Articles 2020

Michael Lacy provides an overview of the law and offers practical tips to counsel when providing legal advice to detainees.

Within his first few months in office, Ontario’s new Premier, Doug Ford, has prompted a carefully worded but vehement defence of the rule of law in Tesla v Ontario (Ministry of Transportation), 2018 ONSC 5062. Justice Myers reviewed the discretionary exclusion of Tesla from the transitional program for car subsidies, determining it was unrelated to any statutory purpose and did not afford any procedural fairness. Justice Myers quashed the decision and remitted it back to the Minister.

Highlights from the October 16, 2018 Brown Bag Lunch including a discussion about the effect of the Re Milne decision for estate solicitors, the rule of convenience in Rivard v. Morris, conflict of laws surrounding marriage and wills, cross-border payments to beneficiaries and digital asset clauses in Wills.

A third-year law student shares some helpful advice on how to break into the entertainment law industry.

Mills v Radons, 2018 SKQB 237 (CanLII), a recent case from Saskatchewan, looks at whether a husband had the requisite decisional capacity to instruct his counsel in divorce proceedings and whether his intention was to seek a divorce and spousal support.

An eye-opening example followed by a round-up of reasons not to act for family and friends. The one about malpractice insurance is especially jarring.

A practical, hands-on legal bootcamp for lawyers interested in law practice innovation will return in 2019. Osgoode Professional Development will host an info session on October 30, 2018.

Following are the summaries for this week’s civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. All the decisions this week were procedural in nature. One of those was yet another decision in Fontaine v Canada, the Residential School Settlement case, with more appellate decisions apparently to come in that matter.

Plaintiffs' counsel be aware: the litigation finger test can assist in cases of misdescription or misnomer of a party, allowing the plaintiff to correct their mistake and "add" the intended person as a party even after the expiration of the limitation period.