Home
David Scrimshaw's Library tagged → View Popular
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
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...
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...
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.
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...
Fisker Cargo Inc. v. Toronto Fashion Group Ltd., 2009 CanLII 64832 (ON S.C.)
in view of s. 51(1) of the Bills of Exchange Act, the signatory of a promissory note is personally liable unless there are clear words signifying that he or she is signing in a representative capacity.
-
it is sufficient that consideration move from the promisee, but the apparent
benefit, if any, need not be enjoyed by the promisor, and may consist of some
benefit given by the promisee to a third person. In this case, the benefit
was given by the plaintiff to the stores operated by Mr. Elian, specifically 83
Bloor Street West, in that the plaintiff would continue to do business with
them. It was in Mr. Elian’s interest that that be done, and that is why he
signed the promissory note personally
Schuster v. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada, 2009 CanLII 58971 (ON S.C.)
[53] The Plaintiff has set her Facebook privacy settings to private and has restricted its content to 67 “friends.” She has not created her profile for the purpose of sharing it with the general public. Unless the Defendant establishes a legal entitlement to such information, the Plaintiff’s privacy interest in the information in her profile should be respected.
-
The Defendant was at liberty to
cross-examine the Plaintiff on her Affidavit of Documents if it considered it
desirable to do so. It was also free to question the Plaintiff about her
Facebook account at her examination for discovery. There is no evidence
that it did so. The Defendant should not seek to by-pass the need to make
these inquiries by prematurely seeking an order for the delivery of a
Supplementary Affidavit of Documents or preservation or production of documents
by asking the Court to speculate as to the content of the Plaintiff’s Facebook
account
Andrews Estate (Re), 2009 CanLII 64179 (ON S.C.)
The Estates Office erred in requiring the affidavit of debts to contain the language, “this affidavit is made in support of a motion to dispense with a bond”. Such language need not be included in an affidavit of debts. Neither the Estates Act nor the Rules of Civil Procedure prescribe the form or content of an affidavit of debts. Accordingly, the form of the affidavit must comply with Form 4D, the general form of affidavit used in civil proceedings governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. Form 4D does not require an affidavit to contain language identifying the application or motion in respect of which it has been filed. True enough, one still sees such language in some affidavits, but that style of drafting an affidavit is dying out and, more to the point, there is no requirement that an affidavit contain such language
Island Timberlands LP v. Canada (Foreign Affairs), 2008 FC 1380 (CanLII)
The Minister’s failure to make a public statement of the rationale for the Policy is the most important element of the unfair nature of the processing of Island Timberlands’ applications
-
given the importance of the October
12th decision to Island Timberlands, and given that the decision was
rendered in such a non-transparent manner in form and substance, even at the
highest level of deference, and the lowest level of due process, a breach of due
process occurred.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat, 2009 FCA 309 (CanLII)
It is difficult, if not impossible, to conclude that the answer (either yes or no) can be said to fall within a range of possible acceptable outcomes. There is much to be said for the argument that where there are two conflicting lines of authority interpreting the same statutory provision, even if each on its own could be found to be reasonable, it would not be reasonable for a court to uphold both
-
[50]
There is
binding authority to the effect that different standards of review can apply to
different legal questions depending on the nature of the question and the
relative expertise of the tribunal in those particular matters -
[75]
The proper
approach to statutory interpretation has been articulated repeatedly by the
Supreme Court of Canada and is so entrenched that reference to specific
authority is not necessary. The goal is to seek the intent of Parliament by
reading the words of the provision in context and according to their grammatical
and ordinary sense, harmoniously with the scheme and the object of the
statute. - 2 more annotations...
Desjardins Ducharme Stein Monast v. Empress Jewellery (Canada) Inc., 2004 CanLII 15737 (QC C.S.)
the interests of a major unsecured creditor are considered to be unfairly prejudiced in a case where there is a closely-held corporation in which the directors and shareholders gain a personal advantage or a reduction in liability by keeping funds or assets out of such creditor's reach
Rassouli-Rashti v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2009 CanLII 62055 (ON S.C.D.C.)
-
courts have concluded that a regulatory body has implied authority to conduct an
informal investigation in circumstances where it is not necessary to resort to
the powers accorded to an individual who is conducting a formal investigation
Selected Tags
Related Tags
Sponsored Links
Top Contributors
Groups interested in law
-
Blawgs
Legal and Law-Related Blogs
Items: 62 | Visits: 105
Created by: aeschylus
-
Wind Legal Update News
Industrial wind industry le...
Items: 29 | Visits: 110
Created by: CWWgroup
-
Episode 52
The show notes for the 52nd...
Items: 16 | Visits: 190
Created by: Jonathan Bailey
Diigo is about better ways to research, share and collaborate on information. Learn more »
Join Diigo