<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Dentons Commercial Litigation Blog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/</link>
	<description>Latest trends and developments in commercial litigation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 18:16:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Challenging a minor variance decision: A difficult path forward</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/challenging-a-minor-variance-decision-a-difficult-path-forward/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Oliver Flis]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2026 16:27:18 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Real Estate Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6349</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/iStock-519270910-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" fetchpriority="high" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/iStock-519270910-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/iStock-519270910-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/iStock-519270910-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/iStock-519270910-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/iStock-519270910-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/iStock-519270910.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>The recent Divisional Court decisions in 2701836 Ontario Inc. v. Haldimand County (2026), Ho v. Ottawa (2025) and Loeb v. [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>2026 ICC Rules: Updates and changes to increase efficiency in arbitration</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/2026-icc-rules-updates-and-changes-to-increase-efficiency-in-arbitration/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rachel Howie]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2026 14:42:34 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6343</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Water drops on a leaf" decoding="async" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has published its updated arbitration rules, which enter into force on June 1, 2026. [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is it time to exit the highway?</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/is-it-time-to-exit-the-highway/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sophie Lorefice]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 May 2026 20:09:33 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Real Estate Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6337</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Reconsidering commercial landlords’ remedies after lease repudiation In Aphria Inc. v. Canada Life Assurance Company (Canada Life)[i], the Supreme Court [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pitfalls to efficient breach of contract – specific performance and insufficiency of damages</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/pitfalls-to-efficient-breach-of-contract-specific-performance-and-insufficiency-of-damages/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chloe Snider]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2026 14:08:25 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6333</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-close-up-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Water drops close up" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-close-up-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-close-up-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-close-up-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-close-up-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-close-up-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-close-up.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In CSN Collision (Canada) Inc v. Lift Auto Group Ltd,[1] the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the Court) recently granted [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court of Canada revisits the doctrine of res judicata and clarifies the elements of cause of action estoppel – with some internal disagreement: Patrick Street Holdings Ltd. v. 11368 NL Inc., 2026 SCC 15</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/supreme-court-of-canada-revisits-the-doctrine-of-res-judicata-and-clarifies-the-elements-of-cause-of-action-estoppel-with-some-internal-disagreement-patrick-street-holdings-ltd-v-11368-nl/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chloe Snider]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2026 15:50:58 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6327</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_375567035-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_375567035-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_375567035-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_375567035-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_375567035-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_375567035-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_375567035.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>On May 8, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada (the Court) released its judgment on Patrick Street Holdings Ltd. v. [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Armstrong v. Township of Russell: Election signs and the solitary search for minimal impairment</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/armstrong-v-township-of-russellelection-signs-and-the-solitary-search-for-minimal-impairment/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Roberto Aburto]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2026 16:01:49 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Real Estate Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6321</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Previously published in LexisNexis Canada’s Municipal Liability Risk Management, Vol. 27, No. 4 Are the where and when of municipal [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards: Narrow limits on public policy and incapacity defences</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/enforcement-of-foreign-arbitral-awards-narrow-limits-on-public-policy-and-incapacity-defences/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chloe Snider]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 15:54:31 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[International Arbitration]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6318</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-leaves-image-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Abstract leaves image" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-leaves-image-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-leaves-image-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-leaves-image-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-leaves-image-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-leaves-image-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-leaves-image.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In Feicheng Mining Group Co. Ltd. v. Liu, 2026 ONSC 1969, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice enforced a China [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>When AI meets privilege: What foreign courts are telling us about the risks of public AI in legal practice</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/when-ai-meets-privilege-what-foreign-courts-are-telling-us-about-the-risks-of-public-ai-in-legal-practice/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Morgan Camley, KC]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 15:29:57 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology and new media]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6311</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/iStock-519270910-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/iStock-519270910-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/iStock-519270910-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/iStock-519270910-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/iStock-519270910-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/iStock-519270910-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/iStock-519270910.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>The legal profession&#8217;s relationship with artificial intelligence is evolving rapidly, and not always smoothly. Canadian courts and tribunals are grappling [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>A slice of equity: Ambassador Realty Inc. and the limits of contractual rights</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/a-slice-of-equity-ambassador-realty-inc-and-the-limits-of-contractual-rights/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Fraser Mackinnon Blair]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2026 19:44:03 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Real Estate Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6302</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Pink Flower Macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In 8750297 Canada Inc. v. Ambassador Realty Inc.,[1] the Ontario Superior Court&#160;of Justice granted equitable relief from forfeiture to a [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>R. v. Mossman: British Columbia Court of Appeal holds that knowledge or intent is not required to impose secondary liability for environmental offences</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/r-v-mossman-british-columbia-court-of-appeal-holds-that-knowledge-or-intent-is-not-required-to-impose-secondary-liability-for-environmental-offences/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dina Awad]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2026 18:00:42 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Real Estate Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulatory]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6295</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>As regulatory statutes, the purpose of environmental protection legislation is to protect the welfare of the public and to protect [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Privilege in the GenAI world – a caution to litigants (and counsel)</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/privilege-in-the-genai-world-a-caution-to-litigants-and-counsel/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chloe Snider]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2026 15:26:01 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology and new media]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6289</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Bird wing macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>The recent decision in United States v. Heppner offers an early judicial warning for litigants using public generative AI tools in active [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>No easy exit: Ontario Divisional Court confirms high bar for setting aside adjudication decisions</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/no-easy-exit-ontario-divisional-court-confirms-high-bar-for-setting-aside-adjudication-decisions/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Karen Groulx]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2026 15:27:01 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6282</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_14226384-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_14226384-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_14226384-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_14226384-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_14226384-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_14226384-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_14226384.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In Sayers Foods Ltd. v. Gay Company Ltd., 2026 ONSC 918, the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed an application for judicial [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pen but no penalty: Lawyer avoids liability for drafting false and misleading press releases – Ontario Securities Commission v. Akbar</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/pen-but-no-penalty-lawyer-avoids-liability-for-drafting-false-and-misleading-press-releases-ontario-securities-commission-v-akbar/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Raphael Eghan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2026 15:46:28 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6278</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_166053672-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_166053672-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_166053672-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_166053672-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_166053672-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_166053672-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_166053672.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Under Ontario securities law, capital markets participants may be held liable for misleading or untrue statements that are communicated to [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court of Appeal for Ontario affirms stay against non-party to arbitration</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/court-of-appeal-for-ontario-affirms-stay-against-non-party-to-arbitration/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Schafler]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2026 19:45:53 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6270</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In Sociedad Concesionaria Metropolitana de Salud S.A. v. Webuild S.p.A., 2026 ONCA 28, the Court of Appeal affirmed a stay [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>To prompt or not to prompt: The implications of using artificial intelligence in court documents</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/to-prompt-or-not-to-prompt-the-implications-of-using-artificial-intelligence-in-court-documents/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sean Fairhurst]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:31:20 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology and new media]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6267</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_431781776-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_431781776-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_431781776-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_431781776-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_431781776-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_431781776-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_431781776.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Alberta courts are increasingly penalizing the misuse of artificial intelligence (AI) in legal documents. The Alberta Court of King’s Bench [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Are “drop dead” applications now a race to the courthouse steps?</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/are-drop-dead-applications-now-a-race-to-the-courthouse-steps/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Changhai Zhu]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2026 16:02:48 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6255</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_78721787-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_78721787-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_78721787-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_78721787-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_78721787-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_78721787-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_78721787.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In a recent decision, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, for the first time, dismissed an application under Rule 4.33 [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>LOIs and the duty of good faith – the court provides some answers</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/lois-and-the-duty-of-good-faith-the-court-provides-some-answers/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chloe Snider]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2026 16:48:51 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6239</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-red-and-blue-flower-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Abstract red and blue flower macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-red-and-blue-flower-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-red-and-blue-flower-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-red-and-blue-flower-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-red-and-blue-flower-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-red-and-blue-flower-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-red-and-blue-flower-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In Dr. Michael Emon Dentistry Professional Corporation v. Alexander Sevo Dentistry Professional Corporation, the Ontario Superior Court (OSCJ) addresses the [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Set-off is (still) a defence to summary judgment in Alberta</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/set-off-is-still-a-defence-to-summary-judgment-in-alberta/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kelly Osaka]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2026 14:58:21 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6244</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Rough sea" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>The Alberta Court of Appeal has confirmed that equitable set-off can be a genuine defence to a summary judgment application. [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hilmer Motorsport GmbH v. Mason: The starting line for a jurisdictional defence is at the foreign court</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/hilmer-motorsport-gmbh-v-mason-the-starting-line-for-a-jurisdictional-defence-is-at-the-foreign-court/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Emily McMurtry]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jan 2026 21:30:56 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6228</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/GettyImages-998390080-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/GettyImages-998390080-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/GettyImages-998390080-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/GettyImages-998390080-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/GettyImages-998390080-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/GettyImages-998390080-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/GettyImages-998390080.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>What do you do when your contractual counterpart sues in foreign court in the face of a mandatory arbitration agreement? [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>British Columbia introduces new provincial Short-Term Rental Registry</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/british-columbia-introduces-new-provincial-short-term-rental-registry/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew Mollard]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2025 17:49:41 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Real Estate Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6211</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Purple feather macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>A significant update to the short-term rental landscape in British Columbia has taken shape with the introduction of the provincial [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Restrictive covenants: A barrier to housing developments in British Columbia</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/restrictive-covenants-a-barrier-to-housing-developments-in-british-columbia/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Emma Irving]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2025 14:51:27 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Real Estate Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6215</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1239" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF-1568x1239.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Operate_GPOF" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF-1568x1239.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF-1024x809.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF-768x607.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF.jpg 1899w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>A complicating factor in the recent push to increase available housing in British Columbia are historical restrictive covenants that are [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Navigating Canada’s emerging AI landscape: Risks and realities for financial professionals</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/navigating-canadas-emerging-ai-landscape-risks-and-realities-for-financial-professionals/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kelly Osaka]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2025 15:44:04 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6220</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Rough sea" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Canada’s AI regulatory landscape for financial institutions is still taking shape. Without an overarching federal statute, the financial services industry [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court of Canada considers the meaning of “material change” in Canadian securities law and clarifies the test for leave to proceed with a secondary market securities class action</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/supreme-court-of-canada-considers-the-meaning-of-material-change-in-canadian-securities-law-and-clarifies-the-test-for-leave-to-proceed-with-a-secondary-market-securities-class-actio/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matthew Fleming]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2025 18:56:50 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6204</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_431781776-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_431781776-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_431781776-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_431781776-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_431781776-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_431781776-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_431781776.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>On November 28, 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada released its highly anticipated decision Lundin Mining Corporation v. Markowich,[1] addressing [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Back to regularly scheduled programming: The Divisional Court confirms that compelled testimony against an individual is admissible in Capital Markets Tribunal hearings</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/back-to-regularly-scheduled-programming-the-divisional-court-confirms-that-compelled-testimony-against-an-individual-is-admissible-in-capital-markets-tribunal-hearings/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Raphael Eghan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2025 17:29:57 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6197</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Water drops on a leaf" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Introduction The Ontario Securities Commission Staff (the OSC or Staff)has the power under section 13 of the Securities Act (the [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dentons quarterly privacy litigation digest – Issue 3/2025</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/dentons-quarterly-privacy-litigation-digest-issue-3-2025/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kelly Osaka]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2025 14:21:58 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quarterly privacy litigation digest]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6191</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-image-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Geology image" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-image-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-image-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-image-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-image-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-image-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-image.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>This issue of Dentons’ quarterly privacy litigation digest summarizes important privacy decisions, including: a British Columbia (BC) Court of Appeal [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court of Canada allows property owners to acquire municipal parkland through a claim for adverse possession</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/supreme-court-of-canada-allows-property-owners-to-acquire-municipal-parkland-through-a-claim-for-adverse-possession/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brandon Barnes Trickett]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2025 13:27:41 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Law]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6169</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Underwater image" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Introduction Private landowners who have met the requirements for adverse possession can acquire title to land even if it is [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ontario Superior Court awards nearly CA$2 million in landmark online defamation case</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/ontario-superior-court-awards-nearly-ca2-million-in-landmark-online-defamation-case/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Morgan Camley, KC]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2025 18:54:38 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology and new media]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6161</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Insect wing macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>On August 19, 2025, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the Court) released its decision in Canadian Aids Treatment Information [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hard landing for uncertified proposed airline conspiracy class action: Gifford v. Air Canada</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/hard-landing-for-uncertified-proposed-airline-conspiracy-class-action-gifford-v-air-canada/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Amer Pasalic]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2025 19:39:27 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Aviation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transportation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6154</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Light purple agawa" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>The Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Gifford v. Air Canada (Gifford)[1] declined to certify a proposed class action alleging [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Can manufacturers be liable in negligence for harms committed by third parties? </title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/can-manufacturers-be-liable-in-negligence-for-harms-committed-by-third-parties/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Amer Pasalic]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2025 16:04:21 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[manufacturing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[product liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6146</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Purple plant" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In Price v Smith &#38; Wesson Corporation (Price),[1] the Court of Appeal for Ontario recently certified a negligence class action [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Alberta Court of King’s Bench puts civil litigation on the clock</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/alberta-court-of-kings-bench-puts-civil-litigation-on-the-clock/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kelly Osaka]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2025 16:32:18 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6141</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1239" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF-1568x1239.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Operate_GPOF" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF-1568x1239.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF-1024x809.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF-768x607.