Home
- 870Law,
- 109municipal,
- 107tools,
- 76Bankruptcy,
- 60Psychology,
- 58contract,
- 53observation,
- 52lifehacks,
- 49priority,
- 45defamation,
06 Jan 10
CanLII - 2009 CanLII 72107 (ON S.C.)
-
Add Sticky Note11 Green Meadow Court,
- http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=11+Green+Meadow+Court,+dundas,+ontario&sll=45.405681,-75.706741&sspn=0.00705,0.011287&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=11+Green+Meadow+Way,+Dundas,+Hamilton+Division,+Ontario&ll=43.252479,-79.967974&spn=0.000457,0.001214&t=h&z=20 - on 2010-01-06
Onex Corporation v. American Home Assurance, 2009 CanLII 72052 (ON S.C.)
if a motion for summary judgment under rule 20 is filed in 2009 but heard in 2010, after the rule changes take effect, should the matter be heard under the old rule or the new rule?
[4] The answer, for the reasons set out below, is that the motion should be heard under the new rule.
05 Jan 10
Greenhalgh v. Douro-Dummer (Township), 2009 CanLII 71014 (ON S.C.)
-
The general rule seems to be that, in the absence of a statute so providing, a
municipality is not under a duty to the traveling public to place stop signs or
other road signs or warning markers on the road or highway within the
municipality except where there may be a danger or hazard of such a character
that it is reasonable to require a notice of some kind to be given to bring that
peril to the attention of those using the road. The exercise of any
statutory or any other power or authority to erect such signs lies very largely
within the realm of common sense and a prudent discretion on the part of the
municipal council -
the mere existence of a hazard or danger does not in and of itself give rise to
a duty on the part of the municipality to erect a sign - 4 more annotations...
Chatham-Kent Children’s Services v. K.(J.), 2009 ONCJ 589 (CanLII)
I agree with the other judicial commentary that it is a rare situation where evidence obtained through a Charter breach might be excluded in a child protection case. However after applying the inquiries set out in The Queen v. Grant, supra, this is just such a situation. To do otherwise would bring the administration of justice into disrepute
-
Contrary to the position taken by the intake worker in her evidence, a lack of
explicit objection does not equal consent -
in my view, an allegation that a child was not being fed adequately might
support an argument that it was reasonable for the worker to look inside the
refrigerator and kitchen cupboards before deciding to apprehend the child.
The important thing is that any search that takes place must be limited to
confirming the validity or veracity of the allegations in order to allow the
worker to determine whether or not to apprehend the child - 1 more annotations...
15 Dec 09
R. v. Moldovan, 2009 CanLII 58062 (ON S.C.)
in a country as well policed and generally law-abiding as Canada, any person who:
(i) in presence of other people who know his identity, assaults and kidnaps two people;
(ii) holds those people hostage for roughly thirty hours as of the time the interception began;
(iii) twice telephones a witness to the kidnapping and admits still holding the abductees hostage; and
(iv) knows that the matter has been reported to the police;
would reasonably expect that his telephone calls might very well be intercepted by the police
1013952 Ontario Inc. (Silverado Restaurant and Nightclub) v. Sakinofsky, 2009 CanLII 60783 (ON S.C.)
a lawyer is liable for the negligent acts of his or her employees, including junior lawyers. The failure of a principal to supervise the work of a junior lawyer is grounds for professional negligence. See: McKay v. Cowan, 1989 CanLII 2808 (BC S.C.), 1989 CanLII 2808 (BC S.C.). The obligation to supervise does not flow upward from the junior to the senior. Rosso’s argument to the contrary flies in the face of the common law. It also ignores the way in which work is assigned and supervised in law offices. It would be a surprising result if the most junior, least knowledgeable and least experienced employee was liable in law for a senior lawyer’s errors or omissions on a file
11 Dec 09
Legislative Assembly of Ontario | Bills & Lawmaking | Bills from the Current Session
-
-
Add Sticky Note
- PC - The Bill amends the Expropriations Act and the Human Rights Code to enhance the protection that Ontario law gives to owners of property, whether real or personal.
Under the Expropriations Act , an inquiry officer on an inquiry is required to consider the merits of the objectives of the expropriating authority and to add, as parties to an expropriation inquiry, the owners of all lands affected by the expropriation. The decision of an approving authority is subject to judicial review.
The amendments to the Human Rights Code recognize, subject to specific limitations at law, the right to own property, whether real or personal, the right to peaceful enjoyment of one's property and the right to freedom from search of one's real property and home and from seizure of one's personal property located there. Those rights have long been recognized at common law but are largely missing from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . The amendments to the Human Rights Code also include the moral responsibility to maintain one's real property - on 2009-09-28
- PC - The Bill amends the Expropriations Act and the Human Rights Code to enhance the protection that Ontario law gives to owners of property, whether real or personal.
- 5 more annotations...
09 Dec 09
Kenora-Patricia Child and Family Services v. B.S., 2009 ONCJ 584 (CanLII)
Good intentions to stop drinking are not enough. The test is not whether the mother has seen the light and intends to change but whether she has in fact changed and is now able to give her children the care that is in their best interests.
