Legal Feeds
Canadian Lawyer

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

More Law Times TV...

Law Times poll

An estate trustee who took an ‘egregious' position in litigation has been ordered to personally pay more than $140,000 in costs. Will this ruling serve as an appropriate caution to executors on how they conduct themselves in litigation?
Yes, this will remind trustees of the potential exposure of significant awards being made against them personally.
No, it’s unlikely this ruling will dissuade executors from engaging in unreasonable conduct during litigation.