Articles 2024

Can the franchisor-franchisee relationship create a conspiracy? In its decision Pearce v. 4 Pillars Consulting Group Inc., the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision to certify a number of claims, including civil conspiracy, in a class proceeding against both franchisee and franchisor defendants. This article highlights the outcome of the decision and considers potential consequences and considerations for franchise systems.

In O'Reilly v. ClearMRI Solutions Ltd, the Court set aside the motion judge’s determination that that the two appellant corporations were common employers, and set aside the judgment against one of them. In Wiseau Studio, LLC v. Harper, on a motion to review, the Court, with very brief reasons, set aside Justice Thorburn’s ground-breaking order for security for judgment ordered against the appellants.

Overview of the provincial government's plan to grow the size of the Greenbelt.

In this case, decided by the Supreme Court on May 21, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that a legal right is required for a court to intervene in a decision of a voluntary association, and found that whether such a legal right exists must be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Update on Ontario and federal pension and benefits legislation, regulatory policy and case law.

In The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. the Canadian Council for Refugees, 2021 FCA 72, the Federal Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the Federal Court (2020 FC 770), which had found that section 101(1)(e) of the Immigration Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.27 (the “Act”) and section 159.3 of the Regulations under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, S.O.R./2002-227 (the “Regulations”), infringed section 7 of the Charter.

A recent decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court in its finding that a decision of the Pay Equity Tribunal, which found that continued the use of the proxy method to measure pay equity in the nursing home sector was not necessary, was not reasonable. However, a strong dissent signed by two of the Justice suggests this may not be the last word on the matter.

The recent Order, which imposed a hotel quarantine requirement for travellers returning to Canada by air, has been tested in two recent decisions. The Superior Court of Justice and Federal Court of Canada each considered the constitutionality of the new measures to prevent the spread of Covid-19: Canadian Constitution Foundation v Canada (AG) (“CCF”), and Spencer v Canada (AG) (“Spencer”). Injunctive relief was refused in both decisions. This note summarizes and compares CCF and Spencer.