Articles 2024

Today
Today

Now and Then: An Overview of the Development of Location-Specific Disclosure Requirements, Where We Are and Where We Are Going Following Freshly Squeezed and Yogurtworld

  • August 19, 2021
  • Christine Jackson, partner, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, and Dominic Mochrie, partner, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP

Determining the scope of "all material facts" that must be disclosed to franchisees is a key part of the continuing evolution of franchise law in Canada. This article provides important insights on two recent cases dealing with location-specific disclosure requirements, and sets out a helpful overview of how the law has developed in this area.

Franchise Law, Student Forum

Court of Appeal Summaries (August 2-6)

  • August 10, 2021
  • John Polyzogopoulos

Please find below our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for the week of August 2, 2021.

Civil Litigation, Student Forum

Azar v Strada Crush Limited: The Importance of a Suitable Indemnity Agreement for Adverse Costs for the Representative Plaintiff in a Class Action

  • August 03, 2021
  • Peter W. Kryworuk and Jacqueline M. Palef, Lerners LLP

In Azar v Strada Crush, Justice Morgan comments on a representative plaintiff’s potential exposure to adverse cost awards, and the importance of having an indemnity for costs in place for the representative plaintiff, whether that is addressed in the retainer agreement by class counsel agreeing to indemnify the representative plaintiff, or by securing a third party indemnity for costs from the Class Proceedings Fund or a third-party funding company.

Class Actions, Student Forum

Court of Appeal Summaries (July 26-30)

  • August 02, 2021
  • John Polyzogopoulos

Following are our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of July 26, 2021.

Civil Litigation, Student Forum

Court of Appeal Summaries (July 19-23)

  • July 26, 2021
  • John Polyzogopoulos

In Florence v Benzaguen, the Court grappled with the issue of whether it is settled law in Ontario that doctors do not owe a duty of care to an unborn child pre-conception. The majority struck the Appellants’ claim of negligence, holding that no duty of care is not recognized at law. In dissent, Fairburn A.C.J.O. held that this issue was not settled law and ought to be decided at trial. I suspect this may not be the last word on the issue.

Civil Litigation, Student Forum

Court of Appeal Summaries (July 12-16)

  • July 19, 2021
  • John Polyzogopoulos

Following are this week’s summaries of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of July 16, 2021. Topics covered this week included several family law decisions relating to custody and access, relocation and spousal support and labour law (duty to bargain in good faith).

Civil Litigation, Student Forum

Reviewing the Rights of First Nations Children: Commenting on the Caring Society Litigation

  • July 16, 2021
  • Szymon Rodomar and Wei Yang

A review of the submissions made during an application for judicial review in Federal Court concerning a 2019 compensation order made by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (“CHRT”) for Indigenous victims of the discriminatory underfunding of child and family services (the “Compensation Decision”) and the CHRT’s 2020 decision regarding the definition of “First Nations child” (the “First Nations child Decision”).

Child and Youth Law, Student Forum