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF.jpg 1899w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Alberta’s civil litigation landscape is undergoing a significant shift in an attempt to address increasing costs and delays. On July [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dentons quarterly privacy litigation digest – Issue 2/2025</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/dentons-quarterly-privacy-litigation-digest-issue-2-2025/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kelly Osaka]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2025 19:43:46 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quarterly privacy litigation digest]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6136</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Insect wing macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In this installment of Dentons’ quarterly privacy litigation digest, we review recent key privacy decisions, including: a decision of the [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>From DIFC-LCIA to DIAC: Ontario court enforces Dubai-seated international arbitration award</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/from-difc-lcia-to-diac-ontario-court-enforces-dubai-seated-international-arbitration-award/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Schafler]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2025 14:47:45 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Arbitration]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6133</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1239" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF-1568x1239.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Operate_GPOF" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF-1568x1239.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF-1024x809.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF-768x607.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF.jpg 1899w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has granted recognition and enforcement of a Dubai-seated arbitral award in InFrontier AF LP [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Privative clauses in the public eye: Democracy Watch heads to the Supreme Court of Canada</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/privative-clauses-in-the-public-eye-democracy-watch-heads-to-the-supreme-court-of-canada/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brandon Barnes Trickett]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2025 13:45:23 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judicial Review and Public Law]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6126</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Plant-close-up-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Plant close up" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Plant-close-up-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Plant-close-up-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Plant-close-up-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Plant-close-up-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Plant-close-up-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Plant-close-up.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>A prominent feature of Canadian jurisprudence in the public law domain is the absence of true stare decisis. A significant [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mediation deadlines—are they for real? Court of Appeal for Ontario clarifies timing requirements in dispute resolution clause</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/mediation-deadlines-are-they-for-real-court-of-appeal-for-ontario-clarifies-timing-requirements-in-dispute-resolution-clause/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Schafler]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2025 18:42:27 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attempted resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6121</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/iStock-873385816-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/iStock-873385816-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/iStock-873385816-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/iStock-873385816-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/iStock-873385816-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/iStock-873385816-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/iStock-873385816.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>What happens when a dispute resolution clause requires “any dispute … which cannot be resolved … within thirty (30) days [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Providing expert opinion as a “participating expert” in Ontario court proceedings</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/providing-expert-opinion-as-a-participating-expert-in-ontario-court-proceedings/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Elliott]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jun 2025 19:33:14 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6106</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/AdobeStock_119082692-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/AdobeStock_119082692-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/AdobeStock_119082692-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/AdobeStock_119082692-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/AdobeStock_119082692-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/AdobeStock_119082692-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/AdobeStock_119082692.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Professionals who become involved as observers or participants in events giving rise to court actions are typically treated as “fact [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>When silence isn’t golden: Lessons from the removal of an unresponsive arbitrator</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/when-silence-isnt-golden-lessons-from-the-removal-of-an-unresponsive-arbitrator/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chloe Snider]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jun 2025 17:23:16 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6101</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Arbitration is a favourable alternative to traditional trial proceedings due to its expeditious and efficient nature, making it an attractive [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Mareva injunction without risk of dissipation: Court denies freezing order in shareholder dispute</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/no-emmareva-em-injunction-without-risk-of-dissipation-court-denies-freezing-order-in-shareholder-dispute/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chloe Snider]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 20:20:35 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6095</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Insect wing macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In Sherif Gerges Pharmacy Professional Corporation et al. v. Niam Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al., the Ontario Superior Court of Justice [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Court of Appeal for Ontario: Cryptocurrency company’s arbitration clause contrary to public policy and unconscionable</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/the-court-of-appeal-for-ontario-cryptocurrency-companys-arbitration-clause-contrary-to-public-policy-and-unconscionable/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chloe Snider]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Jun 2025 20:41:59 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6104</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Stairs" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In Lochan v. Binance Holdings Limited, 2024 ONCA 784 (Lochan), the Court of Appeal for Ontario (the ONCA) upheld the [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Appeals Court halts United States Court of International Trade decision striking down Trump administration tariffs</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/appeals-court-halts-united-states-court-of-international-trade-decision-striking-down-trump-administration-tariffs/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Morgan Camley, KC]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2025 14:44:22 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Enforcement of Foreign Judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Special Circumstances]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6110</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Column" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>On May 28, 2025, the United States Court of International Trade (USCIT) ruled that the expansive global trade tariffs introduced [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dentons quarterly privacy litigation digest – Issue 1 / 2025</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/dentons-quarterly-privacy-litigation-digest-issue-1-2025/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kelly Osaka]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2025 19:14:31 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quarterly privacy litigation digest]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6067</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/iStock-873385816-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/iStock-873385816-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/iStock-873385816-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/iStock-873385816-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/iStock-873385816-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/iStock-873385816-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/iStock-873385816.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Welcome to the first instalment of Dentons’ quarterly privacy litigation digest in 2025. In this issue, we review the development [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ocean Pacific Hotels v. Lee: The limits of the duty of honest performance and a lesson in class proceeding amendments</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/ocean-pacific-hotels-v-lee-the-limits-of-the-duty-of-honest-performance-and-a-lesson-in-class-proceeding-amendments/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Emma Irving]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2025 14:24:43 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Edmonton]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6057</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_182060796-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_182060796-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_182060796-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_182060796-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_182060796-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_182060796-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_182060796.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In a recent decision, the BC Court of Appeal in Ocean Pacific Hotels v. Lee, 2025 BCCA 57, further clarified [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Special costs awarded against Law Society of British Columbia as BC Supreme Court overturns administrative penalty</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/special-costs-awarded-against-law-society-of-british-columbia-as-bc-supreme-court-overturns-administrative-penalty/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Morgan Camley, KC]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2025 19:42:03 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6053</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AdobeStock_68158962.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In a recent decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Samarakoone v. The Law Society of British Columbia, 2025 [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Norwich Order: The lesser-known sibling of the Mareva and Anton Piller</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/the-norwich-order-the-lesser-known-sibling-of-the-mareva-and-anton-pillar/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kay Scorer]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 2025 13:51:54 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Discoverability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Special Circumstances]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6046</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_375567035-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_375567035-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_375567035-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_375567035-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_375567035-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_375567035-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_375567035.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Overview of Norwich Orders Named after the 1974 decision from the House of Lords in Norwich Pharmacal Co. v. Customs [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Capital Markets Tribunal dismisses Ontario Securities Commission enforcement proceedings against parties involved in complex capital-raising transactions</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/capital-markets-tribunal-dismisses-ontario-securities-commission-enforcement-proceedings-against-parties-involved-in-complex-capital-raising-transactions/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brandon Barnes Trickett]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2025 19:34:03 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6040</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Purple plant" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In a notable ruling, the Capital Markets Tribunal (the Tribunal) dismissed enforcement proceedings against parties involved in complex capital-raising transactions, [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>BC court of appeal finds “ideological battle” no justification for defamation of school trustee</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/bc-court-of-appeal-finds-ideological-battle-no-justification-for-defamation-of-school-trustee/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Morgan Camley, KC]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2025 17:40:09 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6038</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-red-and-blue-flower-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Abstract red and blue flower macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-red-and-blue-flower-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-red-and-blue-flower-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-red-and-blue-flower-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-red-and-blue-flower-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-red-and-blue-flower-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-red-and-blue-flower-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In Neufeld v. Bondar, 2025 BCCA 51, the British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a decision finding [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ontario Superior Court provides guidance for lawyers and experts involved in complex delay claims</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/ontario-superior-court-provides-guidance-for-lawyers-and-experts-involved-in-complex-delay-claims/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chelsea Wilson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2025 20:39:46 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6029</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/iStock-873385816-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/iStock-873385816-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/iStock-873385816-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/iStock-873385816-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/iStock-873385816-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/iStock-873385816-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/iStock-873385816.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In 2024, following a 161 day trial, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued an 849 paragraph decision stemming from [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court of Canada dismisses Saskatchewan&#8217;s application to strike for abuse of process against Métis Nation</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/supreme-court-of-canada-dismisses-application-to-strike-for-abuse-of-process-against-metis-nations/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brandon Barnes Trickett]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2025 19:35:53 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judicial Review and Public Law]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6024</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_431781776-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_431781776-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_431781776-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_431781776-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_431781776-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_431781776-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_431781776.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Introduction On February 28, 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) dismissed an appeal by the Government of Saskatchewan in [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>So long, Shareholder Rule ─ What this means for companies and shareholders</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/so-long-shareholder-rule-%e2%94%80-what-this-means-for-companies-and-shareholders/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brandon Barnes Trickett]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2025 19:46:17 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6010</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_281094762-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_281094762-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_281094762-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_281094762-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_281094762-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_281094762-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AdobeStock_281094762.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In a landmark decision, the Commercial Division of the High Court of England and Wales held that the longstanding “Shareholder [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Government of British Columbia proposes amendments to the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/government-of-british-columbia-proposes-amendments-to-the-business-practices-and-consumer-protection-act/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Emma Irving]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2025 16:25:40 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulatory]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6003</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Anamone flower" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>On February 25 and March 3, 2025, respectively, the British Columbia government introduced and proceeded with first and second readings [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>L’IAMC adopte de nouvelles règles d&#8217;arbitrage, qui sont entrées en vigueur le 1er mars 2025</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/liamc-adopte-de-nouvelles-regles-darbitrage-qui-sont-entrees-en-vigueur-le-1er-mars-2025/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Schafler]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2025 19:48:16 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=6006</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Orange flower blurred macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>L&#8217;Institut d&#8217;arbitrage et de médiation du Canada (IAMC) a adopté de nouvelles règles d&#8217;arbitrage et un nouveau protocole de nomination [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The ADR Institute of Canada adopts new arbitration rules, effective March 1, 2025</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/the-adr-institute-of-canada-adopts-new-arbitration-rules-effective-march-1-2025/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Schafler]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2025 14:24:49 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Arbitration]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5998</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Insect wing macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>The ADR Institute of Canada (ADRIC) has adopted new arbitration rules and a new arbitrator appointment protocol, effective March 1, [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The impact of lower interprovincial trade barriers on Canada’s agriculture and agri-food sector</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/the-impact-of-lower-interprovincial-trade-barriers-on-canadas-agriculture-and-agri-food-sector/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Morgan Camley, KC]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Feb 2025 21:06:23 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulatory]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5990</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grow_GPOF-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Grow_GPOF" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grow_GPOF-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grow_GPOF-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grow_GPOF-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grow_GPOF-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grow_GPOF-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grow_GPOF.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In response to the looming threat of a trade war with the United States, efforts to remove barriers to Canada’s [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>BC Court of Appeal refuses pre-certification stay of duplicative claim</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/bc-court-of-appeal-refuses-pre-certification-stay-of-duplicative-claim/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jaclyn Vanstone]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:09:46 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Toronto]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5983</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Purple feather macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In InvestorCOM Inc. v. L’Anton, 2025 BCCA 40 (InvestorCOM), the BC Court of Appeal reaffirmed that pre-certification stays of proposed [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of one arbitrator taints the panel – Court of Appeal for Ontario</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/reasonable-apprehension-of-bias-on-the-part-of-one-arbitrator-taints-the-panel-court-of-appeal-for-ontario/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Schafler]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Feb 2025 17:22:38 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5971</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Spiral stairs" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In Vento Motorcycles, Inc. v. United Mexican States, 2024 ONCA 480, the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that bias [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>BC Supreme Court affirms freedom of expression no excuse for defamation without legal justification or excuse</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/bc-supreme-court-affirms-freedom-of-expression-no-excuse-for-defamation-without-legal-justification-or-excuse/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Morgan Camley, KC]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Feb 2025 20:38:14 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5965</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Artificial Intelligence hub background" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In a recent defamation decision, Nanaimo (City) v. Propp, 2024 BCSC 2465, the BC Supreme Court issued a permanent injunction [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Parallel proceedings: Reminders on the importance of regulatory mandates and the impact on judicial review applications</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/parallel-proceedings-reminders-on-the-importance-of-regulatory-mandates-and-the-impact-on-judicial-review-applications/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tari Hiebert]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2025 21:33:11 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5962</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance-image-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Finance image" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance-image-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance-image-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance-image-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance-image-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance-image-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance-image.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Introduction In Bauhuis v. Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta[1] (Bauhuis), the Alberta Court of King’s Bench considered [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Under-regulated or completely unregulated?</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/under-regulated-or-completely-unregulated/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Beard]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Dec 2024 21:31:12 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5944</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Geology abstract image" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>The exploitation of consumers for both under-regulated and altogether unregulated medical and pseudo-medical procedures has taken centre stage in the [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>An illustration of the importance of expert evidence in professional negligence claims</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/an-illustration-of-the-importance-of-expert-evidence-in-professional-negligence-claims/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sara Hart]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Dec 2024 21:03:16 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5927</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Spiral stairs" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In Hopkins v Murphy,[1] the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the Court) dismissed a professional negligence claim in which the [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court of Canada determines multi-crown class actions are constitutional: Sanis Health Inc. v. British Columbia, 2024 SCC 40</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/supreme-court-of-canada-determines-multi-crown-class-actions-are-constitutional-sanis-health-inc-v-british-columbia-2024-scc-40/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matthew Fleming]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Dec 2024 19:16:02 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5920</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Columns bottom view" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>The Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed the constitutionality of BC legislation enacted to permit the BC Crown to act [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dentons quarterly privacy litigation digest – Issue 3 / 2024</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/dentons-quarterly-privacy-litigation-digest-issue-3-2024/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kelly Osaka]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Dec 2024 14:51:57 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quarterly privacy litigation digest]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5912</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Plant-close-up-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Plant close up" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Plant-close-up-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Plant-close-up-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Plant-close-up-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Plant-close-up-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Plant-close-up-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Plant-close-up.