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



Wednesday, February 15, 2017 @ 2:38 PM

Event: conversation between white-collar crime enforcers, businesses and counsel

Osler will be hosting a live roundtable discussion moderated by Lawrence Ritchie, chair of Osler’s risk management & crisis response group on Feb. 28 from 4 to 5:45 p.m. ... [read more]

Tuesday, February 14, 2017 @ 2:07 PM

Gowling WLG forms exclusive association with JurisAsia LLC

International law firm, Gowling WLG has established an exclusive association with JurisAsia, a Singapore firm specializing in intellectual property and corporate law. ... [read more]

Monday, February 13, 2017 @ 1:36 PM

Bereskin & Parr to host cross-border patent law webinar

Bereskin & Parr will be leading a webinar on Feb. 15 on the differences between Canadian and U.S. patent law and what that means to you. ... [read more]

Monday, February 13, 2017 @ 11:33 AM

INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS - Construction and interpretation

Application by Turp for judicial review of a decision by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, approving the issuance of permits for the export of light armoured vehicles (LAVs) to Saudi Arabia. The LAVs were manufactured in Ontario by GDLS-C, the Canadian division of General Dynamics, an American corporation. Saudi Arabia had been using the LAVs since the 1990s, but until recently, had purchased them by way of contracts negotiated with the United States. In 2014, Saudi Arabia decided to negotiate directly with Canada, signing the contract that led to the export permits at issue. The Minister approved export permits sought by GDLS-C, relying on a memorandum prepared by department officials noting that none of the branches of government consulted had any objection to the issuance of the permits. Saudi Arabia was considered a key partner for Canada and an important ally in the fight against terrorism in the Middle East. The contract represented thousands of jobs in Ontario. The memorandum also noted that Canada had concerns about Saudi Arabia’s human rights record, but found no connection between the LAVs and human rights violations in Saudi Arabia and no report of the use of LAVs against civilians by Saudi Arabia since the exports began in the 1990s. A UN expert report, mentioned in the memorandum, indicated that all parties to the conflict in Yemen had violated international humanitarian law, particularly through targeted airstrikes, but that there was no evidence the LAVs had been used for that purpose. ... [read more]

Thursday, February 09, 2017 @ 7:00 PM

Corporations, Partnerships & Associations Law - Corporations - General principles - Distinct legal entity - Exceptions (piercing the corporate veil)

Motions by the Chevron defendants and by the plaintiffs for summary judgment in an action commenced to enforce an Ecuadorian judgment. The 47 plaintiffs represented 30,000 indigenous Ecuadorian villagers affected by environmental pollution resulting from oil exploitation and extraction activities in the Oriente region of Ecuador. After their action against Texaco in New York was dismissed with Texaco’s agreement to submit to the jurisdiction of the Ecuadorian courts, the plaintiffs commenced an action in Ecuador. They obtained a $9.5 million USD judgment against Texaco, which merged with Chevron prior to the commencement of the action in Ecuador. Chevron refused to acknowledge or pay the Ecuadorian judgment, and had no assets in the country. The plaintiffs commenced the present action in Ontario in 2012. They alleged no wrongdoing on the part of Chevron Canada, but took the position that Chevron Canada was an asset of Chevron that was exigible and available for execution and seizure to satisfy the Ecuadorian judgment against Chevron. Alternatively, the plaintiffs submitted that the Court should pierce Chevron Canada’s corporate veil to makes its shares and assets available to satisfy the judgment. Chevron Canada was a seventh-level indirect subsidiary of Chevron, with assets across Canada. It had never carried on business in Ecuador. Chevron was incorporated in Delaware and had no Canadian assets. As was the case with its many other subsidiaries, Chevron owned all of the shares of Chevron Canada and received dividends from its operations. ... [read more]

Thursday, February 09, 2017 @ 7:00 PM

Construction Law - Proceedings - Practice and procedure - Costs

Not applicable ... [read more]

Thursday, February 09, 2017 @ 7:00 PM

Boosting business with focused approach

As an associate with a medium-size firm Tanya Carlton was able to devote her full attention to serving its strong client base. But when she went solo in the Ottawa suburb of Barrhaven in early 2016 she found herself on the marketing hot seat, casting her net for referrals. It’s no different from any other business. ... [read more]

Thursday, February 09, 2017 @ 7:00 PM

Diversity is good for a firm's bottom line

Not applicable ... [read more]

Thursday, February 09, 2017 @ 7:00 PM


■ Jeffrey Roode is a new partner in Miller Thomson’s Toronto office. Roode practises corporate/commercial litigation and information technology law with a focus on the payments and Fintech industries. He has acted for payment networks, banks, merchants, processors, startups, service providers and others in a wide variety of commercial transactions. ... [read more]

Thursday, February 09, 2017 @ 7:00 PM

Tort Law - Negligence - Causation - Foreseeability and remoteness - Intervening causes - Strict liability (rule in Rylands v. Fletcher) - Liability of owners of animals

Appeal by the defendant, Arbour, from a finding of liability under the Dog Owners’ Liability Act (DOLA) in favour of the plaintiff, Wilk. The defendant owned a Great Dane, age nine. The plaintiff’s girlfriend offered to take the dog for a walk. During the walk, the dog suffered a seizure and lost consciousness. Upon regaining consciousness, the dog backed out of his collar, slipped on ice, and fell down an embankment. The plaintiff also slipped down the embankment while trying to retrieve the dog. The plaintiff collided with the dog and the dog bit half of her thumb off. The plaintiff brought an action for damages pursuant to the DOLA, and based on common-law negligence for the defendant’s failure to administer anti-seizure medication prior to the walk. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the action. The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for summary judgment. The motion judge concluded that the plaintiff did not possess the dog at the relevant time and therefore was not within the definition of an owner under the DOLA. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to compensation by the defendant as the dog’s owner. The claim in negligence was dismissed on the basis the plaintiff’s injuries were not reasonably foreseeable. The defendant appealed and the plaintiff cross-appealed. ... [read more]