mt_ignore
Legal Feeds
Canadian Lawyer
jobsinlaw.ca

Letters to the Editor

I am writing in response to the article “Lawyer alleges discrimination by LSUC security guard,” published in the July 25, 2016 issue.
Add new comment
Law Times recently published an article (see “Ontario courts differ on prejudgment interest,” Oct. 19) on the temporal application of the new prejudgment interest rate on non-pecuniary damages in motor vehicle accident cases.
Add new comment

The recent commentary piece by Nikolay Chsherbinin (see “Deductions of disability payments in wrongful dismissals clarified,” Aug. 24) highlights what I believe is a major difficulty inherent in contracts of adhesion where one party, typically the employer, has far greater bargaining power and the employee is essentially left with a take-it-or-leave-it option.

Add new comment
Your editorial criticism of Immigration Minister Chris Alexander (see “A shameful performance,” Sept. 8) is misdirected.
Add new comment
I read Prof. Philip Girard’s piece (“Debate over contingency fees goes back a long time”) in the Sept. 21 issue with interest.
Comments (1)
Matthew Gourlay’s comment in the Aug. 10 edition (see “Originalist creed a problematic approach to assessing the law”) missed the salient arguments related to the living-tree versus originalism theories of constitutional interpretation.
Add new comment
With respect to your June 29 story, “A closer look at law society voting patterns,” I would respectfully point out a fact that might have caused some of the decline in the vote during the Law Society of Upper Canada bencher election.
Add new comment
I am writing in regards to a recent article (see “ABS firm’s expansion offers new fodder for Ontario debate,” April 20) in which the purchase of a legal services firm in the United Kingdom by Slater & Gordon is utilized to spark alarm about a potential change in law firm ownership laws in Canada. There are a number of comments and concerns raised in the article that require a response.
Add new comment
In his recent article in Law Times, Dr. Michael Ford applauds the Ontario Court of Appeal on its decision in Moore v. Getahun and the finding that counsel indeed is entitled to discuss with an expert the contents of the expert’s report. During the trial, the judge had ruled that such contact was improper and experts really should be left to their own devices based on submitted material information to come to their opinions. In his article, Ford suggests an independent medical examiner can come to a fair and unbiased opinion even after conversing with referring counsel.
Comments (2)
In my view, bencher election campaign spending should not be allowed for candidates and, if allowed, it should be a very modest amount.
Add new comment
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next > End >>
Page 1 of 5

  • Access to Justice
    Access to Justice The Action Group on Access to Justice (TAG) strives to inform the public on the importance of the people having access to legal resources and…
  • Legal Aid lawyers rally for collective bargaining rights
    Legal Aid lawyers rally for collective bargaining rights Legal Aid Ontario lawyers held three protests in July to push the provincial government to support their attempts to unionize. The lawyers have been in…
  • Jane-Finch community gets employment law help
    Jane-Finch community gets employment law help Osgoode Hall Law School's Community Legal Aid Services Programme recently opened an employment law division for Toronto's Jane-Finch community.Phanath Im, review counsel for the division,…
More Law Times TV...

Law Times poll

After the Supreme Court set out a framework to assess the independence of expert witnesses, litigators have different opinions about whether it’s too difficult to exclude expert evidence on the basis of bias. What do you think?
Yes, it remains very hard to get this evidence excluded, but this may change as trial court judges pay more attention to the backgrounds of expert witnesses.
No, it is not hard to get this evidence excluded, as the courts continually refine the role of experts in both criminal and civil litigation.