Focus On
NEW In-House Counsel | Insurance | Intellectual Property | Immigration | Natural Resources | Real Estate | Tax



Friday, March 17, 2017 @ 11:55 AM

Feds toughen rules for flying recreational drones Drone

With the growing popularity of drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), has come an increasing concern for their safe use, especially around other aircraft, buildings and people. ... [read more]

Friday, March 17, 2017 @ 8:54 AM

Top 10 risk management tips for charities, not-for-profits

Charities and not-for-profits (NFPs) face increasing challenges in delivering their services to their members and the public, in part because of a more litigious reality and complicated regulatory environment. As such, charities and NFPs need to be familiar with an array of legal requirements that they need to comply with. ... [read more]

Thursday, March 16, 2017 @ 8:00 PM

Many large law firms averse to innovation, study finds

Not applicable ... [read more]

Thursday, March 16, 2017 @ 8:00 PM

Barristers and solicitors - Negligence - In conduct of action - Consequences of negligence

Appeal by the defendant, McLean, from a judgment in a solicitor’s negligence action. Cross-appeal by the plaintiffs, the Jarbeaus, from the judgment and costs award. The plaintiffs purchased a new home from a developer that leaked due to a failure to meet building code standards. The plaintiffs retained the defendant solicitor to sue those responsible for building and selling them a defective home. The defendant sued the developer, the City and the warranty corporation, but failed to sue the engineer within the limitation period. The defendant negligently advised the plaintiffs they did not have a cause of action against the engineer on the basis they did not have a contract with him. The engineer subsequently acknowledged he was negligent in certifying the design and construction of the home. The plaintiffs settled the first action and sued the defendant seeking damages for solicitor’s negligence. On the eve of trial, the defendant admitted liability. The trial proceeded on the issues of causation and damages. A trial within the trial examined the plaintiffs’ potential action against the engineer. The jury found in the plaintiffs’ favour. The jury assessed the costs of repair at $433,000, and the diminution in value due to the defects at $265,000. Deduction of the $75,000 settlement of the first action resulted in a net award of $190,000. The trial judge declared the jury’s cost of repair finding as perverse, but granted judgment for $190,000 as the lesser of the cost to repair and diminution of value. The trial judge reduced the costs payable to the plaintiffs despite bettering a settlement offer on the basis the jury’s diminution of value finding was also perverse. The defendant appealed and the plaintiffs cross-appealed. ... [read more]

Thursday, March 16, 2017 @ 8:00 PM

Prison administration - Security classifications - Maximum

Appeal by an inmate from the dismissal of his application for habeas corpus challenging his initial security classification. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to two years and six months incarceration for break and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence. His transfer to the federal prison system was delayed because he was facing outstanding charges. However, the intake assessment process was started while he was under provincial remand, and he was initially identified as being a medium security risk. However, after being advised of an incident in which the appellant shoved a correction officer, the appellant was classified as maximum security. Although the appellant denied assaulting a corrections officer, the information about the assault was never verified. As a result of the maximum security classification, the appellant was placed in solitary confinement and remained there until his transfer to a maximum security institution. The appellant asserted his classification decision was unlawful and caused a deprivation of his liberty. He claimed that Correctional Services relied on inaccurate information and he was denied procedural fairness. The application judge found that it was not open to the appellant to argue that there was a deprivation of residual liberty in the context of an initial security classification. He further found that only the Federal Court had the power to quash an initial security classification and grant a remedy. The appellant appealed. ... [read more]

Thursday, March 16, 2017 @ 8:00 PM

Legal Profession - Barristers and solicitors - Disqualification or removal

Appeal by Sikes and two companies from a Federal Court decision affirming a Prothonotary’s refusal to have Smart & Biggar removed as solicitors of record for the respondents, Encana, Cenovus and FCCL. In 2008, Sikes communicated with eight different law firms, including Smart & Biggar, seeking legal representation to enforce the appellants’ rights associated with a pending patent. Smart & Biggar declined to represent the appellants, citing a conflict of interest. In 2014, Smith & Biggar was appointed as the respondents’ solicitor. In 2015, the appellants filed a motion for removal of Smith & Biggar on the basis of the 2008 interaction with Sikes. The appellants submitted confidential information was imparted by Sikes and that legal advice was provided. The prothonotary, acting as the case management judge, dismissed the motion on the basis of the unchallenged evidence that the information communicated by Sikes was non-confidential and that no legal advice was provided. The Federal Court dismissed the appeal, finding no basis for interference with the prothonotary’s conclusion that no solicitor and client relationship materialized. The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal. ... [read more]

Thursday, March 16, 2017 @ 8:00 PM

Pensions & Benefits Law - Public pension plans - Canada Pension Plan - Pensions and supplementary benefits - Benefits payable - Child of disabled contributor benefit - Appeals and judicial review

Appeal and application for judicial review by Robbins challenging decisions finding he was not entitled to Disabled Contributor’s Child Benefits. Robbins’s entitlement to Benefits required submission of an application for disability benefits in 1997 identifying his children. In July 2014, the Federal Court affirmed a legislation officer’s decision finding no evidence that Robbins submitted the requisite application in 1997, and therefore the denial of the Benefits did not result from administrative error. Robbins appealed the decision. In addition, Robbins sought judicial review of a decision by the Social Security Tribunal’s Appeal Division issued in October 2014. Following directions issued in a 2010 Federal Court of Appeal judgment, the Appeal Division accepted written submissions on the issue of whether the 1997 application was submitted by Robbins. The Tribunal determined that the matter was conclusively determined by the July 2014 Federal Court decision, and declined to address the matter. ... [read more]

Thursday, March 16, 2017 @ 8:00 PM

Should you light the match for superstars to leave?

Law firms have long employed a cradle-to-the-grave career path for their top performers, but new U.S. research suggests letting superstar lawyers walk away to pursue other opportunities can not only bring an infusion of youth but also improve the bottom line. ... [read more]

Thursday, March 16, 2017 @ 12:52 PM

Fasken hosts HR seminar on managing absenteeism

Fasken Martineau is hosting a seminar for employer representatives interested in human resources and labour relations issues on March 29 in Montreal. ... [read more]

Thursday, March 16, 2017 @ 9:40 AM

Investment clinic to provide pro bono legal assistance for investors Poonam Puri

Beginning in September the Investor Protection Clinic (IPC) will offer pro bono legal assistance to individuals of modest means who have invested their savings and suffered an investment loss, but cannot afford to hire a lawyer to assist them in attempting to recover their loss. ... [read more]