Insider

Bank only acted through agents, so when agent failed to read or understand term in proposal that was bank's failure — When agency was out of touch with lawyer it was result of banks failure to coordinate its agents or act through single agent to enforce related liabilities — It would be unjust to annul proposal allowed by bank on ground that bank now understood what it voted for.

As of April 20th, Keycite Canada on westlaw Canada will include relationships to cases that are not part of the direct appellate history.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the defendant estate trustees from a judgment concerning expenses for a residence that was subject to a cohabitation agreement. Plaintiff and deceased had cohabitation agreement that provided the plaintiff with option of remaining in residence. On appeal, it was held that given that plaintiff was not paying all of costs of maintaining residence, defendants could reasonably take position that she had not complied with agreement and that residence should be sold.

In Evans and Discovery Communications, 2018 FC 1153, the Federal Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's copyright infringement claim.

[The judge] must consider whether [the plaintiff] has standing to bring an application under Rule 16-46 [of the Queen's Bench Rules], to require proof of the will in solemn form, or for an order revoking the grant of probate under Rule 16-47. . . . . . Rule 16-46 ... permits an application by any person who “... is or may be interested in the estate.” The grammatical and ordinary meaning of the word “may” in Rule 16-46 connotes possibility ... the use of the phrase “may be interested” means that a person does not have to establish a definite interest in the estate to establish standing. A possible interest, within the context of the applicable law and the specific factual circumstances, is enough to ground standing.

Employer dismissed employee without appropriate consideration and investigation; Employer did not show conduct incompatible with employee's duties which went to root of contract

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in Callidus Capital Corporation v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2018 SCC 47, on November 8, 2018.

In the deceased's will, he only left his wife a life estate in his share of a condominium. The deceased's children were made his attorneys through a power of attorney. The children were beneficiaries, and one of them was executor. The wife, through her daughter as litigation guardian (applicant), brought an unsuccessful application for an accounting and equalization under Pt. IV of Family Property Act. An appeal was filed and dismissed. The court held that the applicant was not entitled as of a right to an accounting before a master. The applicant was entitled to an accounting, which occurred before applications judge.

... what is referred to as “bootstrapping.” This is the situation where a party seeks to supplement what would otherwise be considered deficient evidence with allegedly “new” evidence and arguments on appeal.

This excerpt from the updated Family Law — Property title examines Canadian law with regards to unjust enrichment and the presumptions of advancement and resulting trust

If bankrupt could challenge validity of entire bankruptcy proceedings at this late stage, it would amount to collateral attack on validity of initial bankruptcy order, which was properly made and upheld upon appeal — This would be contrary to concept of finality ensconced in doctrines of res judicata and abuse of process.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is an EU regulation governing the protection of personal data of EU residents. So why does this EU legislation matter to Canadian businesses and organizations?