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In this issue, we discuss the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision upholding the requirement that users provide meaningful consent to [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rectification resurgence: Recent trends in Ontario rectification cases</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/rectification-resurgence-recent-trends-in-ontario-rectification-cases/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Douglas Stewart]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Nov 2024 20:55:59 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5906</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Stairs" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>When parties to an agreement need to correct errors in the recording of their agreement, one solution is to go [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Curves, turns and legal concerns: What amusement ride manufacturers and operators need to know</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/curves-turns-and-legal-concerns-what-amusement-ride-manufacturers-and-operators-need-to-know/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Fraser Mackinnon Blair]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2024 17:23:51 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5897</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Sky and clouds" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In the realm of thrill-seeking, it is hard to imagine anything better than a towering rollercoaster or a plunging water [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court of Canada holds that the Vavilov framework applies to the review of subordinate legislation</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/supreme-court-of-canada-holds-that-the-vavilov-framework-applies-to-the-review-of-subordinate-legislation/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brandon Barnes Trickett]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2024 18:42:13 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Law]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5889</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Columns bottom view" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Introduction On November 8, 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) confirmed in two companion decisions, Auer v Auer (Auer) [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court of Appeal for British Columbia confirms designer negligence in the absence of contractual privity</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/british-columbia-court-of-appeal-affirms-designer-negligence-in-absence-of-contractual-privity/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Sestito]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2024 13:49:39 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5872</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Stairs" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In Centurion Apartment Properties Limited Partnership v. Sorensen Trilogy Engineering Ltd,[1] the Court of Appeal for British Columbia confirmed that [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Demand loans and the limitation of actions</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/demand-loans-and-the-limitation-of-actions/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kligman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Aug 2024 20:24:28 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5847</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Pink Flower Macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In T.O. Estate v. D.O., 2024 ONCA 603, the Court of Appeal for Ontario (the Court of Appeal) held that [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>British Columbia Environmental Appeal Board “enters the fray,” giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/british-columbia-environmental-appeal-board-enters-the-fray-giving-rise-to-a-reasonable-apprehension-of-bias/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Morgan Camley, KC]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Aug 2024 14:51:08 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Environmental Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Special Circumstances]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5853</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Columns bottom view" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In District Director, Metro Vancouver v. Environmental Appeal Board, 2024 BCSC 1064 (District Director), the Supreme Court of British Columbia [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Waiver of arbitration rights and strike motions – The Court of Appeal for Ontario weighs in</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/waiver-of-arbitration-rights-and-strike-motions-the-court-of-appeal-for-ontario-weighs-in/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chloe Snider]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 2024 15:50:46 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5833</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Artificial Intelligence hub background" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>The recent decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in RH20 North America Inc. v. Bergmann provides guidance on [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court of Canada decision confirms securities regulators’ administrative monetary penalties do not survive personal bankruptcy (but disgorgement orders do)</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/supreme-court-of-canada-decision-confirms-securities-regulators-administrative-monetary-penalties-do-not-survive-personal-bankruptcy-but-disgorgement-orders-do/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Beeforth]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2024 18:57:12 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5828</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Stairs" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Overview Individuals subject to administrative monetary penalties levied by securities regulators – even for fraudulent conduct such as market manipulation [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>BC Court sanctions influencer with $350K damages award for defamatory videos about a company and its products</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/bc-court-sanctions-influencer-with-350k-damages-award-for-defamatory-videos-about-a-company-and-its-products/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Morgan Camley, KC]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2024 16:30:20 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5822</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Anamone flower" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In a recent decision, the BC Supreme Court awarded a beauty company $350,000 in damages after a YouTuber made a [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dentons quarterly privacy litigation digest – Issue 2 / 2024</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/dentons-quarterly-privacy-litigation-digest-issue-2-2024/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kelly Osaka]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jul 2024 16:38:41 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quarterly privacy litigation digest]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5808</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Bird wing macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In this edition of Dentons’ quarterly privacy litigation digest, we review recent key privacy decisions, including a privacy-related class action [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court of Canada rules school boards are “manifestations of government” and the Canadian Charter applies: York Region District School Board v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/supreme-court-of-canada-rules-school-boards-are-manifestations-of-government-and-the-canadian-charter-applies-york-region-district-school-board-v-elementary-teachers-feder/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brandon Barnes Trickett]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jul 2024 15:04:42 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judicial Review and Public Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5801</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Columns bottom view" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Introduction The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) ruled late last month that Ontario public school board teachers are protected from [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Supreme Court of Canada declines to hear appeals from decisions upholding arbitration agreements and embedded class action waivers</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/the-supreme-court-of-canada-declines-to-hear-appeals-from-decisions-upholding-arbitration-agreements-and-embedded-class-action-waivers/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Neil Rabinovitch]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2024 13:49:36 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[British Columbia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5791</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Columns bottom view" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>On May 16, 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) dismissed a number of applications for leave to appeal, including [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Exclusion clauses and the Sale of Goods Act: Earthco soil Mixtures Inc. v. Pine Valley Enterprises</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/exclusion-clauses-and-the-sale-of-goods-act-earthco-soil-mixtures-inc-v-pine-valley-enterprises/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chloe Snider]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:00:26 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5786</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Stairs" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Introduction In Earthco Soil Mixtures Inc. v. Pine Valley Enterprises Inc., 2024 SCC 20, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Deal or no deal? A concise guide to negotiating contracts while minimizing the risk of disputes</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/deal-or-no-deal-a-concise-guide-to-negotiating-contracts-while-minimizing-the-risk-of-disputes/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Don Macintosh]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2024 20:12:56 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5688</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Anamone flower" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Parties negotiating contracts frequently litigate whether they have a binding agreement. This guide provides advice to clients negotiating contracts to [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>British Columbia Court of Appeal upholds residency requirement in Class Proceedings Act</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/british-columbia-court-of-appeal-upholds-residency-requirement-in-class-proceedings-act/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Emma Irving]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 May 2024 15:46:38 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alberta]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5667</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_07-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Court building" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_07-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_07-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_07-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_07-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_07-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_07.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>*This article was originally published on 5/31/2024 and updated on 6/5/2024. The British Columbia Court of Appeal has upheld a [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court declines to set aside an award despite a finding of reasonable apprehension of bias</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/court-declines-to-set-aside-an-award-despite-a-finding-of-reasonable-apprehension-of-bias/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Schafler]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 May 2024 16:05:27 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Arbitration]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5664</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance_GPOF-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Finance_GPOF" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance_GPOF-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance_GPOF-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance_GPOF-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance_GPOF-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance_GPOF-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance_GPOF.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>How much bias from an arbitrator on a three-member Tribunal suffices to set aside an award? In Vento Motorcycles Inc. [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Twelve years since the recognition of the tort of intrusion upon seclusion: How Jones v. Tsige continues to impact privacy class actions in Canada</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/twelve-years-since-the-recognition-of-the-tort-of-intrusion-upon-seclusion-how-jones-v-tsige-continues-to-impact-privacy-class-actions-in-canada/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Schafler]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2024 17:32:27 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy and Cybersecurity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5658</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Canyon image" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>It has been 12 years since the Ontario Court of Appeal first recognized the tort of intrusion upon seclusion in [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Professional regulators must adhere to a high standard before restricting a regulated member’s  right to practice: Chartered Professional Accountants of Alberta (Complaints Inquiry Committee) v. Mathison</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/professional-regulators-must-adhere-to-a-high-standard-before-restricting-a-regulated-members-right-to-practice-chartered-professional-accountants-of-alberta-complaints-inquiry-commit/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Sestito]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2024 14:52:53 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5645</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Artificial Intelligence hub background" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In Chartered Professional Accountants of Alberta (Complaints Inquiry Committee) v. Mathison, 2024 ABCA 33 (Mathison), the Court of Appeal of [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>L’existence d’un droit d’appel limité empêche-t-elle une personne de présenter une demande de pourvoi en contrôle judiciaire? La réponse se trouve dans Yatar c. TD Insurance Meloche Monnex</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/lexistence-dun-droit-dappel-limite-empeche-t-elle-une-personne-de-presenter-une-demande-de-pourvoi-en-controle-judiciaire-la-reponse-se-trouve-dans-yatar-c-td-insurance-me/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ana Qarri]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:17:41 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judicial Review and Public Law]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5639</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Anamone flower" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Dans l&#8217;arrêt Yatar c. TD Insurance Meloche Monnex, 2024 CSC 8 (l’« affaire Yatar&#160;»), publié le 15 mars 2024, la [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The role that a limited statutory right of appeal plays in the availability of judicial review: Yatar v. TD Insurance Meloche Monnex</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/the-role-that-a-limited-statutory-right-of-appeal-plays-in-the-availability-of-judicial-review-yatar-v-td-insurance-meloche-monnex/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ana Qarri]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:36:21 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judicial Review and Public Law]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5627</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Anamone flower" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In Yatar v. TD Insurance Meloche Monnex, 2024 SCC 8 (Yatar), released on March 15, 2024, the Supreme Court of [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Certification of proposed product liability class action dismissed where alleged defect not common to proposed class</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/certification-of-proposed-product-liability-class-action-dismissed-where-alleged-defect-not-common-to-proposed-class/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matthew Fleming]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2024 14:13:48 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5622</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Geology abstract image" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In Larsen v. ZF TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., 2023 BCSC 1471 (“Larsen”), the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obtaining substantive relief at case conferences? A question of jurisdiction</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/obtaining-substantive-relief-at-case-conferences-a-question-of-jurisdiction/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Amer Pasalic]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2024 16:06:12 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5609</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Dragonfly-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Dragonfly wing macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Dragonfly-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Dragonfly-wing-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Dragonfly-wing-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Dragonfly-wing-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Dragonfly-wing-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Dragonfly-wing-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Two recent decisions by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice raise the issue of a judge’s jurisdiction to grant substantive [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court of Canada rules there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in IP address</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/supreme-court-of-canada-rules-there-is-a-reasonable-expectation-of-privacy-in-ip-address/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kirsten Thompson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2024 14:28:33 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy and Cybersecurity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5603</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Insect wing macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In R v. Bykovets[1], the Supreme Court of Canada, on a 5-4 majority, ruled that an IP address attracts a [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Use it or lose it: The importance of confirming trademark use when acquiring trademarks in Canada</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/use-it-or-lose-it-the-importance-of-confirming-trademark-use-when-acquiring-trademarks-in-canada/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Meredith Bacal]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:11:39 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5597</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance-image-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Finance image" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance-image-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance-image-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance-image-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance-image-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance-image-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance-image.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Before acquiring a trademark in Canada, purchasers will want to ensure that the seller used the trademark in the previous [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Innovative approach to product liability class action defence: Dentons successfully represents Subaru Canada Inc.</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/innovative-approach-to-product-liability-class-action-defence-dentons-successfully-represents-subaru-canada-inc/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Barry Pecore]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2024 13:52:59 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5591</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Dragonfly-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Dragonfly wing macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Dragonfly-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Dragonfly-wing-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Dragonfly-wing-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Dragonfly-wing-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Dragonfly-wing-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Dragonfly-wing-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Class actions can have devastating economic consequences for businesses, but in the ever-evolving landscape of product liability class actions, you [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dentons quarterly privacy litigation digest &#8211; Issue 1 / 2024</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/dentons-quarterly-privacy-litigation-digest-issue-1-2024/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kelly Osaka]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Feb 2024 19:51:18 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quarterly privacy litigation digest]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5577</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Purple plant" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>The proliferation of privacy-related class actions in 2023 continued the trend of plaintiffs seeking recourse for data breaches affecting the [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lussier c. Expedia inc. et al. : La Cour supérieure rejette l’action collective relative à des frais hôteliers</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/lussier-c-expedia-inc-et-al-la-cour-superieure-rejette-laction-collective-relative-a-des-frais-hoteliers/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Margaret Weltrowska]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2024 19:36:52 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5571</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Rough sea" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Le 19 février 2024, la Cour supérieure du Québec a rendu sa décision sur le fond de l’action collective Lussier [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Québec Superior Court dismisses resort fees class action: Lussier v. Expedia Inc. et al.</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/quebec-superior-court-dismisses-resort-fees-class-action-lussier-v-expedia-inc-et-al/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Margaret Weltrowska]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2024 18:00:18 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5568</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Waves-bird-view-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Waves bird view" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Waves-bird-view-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Waves-bird-view-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Waves-bird-view-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Waves-bird-view-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Waves-bird-view-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Waves-bird-view.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>On February 19, 2024, the Québec Superior Court issued its judgment on the merits of the class action Lussier v. [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Proposed privacy class action fails (again) to meet test for intrusion upon seclusion</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/proposed-privacy-class-action-fails-again-to-meet-test-for-intrusion-upon-seclusion/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Neil Rabinovitch]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Feb 2024 15:17:28 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy and Cybersecurity]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5563</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Bird wing macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>A recent decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario upholding a decision denying certification of a data breach class [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Court of Appeal decides – deal or no deal: The importance of reaching agreement on all essential terms</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/the-court-of-appeal-decides-deal-or-no-deal-the-importance-of-reaching-agreement-on-all-essential-terms/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chloe Snider]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Feb 2024 15:37:02 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5544</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/wood-grain-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="wood grain" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/wood-grain-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/wood-grain-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/wood-grain-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/wood-grain-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/wood-grain-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/wood-grain.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In December 2023, the Court of Appeal for Ontario reinforced the principle that parties must agree on all essential terms [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court of Canada to hear appeal regarding test for assumption of jurisdiction based on contract connected to the province</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/supreme-court-of-canada-to-hear-appeal-regarding-test-for-assumption-of-jurisdiction-based-on-contract-connected-to-the-province/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chloe Snider]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Feb 2024 18:56:56 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5534</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Light purple agawa" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In 2023, the Court of Appeal grappled with the application of one of the presumptive connecting factors for jurisdiction under [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is the game just that good? Or was it designed to be addictive?</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/is-the-game-just-that-good-or-was-it-designed-to-be-addictive/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Josh Dial]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:24:37 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5525</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Water drops on purple leaf" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>As we observed in our last blog post, legal complaints regarding microtransactions in video games continue to increase in both [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dentons Canada celebrates half billion mining arbitration win</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/dentons-canada-celebrates-half-billion-mining-arbitration-win/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Schafler]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2024 20:20:28 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5511</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Growing-plants-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Growing plants" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Growing-plants-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Growing-plants-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Growing-plants-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Growing-plants-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Growing-plants-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Growing-plants.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Dentons Canada is delighted to announce an important achievement for our clients, two related Canadian and Ecuadorian mining companies, in [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ontario Court of Appeal sets bar for when a claim of breach of fiduciary duty owed by investment advisor discloses a reasonable cause of action: Boal v. International Capital Management Inc.</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/ontario-court-of-appeal-sets-bar-for-when-a-claim-of-breach-of-fiduciary-duty-owed-by-investment-advisor-discloses-a-reasonable-cause-of-action-boal-v-international-capital-management-inc/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matthew Fleming]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2024 14:30:40 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5506</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1239" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF-1568x1239.