Articles

James shares his insights on client relationship-building from his experience in the non-profit sector.

Many people consider their pet to be a member of the family, but what happens to the pet when there is a breakdown in the human relationship? In this article, Olivia sets out the factors that a Court will look at when determining pet ownership after a separation.

Following are our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of January 23, 2023. It was a very busy week.

The Ontario Court of Appeal in Intact Insurance Company v Zurich Insurance Company Ltd. considered whether Intact Insurance could recoup money it paid beyond its policy limits from parties other than its own insured, by direct action, for the clean up of a chemical spill.

When is an application made? In this Burlington case, the OLT held that it was not "made" until all materials required by the City were filed. Before then, the application was "neither complete, made, nor received." The Tribunal considered Planning Act s. 22.1, which references receipt of materials required by ss. 22(4) and (5). This decision may be of assistance in calculating the new application fee refund periods (ss. 34(11) and s. 41(12)).

Recent updates in Ontario and Federal pension legislation, regulatory policy and caselaw.

What it means to use point-first writing, and why you should do it.

Following are our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of January 9, 2023.

Teachers must behave professionally and respect boundaries in their relationships with students; however, a failure to do so is not necessarily just cause for dismissal. Before dismissal, the school board may be expected to provide guidance on the boundary between being a “caring adult” and inappropriate conduct.

This detailed case summary reviews the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario v. York Region District School Board. In this groundbreaking decision, the Court of Appeal held that section 8 of the Charter applies to the actions of principals conducting workplace investigations. Further, the Court found that the Board’s investigation violated the teachers’ reasonable expectation of privacy and constituted an unreasonable search under section 8.