Civil Litigation
-
June 12, 2025
There is no right to party: Ontario court
In the last few years, several cities have been required to respond to unsanctioned large gatherings during university homecoming week or the holidays. The large unsanctioned gathering have, in general, been organized on social media by faceless individuals. Although social gatherings can be a public good, the unsanctioned events have caused chaos.
-
June 12, 2025
Reducing CRR burden: Keep ‘relevance’ as standard, reduce judge-presided conferences
The Civil Rules Review Phase 2 (CRR) report mandates judicial case conferences in two forms: directions conferences and scheduling conferences. In addition, it proposes a completely new standard for productions while removing discovery, which is a cornerstone for ensuring necessary and adequate production. The CRR proposes a new production standard: production of “reliance” and “adverse” documents rather than keeping the current standard of relevance. The net result will be more ambiguity as to which documents are proper productions, and given the absence of discovery, a greater need to obtain full production of all “reliance” and all “adverse” documents.
-
June 12, 2025
Determining income for child support: Lessons from Moggach v. Slattery
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently examined the complexities of determining income for child support purposes in Moggach v. Slattery, 2025 ONSC 2915. This case underscores the challenges associated with financial disclosure, the attribution of corporate income and the treatment of personal expenses deducted from business revenue. The decision highlights the importance of transparency in financial matters.
-
June 12, 2025
Federal Court: CHRC complaint dismissal based on settlement offer unreasonable
The Federal Court has set aside the dismissal of a human rights complaint, noting that the decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) not to proceed with the complaint in light of a settlement offer was inadequately explained and therefore unreasonable.
-
June 11, 2025
Maxime-Arnaud Keable joins McCarthy Tétrault’s as partner
McCarthy Tétrault has welcomed Maxime-Arnaud Keable to its Quebec City office as a partner in the firm’s national litigation and dispute resolution group.
-
June 11, 2025
Ontario Court of Appeal upholds lower court decision denying Amazon drivers’ $250M class action
In a victory for Amazon Canada, the Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld a lower court decision rejecting a proposed $250-million class-action lawsuit against the online retailing giant by 73,000 delivery drivers over alleged breach of employment contracts.
-
June 11, 2025
Nova Scotia Court of Appeal allows amendments in insurance case involving collapsed crane
The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal has allowed contractors to amend their defences after learning about an existing policy in an insurance case where a crane fell during a hurricane.
-
June 11, 2025
Expanded Supreme Court registry services now available in Port Coquitlam, B.C.
The province of British Columbia has announced that residents of its Tri-Cities region (which includes Port Coquitlam, Coquitlam and Port Moody) now have improved access to court services with the opening of a fully equipped Supreme Court registry at the Port Coquitlam courthouse.
-
June 11, 2025
Employer has duty to investigate both incidents and complaints of harassment: Ontario Appeal Court
Ontario’s highest court has ruled that an arbitrator was wrong to reinstate five Metrolinx employees accused of sexual harassment, saying the company was statutorily obligated to investigate the situation even in the absence of a formal complaint.
-
June 11, 2025
When the gatekeeper fails: Lessons from California’s botched 2025 bar exam
In February 2025, the State Bar of California conducted what was supposed to be a streamlined, cost-efficient bar examination — an experiment in modern legal licensure. Instead, it devolved into one of the most publicized failures of professional credentialing in recent memory. As lawyers in Ontario and across Canada observe an evolving conversation around lawyer competence and access to the profession, California’s case serves as a stark warning about the dangers of opaque governance, overreliance on private contractors and the erosion of professional oversight in legal licensing.