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Operate_GPOF" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF-1568x1239.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF-1024x809.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF-768x607.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF.jpg 1899w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>The Court of Appeal for Ontario (the Court) recently considered whether a group of clients of an investment advisory firm [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dentons litigation team secures victory for defendant in high-profile defamation action</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/dentons-litigation-team-secures-victory-for-defendant-in-high-profile-defamation-action/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Morgan Camley, KC]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Jan 2024 19:10:05 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5488</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Canyon image" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>On January 10, 2024, the British Columbia Court of Appeal released its decision in Rooney v. Galloway, 2024 BCCA 8, [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ontario Court of Appeal confirms COVID-19 orders do not trigger coverage under all risks policy</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/ontario-court-of-appeal-confirms-covid-19-orders-do-not-trigger-coverage-under-all-risks-policy/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Neil Rabinovitch]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 2023 14:26:16 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Covid-19]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5472</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Anamone flower" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In SIR Corp et al v Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2023 ONCA 778, the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Supreme Court of Canada considers whether a debt owed to the British Columbia Securities Commission survives bankruptcy under an exception to the ‘fresh start’ principle</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/the-supreme-court-of-canada-considers-whether-a-debt-owed-to-the-british-columbia-securities-commission-survives-bankruptcy-under-an-exception-to-the-fresh-start-principle/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Beeforth]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2023 20:28:33 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5457</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance_GPOF-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Finance_GPOF" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance_GPOF-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance_GPOF-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance_GPOF-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance_GPOF-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance_GPOF-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance_GPOF.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>On December 6, 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal of Poonian v British Columbia Securities Commission, 2022 [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ontario court applies new preferable procedure analysis for first time</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/ontario-court-applies-new-preferable-procedure-analysis-for-first-time/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matthew Fleming]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Dec 2023 18:34:48 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5451</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Green leaves close up" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>On October 31, 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released the first decision[1] on a certification motion to interpret [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Between a rock and a hard place: The unusual case of Canada Cannabis Corporation (Re)</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-the-unusual-case-of-canada-cannabis-corporation-re/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brandon Barnes Trickett]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 2023 19:36:32 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Capital Markets Tribunal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario Securities Commission]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5444</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Water drops on purple leaf" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In a rare outcome, Ontario’s Capital Markets Tribunal (the Tribunal) recently stayed enforcement proceedings against Silvio Serrano (Serrano) as an [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Down but not out: Rectification granted by the Ontario Superior Court to correct trust deeds</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/down-but-not-out-rectification-granted-by-the-ontario-superior-court-to-correct-trust-deeds/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Douglas Stewart]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Nov 2023 19:28:54 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5437</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Waves-bird-view-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Waves bird view" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Waves-bird-view-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Waves-bird-view-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Waves-bird-view-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Waves-bird-view-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Waves-bird-view-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Waves-bird-view.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Introduction Rectification is an equitable remedy that allows a court to correct errors in a written document, such as a [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Expanding the scope of production orders: Virtual presence brings data around the world into the purview of Canadian law enforcement</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/expanding-the-scope-of-production-orders-virtual-presence-brings-data-around-the-world-into-the-purview-of-canadian-law-enforcement/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Melika Mostowfi]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2023 20:29:12 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5431</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Anamone flower" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>On April 20, 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear an appeal from the Alberta Court of Appeal’s [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canvassing the fundamentals of federalism in Reference re Impact Assessment Act</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/canvassing-the-fundamentals-of-federalism-in-reference-re-impact-assessment-act/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Laurie Livingstone]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Oct 2023 19:19:35 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Judicial Review and Public Law]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5415</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Ants-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Ants" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Ants-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Ants-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Ants-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Ants-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Ants-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Ants.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>On October 13, 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada released its highly anticipated judgment on constitutional challenges to the federal [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Arbitrator award upheld in a shareholder agreement dispute</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/arbitrator-award-upheld-in-a-shareholder-agreement-dispute/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Schafler]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Oct 2023 21:03:16 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5408</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-image-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Geology image" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-image-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-image-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-image-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-image-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-image-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-image.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Agreeing to arbitrate disputes in shareholder agreements can lead to fast, and final, decisions for the parties involved. In EDE [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>It goes without saying, or does it?</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/it-goes-without-saying-or-does-it/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Meredith Bacal]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2023 18:59:11 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5404</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Pink Flower Macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>BC Court of Appeal clarifies the application of anti-SLAPP legislation where the defendant denies making the allegedly defamatory statements On [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fixed price or cost plus? A tale of two construction project payment arrangements</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/fixed-price-or-cost-plus-a-tale-of-two-construction-project-payment-arrangements/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sean Fairhurst]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Oct 2023 14:32:16 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5390</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Anamone flower" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>When it comes to construction projects, the choice of payment arrangement between the parties is a crucial consideration. In a [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bifurcated disciplinary proceedings by a regulatory college: Court grants a stay</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/bifurcated-disciplinary-proceedings-by-a-regulatory-college-court-grants-a-stay/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rose Carter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2023 17:30:32 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5386</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Bird wing macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In the recent case of MA v. Alberta College of Pharmacy, 2023 ABKB 522 (MA), the Court of King’s Bench [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Attacking fraudulent conveyances: What is the time limit?</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/attacking-fraudulent-conveyances-what-is-the-time-limit/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Fraser Mackinnon Blair]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Oct 2023 16:11:31 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Limitation Periods contained in "Other Acts"]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5379</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Light purple agawa" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In Bank of Montreal v. Iskenderov, 2023 ONCA 528, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that actions to set aside [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>British Columbia Court of Appeal confirms scope of documents to be produced on judicial review of cabinet decision</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/british-columbia-court-of-appeal-confirms-scope-of-documents-to-be-produced-on-judicial-review-of-cabinet-decision/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mélanie Power]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 2023 20:41:06 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulatory]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5370</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Underwater image" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In a recent favourable outcome the British Columbia (BC) Court of Appeal affirmed the rights of applicants for judicial review [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ontario Court of Appeal clarifies the meaning of “material change” and discusses disclosure obligations in context of securities class actions</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/ontario-court-of-appeal-clarifies-the-meaning-of-material-change-and-discusses-disclosure-obligations-in-context-of-securities-class-actions/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matthew Fleming]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2023 17:54:21 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5349</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Plant-close-up-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Plant close up" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Plant-close-up-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Plant-close-up-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Plant-close-up-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Plant-close-up-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Plant-close-up-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Plant-close-up.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In recent decisions in Markowich v. Lundin Mining Corporation[1] and Peters v. SNC-Lavalin Group Inc,[2]&#160; the Court of Appeal for [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Recent increase in employment and competition law claims in esports</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/recent-increase-in-employment-and-competition-law-claims-in-esports/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Josh Dial]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Jul 2023 20:06:10 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5138</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Water drops on a leaf" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>The global video game industry continues to see tremendous growth, with 2023 revenues projected to reach CA$487 billion. Esports continue [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Can the government immunize certain regulatory decisions from judicial review? Federal Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada set to weigh in</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/can-the-government-immunize-certain-regulatory-decisions-from-judicial-review-federal-court-of-appeal-and-supreme-court-of-canada-set-to-weigh-in/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Morgan Camley, KC]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Jul 2023 17:43:03 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Judicial Review and Public Law]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5041</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Spiral stairs" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Introduction In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Appeal (the Court) considered whether the government can restrict parties from [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ontario Court of Appeal decision highlights high threshold for interference with international arbitrations</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-highlights-high-threshold-for-interference-with-international-arbitrations/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Nicole Tzannidakis]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Jul 2023 18:00:39 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5030</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Bird wing macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In its recent decision in All Communications Network of Canada v. Planet Energy Corp. (All Communications),[1] the Ontario Court of [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cases to watch in 2024: Supreme Court of Canada to clarify sale of goods issues</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/cases-to-watch-in-2024-supreme-court-of-canada-to-clarify-sale-of-goods-issues/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lyndsee Thompson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Jul 2023 15:48:41 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5021</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Stalks of wheat" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>The Supreme Court of Canada (the Court) recently granted leave to appeal in Earthco Soil Mixtures Inc. v. Pine Valley [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fresh evidence ruling provides a fresh clarification on how a court “decides the matter”</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/fresh-evidence-ruling-provides-a-fresh-clarification-on-how-a-court-decides-the-matter/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Schafler]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jun 2023 18:31:08 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5016</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Underwater image" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In Russian Federation v. Luxtona Limited, 2023 ONCA 393, the Court of Appeal for Ontario addressed an application under Article [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Environmental, social and governance risks for agriculture and food businesses in Canada</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/environmental-social-and-governance-risks-for-agriculture-and-food-businesses-in-canada/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kelly Osaka]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jun 2023 18:08:59 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5009</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Green leaves close up" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Environmental, social and governance (ESG) considerations are becoming increasingly important to businesses in Canada. ESG-based regulatory investigations and litigation have [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rolling the dice on interpretation: Are online casinos captured by the scope of the Alberta Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis Commission?</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/rolling-the-dice-on-interpretation-are-online-casinos-captured-by-the-scope-of-the-alberta-gaming-liquor-and-cannabis-commission/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sean Fairhurst]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jun 2023 16:10:30 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4987</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Insect wing macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In the recent case Tsuu T’ina Gaming Limited Partnership v Alberta Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis Commission, 2023 ABCA 135 (Tsuu [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Separability revisited: What if there is no contract?</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/separability-revisited-what-if-there-is-no-contract/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Schafler]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jun 2023 20:33:22 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4981</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Stalks of wheat" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In Ismail v. First York Holdings Inc.,[1] the Court of Appeal for Ontario found that once it has been decided [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Amendments to the Alberta Business Corporations Act grant courts greater discretion in the approval of plans of arrangement</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/amendments-to-the-alberta-business-corporations-act-grant-courts-greater-discretion-in-the-approval-of-plans-of-arrangement/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kelly Osaka]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 May 2023 17:52:12 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4962</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Water drops on a leaf" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>A plan of arrangement pursuant to a corporation’s governing corporate statute, such as the Alberta Business Corporations Act, RSA&#160;2000, c&#160;B-9 [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Missing link in Alberta’s Mental Health Act</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/a-missing-link-in-albertas-mental-health-act/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rose Carter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 May 2023 16:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4957</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Laboratory-equipment-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Laboratory equipment" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Laboratory-equipment-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Laboratory-equipment-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Laboratory-equipment-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Laboratory-equipment-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Laboratory-equipment-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Laboratory-equipment.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In JOS v RCMP et al, 2023 ABKB 266, the Court of King’s Bench (the Court) heard an appeal of [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Valeurs opposées et application de la loi anti-SLAPP de la Colombie-Britannique : La décision de la Cour suprême du Canada dans l’affaire Hansman c. Neufeld</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/valeurs-opposees-et-application-de-la-loi-anti-slapp-de-la-colombie-britannique-la-decision-de-la-cour-supreme-du-canada-dans-laffaire-hansman-c-neufeld/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brandon Barnes Trickett]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 May 2023 17:30:31 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4951</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Light purple agawa" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>La Cour suprême du Canada a rendu sa décision dans l’affaire Hansman c. Neufeld, une décision très attendue dans laquelle [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hazan c. Micron Technology : la Cour d’appel du Québec exige que des allégations de complot soient étayées par une certaine preuve</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/hazan-c-micron-technology-la-cour-dappel-du-quebec-exige-que-des-allegations-de-complot-soient-etayees-par-une-certaine-preuve/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Adam Goodman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 May 2023 15:25:19 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology and new media]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4916</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Purple plant" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Dans l’arrêt Hazan c. Micron Technology&#160;Inc., 2023 QCCA 132, la Cour d’appel du Québec a confirmé qu’il ne suffit pas [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hazan v Micron Technology: Québec Court of Appeal requires evidence to support conspiracy</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/hazan-v-micron-technology-quebec-court-of-appeal-requires-evidence-to-support-conspiracy/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Adam Goodman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 May 2023 15:23:04 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology and new media]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4914</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Rough sea" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In Hazan v. Micron Technology Inc., 2023 QCCA&#160;132, the Québec Court of Appeal confirmed that mere allegations are insufficient to [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competing values and the application of anti-SLAPP legislation: The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Hansman v. Neufeld</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/competing-values-and-the-application-of-anti-slapp-legislation-the-supreme-court-of-canadas-decision-in-hansman-v-neufeld/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brandon Barnes Trickett]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 May 2023 15:47:29 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4935</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Columns bottom view" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>The Supreme Court of Canada has released its much-anticipated decision in Hansman v. Neufeld (Hansman), a decision interpreting British Columbia’s [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ontario Court of Appeal upholds arbitration agreement: A common-sense approach to contractual interpretation</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/ontario-court-of-appeal-upholds-arbitration-agreement-a-common-sense-approach-to-contractual-interpretation/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Nicole Tzannidakis]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 May 2023 13:20:19 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4899</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Bird wing macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In a recent arbitration decision, Baffinland Iron Mines LP v Tower-EBC G.P., S.E.N.C (Baffinland),[1] the Ontario Court of Appeal (the [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court of Appeal Refuses to Reconsider and Affirms Date From Which Limitation Period Runs for Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgment</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/court-of-appeal-refuses-to-reconsider-and-affirms-date-from-which-limitation-period-runs-for-recognition-and-enforcement-of-foreign-judgment/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kligman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 May 2023 17:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Enforcement of Foreign Judgments]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5339</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Geology abstract image" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In&#160;Sunlight General Capital LLC v. Effisolar Energy Corporation, 2023 ONCA 133, the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed the principle [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Complying with contractual notice requirements: Lessons from Crosslinx Transit Solutions v. Ontario</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/complying-with-contractual-notice-requirements-lessons-from-crosslinx-transit-solutions-v-ontario/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Karen Groulx]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 May 2023 17:44:38 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4890</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-image-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Geology image" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-image-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-image-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-image-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-image-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-image-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-image.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Summary The Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Crosslinx Transit Solutions General Partnership v. Ontario (Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure), [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Generative AI – Navigating commercial and civil liability</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/generative-ai-navigating-commercial-and-civil-liability/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chloe Snider]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Apr 2023 16:55:29 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4885</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Geology abstract image" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>ChatGPT, the topic of the moment, and generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems more broadly, are AI systems that can create [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Canadian Securities Administrators introduces changes to enhance Canadian investor protection – New requirements for crypto asset trading platforms </title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/the-canadian-securities-administrators-introduces-changes-to-enhance-canadian-investor-protection-new-requirements-for-crypto-asset-trading-platforms/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Raphael Eghan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Apr 2023 15:27:20 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4881</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Frost-texture-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Frost texture" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Frost-texture-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Frost-texture-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Frost-texture-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Frost-texture-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Frost-texture-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Frost-texture.