TWU
Mercer: A diverse profession with equal access is a proper statutory objective under LSUC's act.

More Law Times TV...

Law Times poll

Did the Federal Court of Appeal get it right last week in upholding a ruling that found Métis people to be Indians under s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act?