-
there is not to be any experimentation with the children’s lives by giving
parents another chance as this may result in one less chance for children
Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc. v. Peak Innovations Inc., 2009 FC 1200 (CanLII)
-
Add Sticky Note1,187,491 (the '491
application -
Add Sticky Note1,205,529 (the '529 application)
R. v. (T.)I., 2009 ONCJ 573
Causing psychologoical harm = violence
-
on an SVO application, should be not only on what was done but how it interfered
with the physical, psychological integrity, health or well-being of the
complainant. In the case before me, because of the guilty pleas -
The analysis must not stop at the nature of the offence; it must continue to
explore the impact on the victim of the offence - 1 more annotations...
27 Nov 09
Booty Camp Fitness Inc. v. Jackson, 2009 CanLII 38511 (ON S.C.)
A person who has obtained valuable information in confidence is not allowed to use it as a springboard for activities detrimental to the person who made the confidential communication, even when all the features have been published or can be ascertained by actual inspection by any member of the public
CanLII - 2009 CanLII 65802 (ON S.C.D.C.)
The words “have regard to” do not by themselves suggest more than minimal deference to the decision of Municipal Council. However, in the context of the Planning Act, and balancing the public interest mandates of both the Board and the municipality, I would agree with Member Stefanko in Keswick Sutherland that the Board has an obligation to at least scrutinize and carefully consider the Council decision, as well as the information and material that was before Council
-
The legislature used language that suggests minimal deference when choosing the
words “have regard to”, considering the many other expressions it could have
used to signal the level of deference suggested by the City in this
appeal. In my view the traditional role of the Board, and the broad powers
it exercises, should not be altered radically without a more clear and specific
expression of legislative intent
Jocko v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, 2009 CanLII 65807 (ON S.C.D.C.)
The Board is an impartial administrative body, charged with adjudicating compensation claims submitted to it by victims of violent crimes. It is neither an investigative agency nor an inquisitorial body. It does not have the duty to search out evidence in support of an applicant`s claim.
-
s.5.4(1) does not provide the Board with the power to order the disclosure
sought by the applicants. Section 5.4(1) is designed to require that
parties to a tribunal hearing exchange pertinent information prior to their
hearing. It is designed for adversarial hearings. Nothing in that
provision gives jurisdiction to a Board to make orders compelling third parties
or witnesses to make pre-hearing disclosure of information or documents to a
party to a proceeding before the Board. The sole power of the Board to
compel a witness to provide information or produce documents is the power to
summons
Credit Reporting: Limiting Potential Liability - Mark Wiffen - Toronto Lawyer - Lang Michener LLP
There are, broadly speaking, two areas of potential legal liability for Canadian businesses reporting unsatisfied debts to a credit reporting agency: (1) A business can potentially contravene consumer protection legislation such as the Ontario Consumer Reporting Act; or (2) it can be found liable at common law for defamation or other related claims.
26 Nov 09
Zambri v. Grammelhofer, 2009 CanLII 65373 (ON S.C.)
A person cannot enter the lands of a neighbour, make changes and not pay a price. To permit such a course of action would be an approval of forced expropriation of the neighbour’s property. That will not be the outcome here.
Municipal Parking Corporation v. Toronto (City), 2009 CanLII 65385 (ON S.C.)
the City was justified in trying to regulate the practice of PPEAs in the fashion that it chose with the Amending By-Law rather than merely regulating the form and content of violation notices or prescribing maximum penalties.
-
it has been conclusively established that the by-law’s purpose is consumer
protection. -
Municipal by-laws are not
subject to review for “unreasonableness” that falls short of bad faith.
Municipal councils are elected representatives of their community, accountable
to their constituents. - 4 more annotations...
Top Tags
Sponsored Links
Ads by Google
View All Recent Tags (49)
- 84Law,
- 13municipal,
- 9creditor,
- 9corporate,
- 8oppression,
- 5criminal,
- 5Administrative,
- 5statutory,
- 5Interpretation,
- 5limitations,
- 4Professional-Responsibility,
- 4defamation,
- 4director,
- 4internet,
- 4Fraud,
- 3roads,
- 3Privacy,
- 3Psychology,
- 3tax,
- 3Public,
- 2Rules,
- 2search,
- 2child,
- 2protection,
- 2Confidentiality,
- 2disclosure,
- 2property,
- 2By-law,
- 2Parking,
- 2contract,
- 2Costs,
- 2Investigation,
- 2Lien,
- 2Construction,
- 2Fiduciary,
- 2secured creditor,
- 2error,
- 2bureacracy,
- 2witness,
- 2corporation,
- 2liability,
- 2Property Tax,
- 2res-judicata,
- 2bias,
- 2tools,
- 2Real-Estate,
- 2Class-Action,
- 2prosecution,
- 2publication
Public Tags (1044)
David Scrimshaw's Public Lists (1)
Highlighter, Sticky notes, Tagging, Groups and Network: integrated suite dramatically boosting research productivity. Learn more »
Join Diigo