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Recently, Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) released CSA Staff Notice 21-332 Crypto Asset Trading Platforms: Pre-Registration Undertakings (Changes to Enhance Canadian [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>BC court finds employer’s “structural environment” sufficient to ground vicarious liability claim for privacy violations</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/bc-court-finds-employers-structural-environment-sufficient-to-ground-vicarious-liability-claim-for-privacy-violations/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Melika Mostowfi]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:29:37 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy and Cybersecurity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4877</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Pink Flower Macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>The issue of vicarious liability of an employer for privacy breaches perpetrated by a rogue employee is increasingly before the [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dark times for “Dark Patterns”? Epic Games settles over unauthorized micro-transactions and user interface trickery (sort of)</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/dark-times-for-dark-patterns-epic-games-settles-over-unauthorized-micro-transactions-and-user-interface-trickery-sort-of/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Josh Dial]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Mar 2023 21:11:25 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology and new media]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4858</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Plant-close-up-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Plant close up" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Plant-close-up-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Plant-close-up-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Plant-close-up-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Plant-close-up-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Plant-close-up-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Plant-close-up.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>On March 14, 2023, the United States Federal Trade Commission confirmed and finalized an order arising out of one of [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Failure to plead Montreal Convention means air passenger class action is out of time</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/failure-to-plead-montreal-convention-means-air-passenger-class-action-is-out-of-time/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark A. Glynn]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Mar 2023 20:25:46 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4853</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Orange flower blurred macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In a second interlocutory decision of the British Columbia (BC) Supreme Court relating to an air passenger claim for delay, [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court of Appeal for Ontario Reiterates Narrow Application of Rule 21.01(1) for Limitations Issues</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/court-of-appeal-for-ontario-reiterates-narrow-application-of-rule-21-011-for-limitations-issues/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Barbara Grossman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Mar 2023 17:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Discoverability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Motions to Strike]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5336</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Green leaves close up" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Overview In&#160;Toussaint v. Canada (Attorney General), 2023 ONCA 117 (“Toussaint”), the Court of Appeal for Ontario determined that the motion [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>It’s the construction bond that binds… so long as equity agrees</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/its-the-construction-bond-that-binds-so-long-as-equity-agrees/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Karen Groulx]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Mar 2023 20:00:31 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4829</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Canyon image" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Urban Mechanical Contracting Ltd. V. Zurich, 2022 ONCA 589 Rescission is an equitable remedy meant to return contracting parties to [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Avoiding misconduct: Professionals must consider conflicting interests prior to joining organizations</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/avoiding-misconduct-professionals-must-consider-conflicting-interests-prior-to-joining-organizations/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rose Carter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2023 15:34:49 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4824</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Sky and clouds" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Wanglin v College of Acupuncturists of Alberta, 2023 ABCA 25&#160; The appellant, Dr. Boxin Wanglin, is an acupuncturist regulated by [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Overlapping proceedings causes consortium to lose carriage fight: A case comment on Buis v Keurig Canada Inc</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/overlapping-proceedings-causes-consortium-to-lose-carriage-fight-a-case-comment-on-buis-v-keurig-canada-inc/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kelly Osaka]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2023 19:55:03 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4816</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Stalks of wheat" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Buis v. Keurig Canada Inc, 2023 ONSC 87(Buis) highlights the factors courts will consider on carriage motions following the October [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Alberta Court of Appeal clarifies stay applications pending appeal from administrative proceedings</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/alberta-court-of-appeal-clarifies-stay-applications-pending-appeal-from-administrative-proceedings/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Christy Lee]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2023 17:48:19 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4793</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Purple feather macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In Fawcett v College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (Complaint Review Committee), 2022 ABCA 416 (Fawcett) and Tan v [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Limitation of Actions With Respect to Claims of Professional Negligence Where Counsel’s Litigation Strategy is Impugned</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/limitation-of-actions-with-respect-to-claims-of-professional-negligence-where-counsels-litigation-strategy-is-impugned/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kligman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2023 17:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Discoverability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5334</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Spiral stairs" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>A recent decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario has filled an apparent gap in the case law, at [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>No notice? No claim! A primer on the importance of giving notice of claims under your construction contract</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/no-notice-no-claim-a-primer-on-the-importance-of-giving-notice-of-claims-under-your-construction-contract/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Karen Groulx]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2023 16:21:03 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4783</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Rough sea" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>The 2021 decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Elite Construction Inc. v. Canada (Elite v Canada), emerged [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>No secret note passing &#8211;  Alberta Court of Appeal confirms full disclosure in judicial review</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/no-secret-note-passing-alberta-court-of-appeal-confirms-full-disclosure-in-judicial-review/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Laurie Livingstone]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2022 17:07:11 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judicial Review and Public Law]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4712</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Artificial Intelligence hub background" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In the recently released decision Normko Resources Inc. v. Alberta (Minister of Environment and Parks), the Alberta Court of Appeal [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ontario Court of Appeal holds that substance trumps form in concluding that financing agreement offended criminal rate of interest prohibition</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/ontario-court-of-appeal-holds-that-substance-trumps-form-in-concluding-that-financing-agreement-offended-criminal-rate-of-interest-prohibition/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Barbara Grossman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2022 22:15:09 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4713</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Spiral stairs" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>On November 25, 2022, Ontario’s Court of Appeal released a notable decision relating to the criminal interest provisions of the [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rectification: Alive and well in Alberta</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/rectification-alive-and-well-in-alberta/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Sestito]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2022 21:33:18 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4704</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Orange flower blurred macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>A recent decision of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench applies the doctrine of rectification in a CCDC 2 Stipulated [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ontario appeals court confirms narrow appellate jurisdiction over arbitration awards</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/ontario-appeals-court-confirms-narrow-appellate-jurisdiction-over-arbitration-awards/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Schafler]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2022 19:34:46 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4697</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Light purple agawa" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Introduction On December 13, 2022, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released a very important decision affecting the scope of [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ameliorative Efforts Will Not Delay Discovery Indefinitely</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/ameliorative-efforts-will-not-delay-discovery-indefinitely/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ara Basmadjian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2022 17:23:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Discoverability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5332</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Human-footprints-on-desert-dunes-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Human footprints on desert dunes" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Human-footprints-on-desert-dunes-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Human-footprints-on-desert-dunes-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Human-footprints-on-desert-dunes-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Human-footprints-on-desert-dunes-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Human-footprints-on-desert-dunes-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Human-footprints-on-desert-dunes.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In&#160;Amelin Engineering Ltd. v. Blower Engineering Inc., 2022 ONCA 785 (“Amelin”), the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that, while [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Privilege of Self-Governance: Alberta Court of Appeal restricts awarding costs against members of regulated professions</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/the-privilege-of-self-governance-alberta-court-of-appeal-restricts-awarding-costs-against-members-of-regulated-professions/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Sestito]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2022 18:26:32 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4567</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Purple feather macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In Jinnah v Alberta Dental Association and College, 2022 ABCA 336 (Jinnah), the Court of Appeal of Alberta (the Court) [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ontario Court of Appeal holds no intrusion upon seclusion for third-party data breaches in a trio of decisions</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/ontario-court-of-appeal-holds-no-intrusion-upon-seclusion-for-third-party-data-breaches-in-a-trio-of-decisions/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chloe Snider]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2022 13:24:15 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4582</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Aurora-borealis-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Aurora borealis" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Aurora-borealis-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Aurora-borealis-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Aurora-borealis-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Aurora-borealis-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Aurora-borealis-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Aurora-borealis.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In a trio of decisions, the Ontario Court of Appeal (the Court),[1] has confirmed that the tort of intrusion upon [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Privilege and the search for truth: The Supreme Court of Canada clarifies process and test for disclosure of Airplane black box in civil litigation in Canada (Transportation Safety Board) v. Carroll‑Byrne, 2022 SCC 48</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/privilege-and-the-search-for-truth-the-supreme-court-of-canada-clarifies-process-and-test-for-disclosure-of-airplane-black-box-in-civil-litigation-in-canada-transportation-safety-board-v-carroll/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Barbara Grossman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2022 14:59:52 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4572</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Frost-texture-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Frost texture" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Frost-texture-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Frost-texture-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Frost-texture-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Frost-texture-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Frost-texture-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Frost-texture.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>On November 25, 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in the appeal brought by the Transportation Safety [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Corporate Attribution and the Law of Limitations in the Bankruptcy Context &#8211; Limitations Law Blog</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/corporate-attribution-and-the-law-of-limitations-in-the-bankruptcy-context-limitations-law-blog/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kligman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2022 17:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Discoverability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5330</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Sky and clouds" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In&#160;Golden Oaks Enterprises Inc. v. Scott, 2022 ONCA 509, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal (and allowed [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Class actions are not a preferred procedure to recall programs: A case comment on Coles v. FCA Canada Inc.</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/class-actions-are-not-a-preferred-procedure-to-recall-programs-a-case-comment-on-coles-v-fca-canada-inc/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rabita Sharfuddin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2022 16:25:30 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4550</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Sky and clouds" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Overview In the recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision, Coles v FCA Canada Inc., 2022 ONSC 5575 (Coles), the [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Court of Appeal for Ontario confirms test for extension of time to opt out of class proceedings: A review of Johnson v. Ontario</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/the-court-of-appeal-for-ontario-confirms-test-for-extension-of-time-to-opt-out-of-class-proceedings-a-review-of-johnson-v-ontario/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matthew Fleming]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Nov 2022 18:33:31 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4541</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Bird wing macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bird-wing-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In Johnson v. Ontario[1], the Court of Appeal for Ontario confirmed the test governing judicial discretion to extend the time [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Petrowest: SCC affirms primacy of parties’ arbitration agreement, creates narrow exception for insolvencies</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/petrowest-scc-affirms-primacy-of-parties-arbitration-agreement-creates-narrow-exception-for-insolvencies/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Schafler]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2022 21:05:54 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4527</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Canyon image" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>On November 10, 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released its highly anticipated decision in Peace River Hydro Partners [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Supreme Court of Canada clarifies that constructive taking does not require actual acquisition of property by the state</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/the-supreme-court-of-canada-clarifies-that-constructive-taking-does-not-require-actual-acquisition-of-property-by-the-state/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mélanie Power]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Nov 2022 18:16:26 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Regulatory]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4510</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Frost-texture-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Frost texture" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Frost-texture-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Frost-texture-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Frost-texture-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Frost-texture-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Frost-texture-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Frost-texture.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>A “taking” is a forcible acquisition by the state of privately-owned property for public purposes. A taking can either be&#160;de [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>How long is too long? Alberta Court of King’s Bench dismisses action for delay</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/how-long-is-too-long-alberta-court-of-kings-bench-dismisses-action-for-delay/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sara Hart]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2022 19:16:58 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4496</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Frost-pattern-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Frost pattern" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Frost-pattern-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Frost-pattern-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Frost-pattern-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Frost-pattern-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Frost-pattern-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Frost-pattern.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In Condominium Corporation 052 0580 (o/a The Tradition at Southbrook) v Carrington Holdings Ltd, 2022 ABKB 623 (Carrington), Justice Mandziuk [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Respondents’ cross-examination rights in securities enforcement proceedings: First Global Data Ltd (Re)</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/respondents-cross-examination-rights-in-securities-enforcement-proceedings-first-global-data-ltd-re/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brandon Barnes Trickett]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2022 17:15:24 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4488</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Pink Flower Macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>The Ontario Capital Markets Tribunal (CMT) recently considered the limits to a respondent’s right to cross-examine another respondent in a [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Class action privacy breach trial: How internal employee policies and early notification impact later litigation</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/class-action-privacy-breach-trial-how-internal-employee-policies-and-early-notification-impact-later-litigation/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kelly Osaka]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2022 17:36:02 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy and Cybersecurity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4476</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grass-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Grass macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grass-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grass-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grass-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grass-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grass-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grass-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Although many privacy class actions have been filed in Canada over the last few years, the vast majority settle rather [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Common law enforceability of ricochet judgments: The ONCA decision in HMB Holdings v Antigua</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/common-law-enforceability-of-ricochet-judgments-the-onca-decision-in-hmb-holdings-v-antigua/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chloe Snider]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2022 14:40:47 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4465</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Growing-plants-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Growing plants" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Growing-plants-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Growing-plants-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Growing-plants-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Growing-plants-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Growing-plants-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Growing-plants.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In September 2022, the Court of Appeal for Ontario (ONCA) released an important decision regarding the enforceability of “ricochet” judgments [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>A floodgate of correctness? The Supreme Court of Canada creates a new category of correctness in judicial review</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/a-floodgate-of-correctness-the-supreme-court-of-canada-creates-a-new-category-of-correctness-in-judicial-review/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Laurie Livingstone]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2022 15:33:46 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judicial Review and Public Law]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4459</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Protect_GPOF-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Protect_GPOF" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Protect_GPOF-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Protect_GPOF-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Protect_GPOF-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Protect_GPOF-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Protect_GPOF-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Protect_GPOF.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Only three years after the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) refashioned the standard of review in administrative law, the Court [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Words, words, words … are not enough to constitute reasons. The Alberta Court of Appeal puts administrative decision makers on notice in recent judicial review case</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/words-words-words-are-not-enough-to-constitute-reasons-the-alberta-court-of-appeal-puts-administrative-decision-makers-on-notice-in-recent-judicial-review-case/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Laurie Livingstone]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2022 19:12:01 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judicial Review and Public Law]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4446</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Water drops on purple leaf" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In the recently released decision of Cavendish Farms Corporation v. Lethbridge (City)[1], the Alberta Court of Appeal allowed an appeal [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>La tricherie dans les sports électroniques et les jeux vidéo</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/la-tricherie-dans-les-sports-electroniques-et-les-jeux-video/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Josh Dial]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2022 14:39:07 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4433</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Red scales pattern" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Depuis que les humains jouent à des jeux les uns contre les autres, certains font tout pour gagner&#160;: bâtons contenant [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cheating in e-sports and video games</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/cheating-in-e-sports-and-video-games/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Josh Dial]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2022 17:30:58 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4416</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Light purple agawa" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>For as long as humans have played games against each other, some have done anything to win: cork-filled bats; greased [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>How one decision illustrates the importance of timely pre-hearing motions</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/how-one-decision-illustrates-the-importance-of-timely-pre-hearing-motions/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Raphael Eghan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2022 18:48:19 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4404</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Artificial Intelligence hub background" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Artificial-Intelligence-hub-background.