Articles 2023

In determining valuation of an expropriated interest, arbitral tribunals must consider existing planning and zoning regulations. However, the admissibility of evidence concerning post-expropriation planning and zoning changes can often become a pivotal issue in determining the probable highest and best use, as well as the market value of the subject property.

The issue of whether an intentional action can be properly framed in negligence dates back to the seminal case of Non-Marine Underwriters, Lloyd’s of London v. Scalera. Since then, the courts have repeatedly proclaimed that such attempts are futile. However, this has not stopped counsel from attempting to disguise intentional torts as negligence within their pleadings.

This article reviews Pass Herald v. Google LLC, 2024 FC 305, in which the Federal Court of Canada approved a litigation funding agreement in a proposed competition class action and refused to impose a cap on the combined recovery of class counsel and the funder, despite the defendants’ suggestions that it do so.

The recent decision Barbiero v. Pollack, 2024 ONSC 1548, offers guidance to class action practitioners as to when the Court will dismiss a certified class action for delay.

The Supreme Court of Canada's guidance about statutorily implied terms under the Sale of Goods Act has implications for product liability class proceedings. This article analyzes the breadth of exclusionary clauses applicable to such terms.

This article considers the incidence and implications of potential fraudulent activity in class actions claims processes.

This article compares and contrasts two recent decisions in Federal Court fee approval motions pertaining to mega settlements.

This article summarizes Palmer v. Teva Canada Inc., 2024 ONCA 220, in which the Ontario Court of Appeal reaffirmed that the need to plead and prove concrete injury remains an “essential component to recovery” in negligence and that product liability claims cannot generally be sustained based solely on: (a) the potential increased risk of future harm; (b) bare allegations of psychological harm; and/or (c) pure economic losses, such as out-of-pocket costs for medical services and monitoring.

The article summarizes an interview with Jane Stewart, Chair of the Child and Youth Law Section.