Articles 2023

In Nasogaluak v. Canada and BigEagle v. Canada, the Federal Court reached differing outcomes on Certification, a puzzling result given the similarities between the two cases. How and why did the Court reach different decisions on two similar cases? The devil is in the details. While Plaintiffs' counsel may be tempted to frame class actions broadly to increase class size, the two decisions offer a reminder that less can sometimes be best, particularly where the claims involve novel elements.

This article examines the strategy for employers in reducing claim costs by characterizing obesity as a pre-existing condition for the purposes of claiming cost relief from the Second Injury and Enhancement Fund (SIEF). In reviewing recent caselaw from the WSIAT this article finds that obesity will be grounds for SIEF cost relief only where treating physicians have linked a worker's obesity to the work-related injury or its treatment.

For those who were unable to attend the recent WSIAT stakeholder event, the notes below touch upon the highlights of each presentation from the event.

Mentorship is one of the most important and least discussed components of the legal community, which largely influences the growth of newer generations of lawyers by the help of older ones.

This article is a culmination of the experiences of a young lawyer. More specifically, it’s about the traits that have allowed him to thrive as a solo attorney in the competitive world of law.

A sole-practitioner's outlook on practice during the time of Covid.

This year's annual What You Missed While You Were Away program was organized and chaired by Lisa Watzinger and Hennadiy Kutsenko with presenters Joan Jung, Lesley L’Heureux, and Christopher Anderson.

Potential ACB increase as a result of a spin-off transaction is viewed by the CRA as subject to GAAR.

Eight commodity tax considerations for commercial landlords in Ontario.

In a recent decision of the Saskatchewan QB, the Court refused to certify an action and struck the claim in its entirety. The Court took issue with the behaviour of Plaintiffs’ counsel, including his acceptance of fees solicited from putative class members without court approval, noting that the fee arrangement between the proposed representative plaintiffs’ and Plaintiff's counsel created an “obvious and untenable” conflict giving rise to divided loyalties, thereby rendering counsel unsuitable.