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>The Ontario Capital Markets Tribunal (CMT) recently released reasons for decision on a respondent’s motion in Stableview Asset Management Inc [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>If you don’t plead it, you can’t appeal it: Ontario Court of Appeal confirms you can’t raise new theory of defence on environmental contamination appeal</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/if-you-dont-plead-it-you-cant-appeal-it-ontario-court-of-appeal-confirms-you-cant-raise-new-theory-of-defence-on-environmental-contamination-appeal/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dina Awad]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Aug 2022 20:08:04 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4390</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Globe-and-forest-background-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Globe and forest background" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Globe-and-forest-background-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Globe-and-forest-background-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Globe-and-forest-background-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Globe-and-forest-background-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Globe-and-forest-background-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Globe-and-forest-background.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>On July 25, 2022, the Ontario Court of Appeal (the Court) released its decision in Sorbam Investments Ltd. v. Litwack, [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Claims against auditors may survive liquidation plans under Saskatchewan’s Business Corporations Act</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/claims-against-auditors-may-survive-liquidation-plans-under-saskatchewans-business-corporations-act/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Christy Lee]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Aug 2022 14:21:36 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4380</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Pink Flower Macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has recently ruled that a proposed class action against auditors for duties allegedly owed to [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sursis d’exécution accordé en partie : les sanctions imposées par l&#8217;Ordre des chiropraticiens du Québec étaient trop sévères</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/sursis-dexecution-accorde-en-partie-les-sanctions-imposees-par-lordre-des-chiropraticiens-du-quebec-etaient-trop-severes/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Alexandre Boileau]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2022 18:59:27 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4376</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Purple plant" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Dans l’affaire Leduc c. Ordre des chiropraticiens du Québec, 2022 QCCS 2263 (Leduc), la Cour supérieure du Québec a examiné [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Application for a stay of execution granted in part due to severe sanctions imposed by the order of chiropractors of Québec</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/application-for-a-stay-of-execution-granted-in-part-due-to-severe-sanctions-imposed-by-the-order-of-chiropractors-of-quebec/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Alexandre Boileau]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2022 18:56:38 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4371</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Purple plant" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In the recent case of Leduc v. Ordre des chiropraticiens du Québec 2022 QCCS (Leduc), the Superior Court of Québec [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Alberta Court of Appeal highlights shortcomings of the Alberta Health Services’ policies for the granting of physicians’ hospital privileges: Harling v Lauf</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/the-alberta-court-of-appeal-highlights-shortcomings-of-the-alberta-health-services-policies-for-the-granting-of-physicians-hospital-privileges-harling-v-lauf/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rose Carter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2022 18:16:36 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4359</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Pink Flower Macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In Harling v Lauf, 2022 ABCA 226 (Harling), a deceased patient’s widower and estate appealed a trial decision dismissing their [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pas de délai de type Jordan pour les procédures administratives : La Cour suprême du Canada confirme qu’un « délai à lui seul » n&#8217;est pas suffisant pour arrêter des procédures en droit administratif</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/pas-de-delai-de-type-jordan-pour-les-procedures-administratives-la-cour-supreme-du-canada-confirme-quun-delai-a-lui-seul-nest-pas-suffisant-pour-arreter-des-proced/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Sestito]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2022 16:22:59 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4346</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Stalks of wheat" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Dans l&#8217;affaire Law Society of Saskatchewan c. Abrametz, 2022 CSC 29 (l’affaire «&#160;Abrametz&#160;»), la Cour suprême du Canada a accueilli [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rebuck v Ford Motor Company: Ontario Court grants summary judgment dismissing certified false advertising class action related to fuel efficiency claims</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/rebuck-v-ford-motor-company-ontario-court-grants-summary-judgment-dismissing-certified-false-advertising-class-action-related-to-fuel-efficiency-claims/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matthew Fleming]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2022 20:20:31 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4339</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Water drops on a leaf" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In Rebuck v Ford Motor Company[i], the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently considered the issue of allegedly false or [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sim et al v Motion Specialties et al: The high threshold for confidentiality orders in product liability cases</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/sim-et-al-v-motion-specialties-et-al-the-high-threshold-for-confidentiality-orders-in-product-liability-cases/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Amer Pasalic]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2022 19:16:48 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4330</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grass-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Grass macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grass-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grass-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grass-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grass-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grass-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grass-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In Sim et al v Motion Specialties et al[i], the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered a motion by a [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>A premature application for judicial review is litigation in instalments</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/a-premature-application-for-judicial-review-is-litigation-in-instalments/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kate Millar]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2022 19:53:21 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4314</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Clouds-and-sky-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Clouds and sky" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Clouds-and-sky-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Clouds-and-sky-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Clouds-and-sky-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Clouds-and-sky-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Clouds-and-sky-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Clouds-and-sky.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In the recent case of Fawcett v College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, 2022 ABQB 452 (Fawcett), the Court [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Jordan-like time limits in administrative proceedings: Supreme Court upholds “Delay without more” is not enough in administrative law</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/no-jordan-like-time-limits-in-administrative-proceedings-supreme-court-upholds-delay-without-more-is-not-enough-in-administrative-law/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Sestito]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2022 16:24:47 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4304</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Orange flower blurred macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In Abrametz v Law Society of Saskatchewan, 2022 SCC 29 (Abrametz), the Supreme Court of Canada allowed an appeal of [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Les microtransactions dans les jeux vidéo ne sont pas (pour le moment) réglementées au Canada</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/les-microtransactions-dans-les-jeux-video-ne-sont-pas-pour-le-moment-reglementees-au-canada/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Josh Dial]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Jul 2022 14:16:36 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology and new media]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4296</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Purple feather macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Les jeux vidéo sont aujourd’hui l&#8217;un des passe-temps les plus populaires au monde, et un passe-temps auquel s’adonnent des personnes [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>A trap for the unwary? Partial settlement agreements that change the adversarial landscape of the litigation must immediately be disclosed</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/a-trap-for-the-unwary-partial-settlement-agreements-that-change-the-adversarial-landscape-of-the-litigation-must-immediately-be-disclosed/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Barbara Grossman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2022 18:26:27 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4282</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Red scales pattern" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In a quadrilogy of recent decisions — Tallman Truck Centre Limited v. K.S.P. Holdings Inc., 2022 ONCA 66 (“Tallman”), Waxman [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Video game microtransactions: Unregulated in Canada (so far)</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/video-game-microtransactions-unregulated-in-canada-so-far/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Josh Dial]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2022 20:15:05 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology and new media]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4276</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance-image-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Finance image" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance-image-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance-image-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance-image-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance-image-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance-image-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Finance-image.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Video games have cemented themselves as one of the world’s preeminent personal pastimes, with interest spanning generations. A 2021 report [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Flight Attendants&#8217; Harassment Class Action Certified: An Update on the Preferable Procedure Analysis in Class Actions</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/flight-attendants-harassment-class-action-certified-by-british-columbia-court-of-appeal/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matthew Fleming]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2022 17:11:24 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4263</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Green leaves close up" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>A case comment on Lewis v. WestJet Airlines Ltd, 2022 BCCA 145 The British Columbia Court of Appeal (BCCA) recently [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Beware, lienholders! There’s only one pot of gold</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/beware-lienholders-theres-only-one-pot-of-gold/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Karen Groulx]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2022 18:33:23 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4244</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Dragonfly-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Dragonfly wing macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Dragonfly-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Dragonfly-wing-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Dragonfly-wing-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Dragonfly-wing-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Dragonfly-wing-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Dragonfly-wing-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Ontario decision clarifies the method of determining the extent of holdback priority in situations where there are multiple building mortgages. [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Review bombing: Canadian court attaches liability to “campaign” of defamatory internet reviews</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/review-bombing-canadian-court-attaches-liability-to-campaign-of-defamatory-internet-reviews/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Josh Dial]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2022 19:51:58 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology and new media]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4235</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Insect wing macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>New torts are vanishingly rare: it can take decades for Canadian courts to recognize new causes of action. But the [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Vancouver International Arbitration Centre announces new International Arbitration Rules</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/the-vancouver-international-arbitration-centre-announces-new-international-arbitration-rules/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rachel Howie]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 May 2022 16:00:01 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4188</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Underwater image" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>On May 4, 2022, the Vancouver International Arbitration Centre (VanIAC) announced the adoption of its new International Commercial Arbitration Rules [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Ontario Superior Court of Justice reaffirms that the statutory oppression remedy cannot be used to advance common wrongful dismissal claims</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/the-ontario-superior-court-of-justice-reaffirms-that-the-statutory-oppression-remedy-cannot-be-used-to-advance-common-wrongful-dismissal-claims/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chloe Snider]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 May 2022 14:07:29 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4182</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-close-up-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Water drops close up" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-close-up-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-close-up-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-close-up-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-close-up-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-close-up-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-close-up.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Court reaffirmed that the statutory oppression remedy is [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Guidance and clarification on appeal rights in the context of class actions – the Courts are here to stay</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/guidance-and-clarification-on-appeal-rights-in-the-context-of-class-actions-the-courts-are-here-to-stay/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Radha Lamba]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 May 2022 21:17:43 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4173</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Stalks of wheat" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology v. Hitachi, Ltd.[1], the Ontario Court of Appeal provided guidance on appeal [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court of Appeal for Ontario Addresses the “Appropriate Means” Aspect of the Limitations Analysis</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/court-of-appeal-for-ontario-addresses-the-appropriate-means-aspect-of-the-limitations-analysis/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kligman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2022 17:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Discoverability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5328</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grow_GPOF-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Grow_GPOF" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grow_GPOF-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grow_GPOF-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grow_GPOF-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grow_GPOF-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grow_GPOF-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grow_GPOF.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In a recent decision, the Court of Appeal for Ontario once again applied a liberal approach to the interpretation of [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Key takeaways for Professionals and their Regulatory Bodies concerning procedural time limits</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/key-takeaways-for-professionals-and-their-regulatory-bodies-concerning-procedural-time-limits/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Sestito]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 May 2022 20:43:14 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4124</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-close-up-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Water drops close up" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-close-up-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-close-up-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-close-up-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-close-up-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-close-up-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-close-up.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Can a professional regulatory body extend the time for conducting a hearing after the deadline has already expired? This issue [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>When Does a Claimant Know About Damages in a Solicitor’s Negligence Claim?</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/when-does-a-claimant-know-about-damages-in-a-solicitors-negligence-claim/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ara Basmadjian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Discoverability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5325</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Cracked-land-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Cracked land" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Cracked-land-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Cracked-land-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Cracked-land-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Cracked-land-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Cracked-land-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Cracked-land.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In&#160;Georgian Properties Corporation v. Robins Appleby LLP, 2022 ONCA 245, the Court of Appeal for Ontario confirmed that in a [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>A “reasonable general concern” – The proposed new standard for searching personal electronic devices at the border</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/a-reasonable-general-concern-the-proposed-new-standard-for-searching-personal-electronic-devices-at-the-border/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kate Wiltse]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2022 15:40:55 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Government Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy and Cybersecurity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4113</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grow_GPOF-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Grow_GPOF" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grow_GPOF-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grow_GPOF-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grow_GPOF-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grow_GPOF-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grow_GPOF-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Grow_GPOF.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>This blog post is an update to Raising expectations of privacy at the border – the search of personal electronic [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court of Canada refuses to hear appeal challenging zero tolerance rule for health care practitioners</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/supreme-court-of-canada-refuses-to-hear-appeal-challenging-zero-tolerance-rule-for-health-care-practitioners/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dina Awad]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2022 15:40:31 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4095</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Water drops on purple leaf" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>The Supreme Court of Canada recently dismissed a dental hygienist’s request for leave to appeal from a decision revoking his [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Claims of false allegations serve as an important reminder to professional disciplinary bodies: The case of Walia v. College of Veterinarians of Ontario</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/claims-of-false-allegations-serve-as-an-important-reminder-to-professional-disciplinary-bodies-the-case-of-walia-v-college-of-veterinarians-of-ontario/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Christy Lee]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2022 15:07:52 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4084</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Purple feather macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>A recent case in Ontario, in which leave to appeal was denied by the Supreme Court of Canada, is a [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The fine line: Adding particulars to an existing complaint vs bringing forward an entirely new complaint</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/the-fine-line-adding-particulars-to-an-existing-complaint-vs-bringing-forward-an-entirely-new-complaint/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Katherine Martin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2022 15:06:20 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4055</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Water drops on a leaf" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Can a hearing tribunal permit a complaints director to add new allegations to a notice of hearing during a hearing? [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Damages and liability in professional negligence actions: The case of Ashraf v Zinner</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/damages-and-liability-in-professional-negligence-actions-the-case-of-ashraf-v-zinner/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Sestito]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2022 15:03:29 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4042</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Green leaves close up" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Green-leaves-close-up.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Lawyers owe their clients a duty to take reasonable care to avoid conduct that poses an unreasonable risk of harm. [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ontario Divisional Court overturns certification of claim for intrusion upon seclusion: Review of Stewart v Demme</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/ontario-divisional-court-overturns-certification-of-claim-for-intrusion-upon-seclusion-review-of-stewart-v-demme/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chloe Snider]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2022 15:05:14 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4076</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Water drops on a leaf" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-a-leaf.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>The tort of intrusion upon seclusion is commonly pled as a cause of action in privacy class actions – increasingly [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Second Round in the Ring on Limitation Issue</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/no-second-round-in-the-ring-on-limitation-issue/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ara Basmadjian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Apr 2022 16:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Adding a Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Amending Pleadings]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5323</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Pink Flower Macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pink-Flower-Macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In&#160;Taylor v. Mayes, 2022 ONCA 297, the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that a motion judge can make a [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Limitations Act, 2002 Does Not Distinguish Between Meritorious and Non-Meritorious Claims</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/the-limitations-act-2002-does-not-distinguish-between-meritorious-and-non-meritorious-claims/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ara Basmadjian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2022 16:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5321</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Orange flower blurred macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Orange-flower-blurred-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In&#160;Andrews v. Pattison, 2022 ONCA 267 (“Andrews”), the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld the decision of the motion judge [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>BC Court upholds high bar to public policy defence in enforcing foreign arbitral awards in Enrroxs Energy and Mining Group v Saddad</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/bc-court-upholds-high-bar-to-public-policy-defence-in-enforcing-foreign-arbitral-awards-in-enrroxs-energy-and-mining-group-v-saddad/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chloe Snider]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2022 16:36:32 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mining]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4065</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1239" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF-1568x1239.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Operate_GPOF" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF-1568x1239.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF-1024x809.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF-768x607.