Ross-Clair v Canada (Attorney General): Contractors Beware of Charging for Extras
Ross-Clair, a division of R.O.M. Contractors Inc. v Canada (Attorney General),2016 ONCA 205 [Ross-Clair] is the Ontario Court of Appeal’s (“ONCA”) latest decision affecting the commercial construction industry. Commercial construction contracts typically include not only arbitration clauses, but also detailed provisions on how to deal with disputes over additional costs incurred during the project “extras.” The…Read More
Some Suggestions on Regulating Technological Innovation: City of Toronto v Uber Canada Inc.
In November of last year, I wrote an article for The Court on the recent decision in Uber Canada Inc. v City of Toronto, 2015 ONSC 3572 [“Uber”] by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (“ONSC”). In Uber, Justice Sean F. Dunphy ruled that Uber is neither a “taxicab broker” nor a “limousine service” within the meaning of the City of…Read More
Mapleview v Papa Kerollus: Erring on the side of fairness when adjudicating commercial leases
Mapleview-Veterans Drive Investments Inc. v Papa Kerollus VI Inc. (Mr. Sub), 2016 ONCA 93 [Mapleview], a case released yesterday by the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”), is the latest pronouncement on interpreting commercial lease provisions. While the outcome of the appeal is understandable given the facts relied upon by the parties, it causes concerns not only for…Read More
Swern v Amazon Hardwood Centre Inc: Clever Judicial Decision-Making or Confusing Law?
Due to a dearth of commercial appellate decisions around the holiday season, a tort decision from the Ontario Divisional Court has caught my attention. Swern v Amazon Hardwood Centre Inc, 2015 ONSC 7590 [Swern] is a Small Claims Court decision appealed by the Defendants to the Divisional Court on a number of well-reasoned points of law and fact.…Read More
Evans Sweeny Bordin LLP v Zawadzki: Limits on Contractual Freedom Between Lawyer and Client
In the civil litigation context, it has been a client’s longstanding right to challenge the reasonableness of his or her lawyer’s account for services rendered. Clients may apply to have a lawyer’s costs assessed by a court under Rule 58 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194. Evans Sweeny Bordin LLP v Zawadzki, 2015…Read More
A PROPOSAL TO ENCOURAGE UP-THE-LADDER REPORTING BY INSULATING IN-HOUSE CORPORATE ATTORNEYS FROM MANAGERIAL POWER
After the 2001 financial collapse of publicly traded Enron Corporation-caused by alleged accounting fraud-the US. Congress included Section 307 in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Section 307”). Section 307 requires in-house corporate attorneys to report instances of corporate wrongdoing and fraud at their companies “up the ladder” to senior management and the board of directors…Read More
- « Previous