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Operate_GPOF.jpg 1899w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>On February 24, 2022, in Enrroxs Energy and Mining Group v Saddad, 2022 BCSC 285 (Enrroxs), the Supreme Court of [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Significant development in the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Canada: The case of Lanfer v Eilers</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/significant-development-in-the-recognition-and-enforcement-of-foreign-judgments-in-canada-the-case-of-lanfer-v-eilers/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chloe Snider]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2022 17:06:12 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4060</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Stalks of wheat" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Stalks-of-wheat.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>On March 3, 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal from the British Columbia Court of Appeal’s [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Increasing skepticism towards the certification of privacy-related class actions: Review of Chow v Facebook</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/increasing-skepticism-towards-the-certification-of-privacy-related-class-actions-review-of-chow-v-facebook/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Luca Lucarini]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Mar 2022 18:59:09 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy and Cybersecurity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4048</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/commoditiesandsecuritiesenforcement-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Stock charts" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/commoditiesandsecuritiesenforcement-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/commoditiesandsecuritiesenforcement-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/commoditiesandsecuritiesenforcement-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/commoditiesandsecuritiesenforcement-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/commoditiesandsecuritiesenforcement-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/commoditiesandsecuritiesenforcement.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Class action lawsuits based on data breaches or alleged misuse of personal information continue to be a major feature of [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Limitation Period is Not Automatically Extended Until Professional Advice is Obtained</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/a-limitation-period-is-not-automatically-extended-until-professional-advice-is-obtained/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ara Basmadjian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Discoverability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5318</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Insect wing macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Insect-wing-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Introduction In&#160;Fryday v. Pilot Insurance, 2021 ONSC 8150 (“Fryday”), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice summarily dismissed an action, which [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ontario litigators, dust off your robes (but don’t uninstall Zoom)! The Superior Court of Justice announces guidelines for the presumptive mode of attendance</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/ontario-litigators-dust-off-your-robes-but-dont-uninstall-zoom-the-superior-court-of-justice-announces-guidelines-for-the-presumptive-mode-of-attendance/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dragana Cerovina]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2022 21:11:31 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4045</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Red scales pattern" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In March 2020, the Superior Court of Justice (SCJ) suspended all in-person hearings in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. For [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Not so fast! Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta rules that the administrative disciplinary process ought not be bypassed</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/not-so-fast-court-of-queens-bench-of-alberta-rules-that-the-administrative-disciplinary-process-ought-not-be-bypassed/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Sestito]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 2022 15:55:08 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4030</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Geology abstract image" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Geology-abstract-image.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In the recent decision of Goodwin v Alberta College and Association of Chiropractors, 2022 ABQB 177 (Goodwin), the Court of [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>How one environment-based class action is challenging the path for plaintiffs  </title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/how-one-environment-based-class-action-is-challenging-the-path-for-plaintiffs/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tom O'Leary]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2022 21:09:22 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=4018</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Canyon image" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Canyon-image.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Environmentally-based class action proceedings have been steadily on the rise. Many of these cases are based in tort law and [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ontario Court of Appeal Upholds Judgment Finding that Limitation Period for Arbitration of Issues Relating to Corporate Dispute Had Not Expired</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/ontario-court-of-appeal-upholds-judgment-finding-that-limitation-period-for-arbitration-of-issues-relating-to-corporate-dispute-had-not-expired/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kligman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Feb 2022 16:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Discoverability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5316</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Ocean-coral-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Ocean coral" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Ocean-coral-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Ocean-coral-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Ocean-coral-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Ocean-coral-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Ocean-coral-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Ocean-coral.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Maisonneuve v. Clark, 2022 ONCA 113 (“Clark”) concerned the application of s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the&#160;Limitations Act, 2002, SO 2002, c [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Due Diligence, No Problem: Ontario Court Applies Misnomer in Personal Injury Claim</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/no-due-diligence-no-problem-ontario-court-applies-misnomer-in-personal-injury-claim/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ara Basmadjian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2022 16:12:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Discoverability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Misnomer]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5314</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Light purple agawa" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Light-purple-agawa.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Overview In&#160;Zenchyshyn v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 7, 2021 ONSC 6727 (“Zenchyshyn”), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice allowed the [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trends to watch in tort liability for 2022: BC Supreme Court confirms private entities can rely on statutory authority as a shield to tort claims brought by Aboriginal rights holders</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/trends-to-watch-in-tort-liability-for-2022-bc-supreme-court-confirms-private-entities-can-rely-on-statutory-authority-as-a-shield-to-tort-claims-brought-by-aboriginal-rights-holders/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Morgan Camley, KC]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Feb 2022 18:31:18 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3994</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Sky and clouds" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sky-and-clouds.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>The BC Supreme Court recently confirmed that third-party proponents can be held liable for torts affecting a First Nations’ established [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Divisional Court Summarizes the Key Principles in a Misnomer Analysis</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/divisional-court-summarizes-the-key-principles-in-a-misnomer-analysis/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ara Basmadjian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2022 16:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Misnomer]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5312</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Purple feather macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-feather-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Introduction In&#160;Dealer’s Choice Preferred Collision Centre Inc. v. Kircher, 2021 ONSC 8261 (“Kircher”), the Divisional Court upheld the decision of [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ontario Superior Court Confirms Hacked Companies are not “Intruding” on Anyone’s Seclusion</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/ontario-superior-court-confirms-hacked-companies-are-not-intruding-on-anyones-seclusion/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Schafler]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2022 21:57:38 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy and Cybersecurity]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3981</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/commoditiesandsecuritiesenforcement-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Stock charts" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/commoditiesandsecuritiesenforcement-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/commoditiesandsecuritiesenforcement-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/commoditiesandsecuritiesenforcement-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/commoditiesandsecuritiesenforcement-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/commoditiesandsecuritiesenforcement-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/commoditiesandsecuritiesenforcement.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In&#160;Winder v Marriott International Inc.&#160;, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has recently confirmed that a hacked company is not [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Overlapping class actions: To stay or not to stay?</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/overlapping-class-actions-to-stay-or-not-to-stay/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Radha Lamba]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2022 18:59:48 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3973</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_07-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Court building" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_07-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_07-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_07-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_07-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_07-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_07.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In Kirsh v. Bristol-Myers Squibb[1], the Court provided guidance on situations where two national class actions seeking the same or [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Wine not use a competitor&#8217;s trademark to  promote your own lower-priced alternative?</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wine-not-use-a-competitors-trademark-to-promote-your-own-lower-priced-alternative/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jennifer McKay]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Dec 2021 21:49:14 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3959</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Column" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Québec’s Court of Appeal held that the use of third party trademarks  in comparative advertising is permissible in appropriate circumstances [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court of Canada provides insight for drafting and interpreting releases in Corner Brook (City) v. Bailey</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/supreme-court-of-canada-provides-insight-for-drafting-and-interpreting-releases-in-corner-brook-city-v-bailey/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Sestito]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Dec 2021 16:42:14 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulatory]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3894</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Columns bottom view" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has recently provided key insight into the interpretation of releases in Corner Brook (City) [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Recent Ontario Court decision confirms presumption on pre-certification motions sequencing: Implications for class actions</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/recent-ontario-court-decision-confirms-presumption-on-pre-certification-motions-sequencing-implications-for-class-actions/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[A.J. Freedman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Nov 2021 17:16:41 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Professional Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3878</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Column" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In Dufault v. Toronto Dominion Bank, 2021 ONSC 6223 (&#8220;Dufault&#8220;), a recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision, the Court [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Intrusion upon seclusion is not concerned with dissemination: No privacy breach where lawfully obtained information used to terminate employee</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/intrusion-upon-seclusion-is-not-concerned-with-dissemination-no-privacy-breach-where-lawfully-obtained-information-used-to-terminate-employee/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sasha Coutu]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2021 14:11:40 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3875</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Protect_GPOF-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Protect_GPOF" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Protect_GPOF-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Protect_GPOF-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Protect_GPOF-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Protect_GPOF-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Protect_GPOF-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Protect_GPOF.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In&#160;Wakeling v. Desjardins General Insurance, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the Ontario Superior Court’s decision to strike a claim [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Climate Change Litigation and Disclosure Requirements: Recent Developments in Canada</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/climate-change-litigation-and-disclosure-requirements-recent-developments-in-canada/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kelly Osaka]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 2021 19:36:42 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Environmental Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3869</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Courthouse-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Courthouse" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Courthouse-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Courthouse-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Courthouse-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Courthouse-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Courthouse-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Courthouse.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>The effects of climate change continue to impact international and domestic organizations through regulation and litigation risk. This year saw [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Trend Towards New Privacy Torts – Alberta Weighs In</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/the-trend-towards-new-privacy-torts-alberta-weighs-in/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kelly Osaka]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Oct 2021 19:57:37 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3856</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[As private lives are increasingly digitized, Canadian courts continue to expand their recognition of common law privacy torts. The latest [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT: Commercial forum selection clauses and the importance of surrounding circumstances</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/context-context-context-commercial-forum-selection-clauses-and-the-importance-of-surrounding-circumstances/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Theresa Cesareo]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2021 19:43:48 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3843</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In the decision of Loan Away Inc. v. Facebook Canada Ltd.[1], the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the enforceability of [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>All in the family (business): Abuse of process by re-litigation in commercial and estates proceedings</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/all-in-the-family-business-abuse-of-process-by-re-litigation-in-commercial-and-estates-proceedings/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kathryn McCulloch]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Sep 2021 16:20:28 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Estates and Trusts]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3821</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_07-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Court building" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_07-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_07-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_07-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_07-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_07-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_07.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In Ntakos Estate v Ntakos[1], Justice Schabas of the Ontario Superior Court heard various motions for summary judgment and dismissal [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ontario Superior Court of Justice Amends Issue Date of Statement of Claim after Failure of Duty by Court Staff</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/ontario-superior-court-of-justice-amends-issue-date-of-statement-of-claim-after-failure-of-duty-by-court-staff/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ara Basmadjian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Sep 2021 16:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Amending Pleadings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Limitation Periods contained in "Other Acts"]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5310</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Purple plant" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Purple-plant.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In&#160;Patkaciunas v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2021 ONSC 5945 (“Patkaciunas”), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that it has [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>OSC Guidance on assessment and investigation cooperation</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/osc-guidance-on-assessment-and-investigation-cooperation/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kelly Osaka]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2021 18:46:02 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Environmental Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mining]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulatory]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3811</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_05-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Court building inside" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_05-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_05-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_05-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_05-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_05-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_05.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) has recently released a Staff Notice, OSC Staff Notice 15-707 Enforcement Branch Enforcement Investigation Guidance, [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Civil Procedure and Practice in Ontario, 2021</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/civil-procedure-and-practice-in-ontario-2021/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ara Basmadjian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2021 16:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5308</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Rough sea" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rough-sea.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Civil Procedure and Practice in Ontario, 2021 is your guide to Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194, Courts of Justice [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>If you die a rich person, have you failed?</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/if-you-die-a-rich-person-have-you-failed/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kate Millar]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2021 18:33:22 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Estates and Trusts]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3804</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Recently the James Bond actor, Daniel Craig, made headlines when he declared that inheritances are “distasteful” and noted that he [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court of Appeal for Ontario Summarizes Key Principles in the Appropriate Means Analysis</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/court-of-appeal-for-ontario-summarizes-key-principles-in-the-appropriate-means-analysis/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ara Basmadjian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2021 16:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Discoverability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5306</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Spiral stairs" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Spiral-stairs.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Overview In&#160;Dass v. Kay, 2021 ONCA 565 (“Dass”), the Court of Appeal for Ontario confirmed the proper interpretation of section [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Expanding options for efficiency: UNCITRAL’s Expedited Arbitration Rules</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/expanding-options-for-efficiency-uncitrals-expedited-arbitration-rules/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rachel Howie]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Aug 2021 15:09:26 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3788</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Stairs" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Over last few years, several arbitration institutions have adopted expedited rules or procedures that provide parties with an option for [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court of Canada Addresses Discoverability in New Brunswick’s Limitation of Actions Act</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/supreme-court-of-canada-addresses-discoverability-in-new-brunswicks-limitation-of-actions-act/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark G. Evans]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2021 16:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Discoverability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Limitation Periods contained in "Other Acts"]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5303</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Underwater image" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Overview In&#160;Grant Thornton LLP v. New Brunswick, 2021 SCC 31 (“Grant&#160;Thornton”), the Supreme Court of Canada held that a claim [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sequencing shake up in British Columbia</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/sequencing-shake-up-in-british-columbia/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matthew Fleming]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2021 13:17:04 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3770</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Column" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Introduction In British Columbia v. The Jean Coutu Group (PJC) Inc.(the Appeal), the British Columbia Court of Appeal (the BCCA) [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Developments on the oppression remedy and bad faith</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/new-developments-on-the-oppression-remedy-and-bad-faith/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kelly Osaka]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2021 15:32:38 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3757</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_07-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Court building" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_07-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_07-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_07-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_07-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_07-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_07.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Haack v Secure Energy (Drilling Services) Inc., 2021 ABQB 82 The duty of honest contractual performance and the oppression remedy [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Statute-Barred Claim is Not a Provable Claim in Bankruptcy</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/a-statute-barred-claim-is-not-a-provable-claim-in-bankruptcy/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ara Basmadjian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2021 16:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Limitation Periods contained in "Other Acts"]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5301</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-grass-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Water drops on grass" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-grass-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-grass-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-grass-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-grass-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-grass-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-grass.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In&#160;John Trevor Eyton (Re), 2021 ONSC 3646 (“Eyton II”), Justice Dunphy determined that while a claim that is statute-barred under [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Acknowledgments of Indebtedness in a Digital World</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/acknowledgments-of-indebtedness-in-a-digital-world/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ara Basmadjian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2021 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Acknowledgement]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5299</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Water drops on purple leaf" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Water-drops-on-purple-leaf.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Section 13(1) of the&#160;Limitations Act, 2002, SO 2002, c 24, Sch B (the “Act”) provides for the extension of the [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Privacy, please? The Supreme Court of Canada says, “No, we’ve got open courts!”</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/privacy-please-the-supreme-court-of-canada-says-no-weve-got-open-courts/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kate Millar]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2021 21:07:19 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3742</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Red scales pattern" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In the recent case of Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25,&#160; the Supreme Court of Canada considered whether a [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Commercial Arbitration Appeals – The Leave to Appeal Hurdle</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/commercial-arbitration-appeals-the-leave-to-appeal-hurdle/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jasmine Der]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2021 16:54:58 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3725</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Stairs" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>The Vancouver Litigation &#38; Dispute Resolution Group recently succeeded in having an application for leave to appeal a commercial arbitration [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The use and limits of Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties: A case study in Canada and the United Kingdom</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/the-use-and-limits-of-mutual-legal-assistance-treaties-a-case-study-in-canada-and-the-united-kingdom/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anthony J. Cole]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2021 17:45:45 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[White-Collar Crime]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3703</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Columns bottom view" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) are one of the most important tools available to law enforcement agencies conducting international investigations. [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The role of expert evidence in professional negligence</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/the-role-of-expert-evidence-in-professional-negligence/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Katherine Martin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 May 2021 18:10:43 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medical Malpractice]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3697</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/AccidentanHealth-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Doctors talking" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/AccidentanHealth-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/AccidentanHealth-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/AccidentanHealth-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/AccidentanHealth-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/AccidentanHealth-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/AccidentanHealth.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Negligence is a legal theory by which a person may be held legally responsible for injury or loss to another [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Probate application process made easier for “Small Estates” by Ontario’s Smart and Stronger Justice Act</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/probate-application-process-made-easier-for-small-estates-by-ontarios-smart-and-stronger-justice-act/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kathryn McCulloch]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2021 20:04:20 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Estates and Trusts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3675</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Column" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_02.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>The recently enacted Smarter and Stronger Justice Act (the Act) streamlines the process to obtain a certificate of appointment (also [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Evolving Impact of Vavilov on Commercial Arbitration</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/the-evolving-impact-of-vavilov-on-commercial-arbitration/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rachel Howie]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Apr 2021 20:39:53 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3656</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Columns bottom view" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation_03.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, (Vavilov) the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) set [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Heidari v Naghshbandi:  Ontario Court of Appeal Clarifies When Security for Costs of an Appeal is Appropriate</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/heidari-v-naghshbandi-ontario-court-of-appeal-clarifies-when-security-for-costs-of-an-appeal-is-appropriate/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Amer Pasalic]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 2021 20:04:29 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3641</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In Heidari v Naghshbandi,[1] the Court of Appeal for Ontario canvassed the governing principles relevant to a motion to obtain [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>For better or worse, the interpretation of contracts is still a thing!</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/for-better-or-worse-the-interpretation-of-contracts-is-still-a-thing/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Josh Dial]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Apr 2021 20:28:18 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3620</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Underwater image" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Underwater-image.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>For better or worse, the Supreme Court of Canada’s Sattva decision (Sattva Capital Corp v Creston Moly Corp, 2014 SCC [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Limitations Defences Must be Pleaded and Argued</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/limitations-defences-must-be-pleaded-and-argued/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ara Basmadjian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Apr 2021 15:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5297</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Waves-bird-view-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Waves bird view" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Waves-bird-view-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Waves-bird-view-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Waves-bird-view-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Waves-bird-view-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Waves-bird-view-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Waves-bird-view.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In&#160;Hayward v. Hayward, 2021 ONCA 175 (“Hayward”), the Court of Appeal for Ontario provided a reminder of the established principle [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Be careful what you admit: Ontario Court of Appeal rules on Requests to Admit</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/be-careful-what-you-admit-ontario-court-of-appeal-rules-on-requests-to-admit/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Meredith Bacal]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Apr 2021 14:23:29 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medical Malpractice]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3602</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Red scales pattern" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Red-scales-pattern.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>When used properly, a Request to Admit is a powerful strategic tool for litigants. Rule 51.02(1) of the Rules of [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Supreme Court of Canada finds the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act constitutional</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/the-supreme-court-of-canada-finds-the-greenhouse-gas-pollution-pricing-act-constitutional/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gord Tarnowsky]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Mar 2021 19:44:11 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulatory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Carbon tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[environmental]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Greenhouse gas pollution pricing act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCC decision]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3583</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[After having been reviewed by three appellate courts, the Supreme Court of Canada has now had its opportunity to resolve [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is it constitutional? A primer on the discord between provincial appellate courts on the constitutionality of the Greenhouse gas pollution pricing act</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/is-it-constitutional-a-primer-on-the-discord-between-provincial-appellate-courts-on-the-constitutionality-of-the-greenhouse-gas-pollution-pricing-act/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gord Tarnowsky]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2021 15:02:42 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulatory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alberta]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Carbon tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[environment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[environmental]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Greenhouse gas pollution pricing act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saskatechewan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCC decision]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3568</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Columns bottom view" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/litigation.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>The Supreme Court of Canada is expected to release its long awaited opinion regarding the constitutionality of the federal Greenhouse [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Updates Continue: The 2020 IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/the-updates-continue-the-2020-iba-rules-on-the-taking-of-evidence-in-international-arbitration/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Emily McMurtry]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2021 10:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3547</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Stairs" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Like many other rules and guides in international arbitration, the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Tragically Hip v. Mill Street Brewery: A Long Time Running</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/the-tragically-hip-v-mill-street-brewery-a-long-time-running/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Norm Emblem]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2021 13:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Limitation Periods contained in "Other Acts"]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Limitation Periods in Federal Court]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5342</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-leaves-image-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Abstract leaves image" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-leaves-image-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-leaves-image-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-leaves-image-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-leaves-image-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-leaves-image-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-leaves-image.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>A battle between two quintessential Canadian brands has finally found its way into court. On February 9, 2021, the Canadian [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Obligation to Sue a John Doe or Jane Doe</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/no-obligation-to-sue-a-john-doe-or-jane-doe/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ara Basmadjian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Feb 2021 15:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Discoverability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Misnomer]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5290</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/wood-grain-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="wood grain" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/wood-grain-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/wood-grain-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/wood-grain-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/wood-grain-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/wood-grain-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/wood-grain.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Theralase Technologies Inc. v. Lanter, 2021 ONSC 943 (“Theralase”) is an Internet defamation case that contains a small, but noteworthy, [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Partial Summary Judgment (Almost) Dead in Ontario</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/partial-summary-judgment-almost-dead-in-ontario/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Schafler]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2021 14:34:23 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3533</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_05-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Court building inside" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_05-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_05-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_05-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_05-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_05-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_05.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>In our last post&#160;, we wrote about the December 10, 2020 decision of the Court of Appeal in Malik v [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court of Appeal for Ontario Addresses Actual and Constructive Knowledge of Claims for Contribution and Indemnity</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/court-of-appeal-for-ontario-addresses-actual-and-constructive-knowledge-of-claims-for-contribution-and-indemnity/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ara Basmadjian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2021 15:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Contribution and Indemnity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Discoverability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5287</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-leaves-image-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Abstract leaves image" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-leaves-image-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-leaves-image-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-leaves-image-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-leaves-image-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-leaves-image-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-leaves-image.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Overview In&#160;Albert Bloom Limited v. London Transit Commission, 2021 ONCA 74 (“Bloom“), the Court of Appeal for Ontario confirmed that [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Malik v Attia:  Ontario Court of Appeal further restricts partial summary judgment</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/malik-v-attia-ontario-court-of-appeal-further-restricts-partial-summary-judgment/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Schafler]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2021 13:56:52 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate Transaction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Simplified Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Summary Judgment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3506</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_05-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Court building inside" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_05-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_05-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_05-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_05-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_05-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_05.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>The Ontario Court of Appeal recently provided further guidance – and arguably established a higher threshold – as to when [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Raising expectations of privacy at the border &#8211; the search of personal electronic devices</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/raising-expectations-of-privacy-at-the-border-the-search-of-personal-electronic-devices/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kate Wiltse]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2021 13:44:01 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Privacy and Cybersecurity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alberta Court of Appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canadian Border Services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Customs Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PEDs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[R v Simmons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Travel]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3475</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Stairs" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Corporate electronic devices may be protected – strong passwords, two-factor authentication, facial recognition – but is your company’s private data actually safe from inspection while employees are travelling to and from Canada?]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Amendment to Occupiers’ Liability Act Creates 60 Day Notice Requirement</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/amendment-to-occupiers-liability-act-creates-60-day-notice-requirement/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ara Basmadjian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2021 15:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Limitation Periods contained in "Other Acts"]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5284</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-red-and-blue-flower-macro-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Abstract red and blue flower macro" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-red-and-blue-flower-macro-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-red-and-blue-flower-macro-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-red-and-blue-flower-macro-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-red-and-blue-flower-macro-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-red-and-blue-flower-macro-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Abstract-red-and-blue-flower-macro.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Bill 118, the&#160;Occupiers’ Liability Amendment Act, 2020, SO 2020, c 33, received royal assent on December 8, 2020 and creates [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court of Canada expands on the duty of good faith: C.M. Callow Inc. v. Zollinger</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/supreme-court-of-canada-expands-the-duty-of-good-faith-c-m-callow-inc-v-zollinger/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chloe Snider]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2021 10:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Duty of Good Faith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Duty of Honesty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Measure of Damages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Termination Clause]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3463</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In C.M. Callow Inc. v Zollinger, 2020 SCC 45 (CM Callow), the Supreme Court of Canada expanded on the scope [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>No compensable harm, no certification: The Ontario Superior Court decision of Maginnis and Magnaye v. FCA Canada et al.</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/no-compensable-harm-no-certification-the-ontario-superior-court-decision-of-maginnis-and-magnaye-v-fca-canada-et-al/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matthew Fleming]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2020 18:03:55 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Certification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Proceedings Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Compensable Harm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Diesel Vehicles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario Superior Court of Justice]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3426</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[. . . In its recent decision in Maginnis and Magnaye v. FCA Canada et al. (“Maginnis”), the Ontario Superior [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Avoiding the empty bag: How we get our clients paid</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/avoiding-the-empty-bag-how-we-get-our-clients-paid/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Renée Brosseau]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2020 15:56:57 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[damages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fact-finding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Leave of the court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Preserving rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prompt judgement]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3418</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Helping clients litigate their disputes is at the heart of what we do as commercial litigators. An important aspect of [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Modernizing the Rules of Civil Procedure, keeping up with the new normal</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/modernizing-the-rules-of-civil-procedure-keeping-up-with-the-new-normal/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dragana Cerovina]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2020 22:06:58 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Covid-19]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology and new media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[covid-19]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[modernization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Normal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rules of Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3407</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Stairs" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_04.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Since the onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic (Pandemic), the courts, counsel, and litigants have pivoted to address our “new normal”. [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Fact that a Named Plaintiff Has No Legal Status Does Not Justify Correcting an Alleged Misnomer</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/the-fact-that-a-named-plaintiff-has-no-legal-status-does-not-justify-correcting-an-alleged-misnomer/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ara Basmadjian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2020 15:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Misnomer]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5282</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Anamone flower" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Anamone-flower.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Overview In&#160;Dealer’s Choice Preferred Collision Centre Inc. v. Kircher, 2020 ONSC 7557 (“Kircher”), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice confirmed [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>HMB Holdings v Antigua: Supreme Court grants leave in case that will impact foreign judgment enforcement</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/hmb-holdings-v-antigua-supreme-court-grants-leave-in-case-that-will-impact-foreign-judgment-enforcement/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chloe Snider]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2020 14:55:56 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carrying on a business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[debtor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enforcement in Ontario]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enforcement outside Ontario]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign judgement enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Foreign judgement enforcement in Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HMB]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[original judgement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[REJA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ricochet judgement]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3402</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Stairs" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Litigation_06.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>On November 12, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal in HMB Holdings Limited v Antigua and [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Subsequent Discovery of the Severity of Injuries Will Not Extend the Limitation Period</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/subsequent-discovery-of-the-severity-of-injuries-will-not-extend-the-limitation-period/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ara Basmadjian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2020 15:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Discoverability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=5280</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1568" height="1238" src="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Ants-1568x1238.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Ants" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Ants-1568x1238.jpg 1568w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Ants-300x237.jpg 300w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Ants-1024x808.jpg 1024w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Ants-768x606.jpg 768w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Ants-1536x1213.jpg 1536w, https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Ants.jpg 1900w" sizes="(max-width: 34.9rem) calc(100vw - 2rem), (max-width: 53rem) calc(8 * (100vw / 12)), (min-width: 53rem) calc(6 * (100vw / 12)), 100vw" /></p>Overview In&#160;Baig v. Mississauga, 2020 ONCA 697 (“Baig”), the Court of Appeal for Ontario confirmed that knowledge of the material [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Using music in your business? Copyright fees proposed to increase</title>
		<link>https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/using-music-in-your-business-copyright-fees-proposed-to-increase/?utm_medium=email</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Margot Patterson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2020 16:38:26 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Technology and new media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[background music]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright board]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright tariffs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[embedded music in movies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[movie theatre]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[music]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[music license]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[music streaming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[office music]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[proposed tariffs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restaurant music]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[retail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[retail stores]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/?p=3379</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Copyright tariffs in a nutshell Businesses in Canada that use music require authorization by copyright owners to do so lawfully. [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
