An authentic and fulsome apology can be a powerful tool in mediation, allowing an aggrieved party to know their experience is understood and regretted which sometimes removes settlement obstacles that legal argument alone cannot dislodge. This article discusses when apologies may be helpful in mediation, how they might be employed, and the elements of an effective apology.

With a growing emphasis on the need for efficient access to justice, and a looming overhaul to the Civil Rules, which may lead to many more summary proceedings, affidavit drafting is an increasingly crucial instrument in every litigator’s toolbox.

Parag Ray puts forward the case that supervised access in family courts should be a temporary, clinically guided intervention with clear behavioural “thresholds” and step-up plans, rather than an indefinite punitive arrangement.

Parag Ray puts forward the case that supervised access in family courts should be a temporary, clinically guided intervention with clear behavioural “thresholds” and step-up plans, rather than an indefinite punitive arrangement. Emphasizes differentiating real risk from alienation and using reintegration therapy to move families toward unsupervised parenting time.

1) Introduction: Information, Connection and Obligation

We live in an age of information, in which information is currency. Participation in an information economy constantly gives rise to relationships of trust, in which personal information is entrusted to those who are tasked, expressly or impliedly, with safeguarding it. In Jones v Tsige, the Court of Appeal for Ontario recognized that the relationships that necessarily emerge in an increasingly networked world must be regarded as legal relationships that gave rise to legal duties at common law:

The Internet and digital technology have brought an enormous change in the way we communicate and in our capacity to capture, store and retrieve information… routinely kept electronic databases render our most personal financial information vulnerable. Sensitive information as to our health is similarly available, as are records of the books we have borrowed or bought, the movies we have rented or downloaded, where we have shopped, where we have travelled and the nature of our communications by cellphone, e-mail or text message. It is within the capacity of the common law to evolve to respond to the problem posed by the routine collection and aggregation of highly personal information that is readily accessible in electronic form.

The Mareva Injunction and Pre-Judgment Garnishment Vacuum

Introduction

A judgment is only as good as a creditor’s ability to collect on it, and in Ontario, that ability turns on a question of timing. A plaintiff who suspects that a defendant is quietly moving money offshore, draining a bank account, or converting assets into something harder to trace, such as cryptocurrency, cannot simply ask the court to seize those assets while the lawsuit is pending. Ontario offers no general pre-judgment garnishment, and so the plaintiff must instead reach for an equitable remedy that was never designed to be a substitute for one: the Mareva injunction (sometimes with the assistance of a Norwich order).

This article argues that Ontario's reliance on equity to do the work of a statute it has declined to enact is the source of much of the doctrinal untidiness in this area, and that the rise of cryptocurrency disputes has unduly burdened legal practitioners in the satisfaction of securing a Mareva injunction. Legislative reform to address a codified Mareva injunction regime and the issue arise from a pre-judgment garnishment vacuum is warranted.

Introduction

Software tools or systems that use artificial intelligence often rely on third party providers to perform core AI functions such as processing user requests (input) and generating responses (output). Many use external AI “models” – complex mathematical and computational systems that analyze vast amounts of data to recognize patterns or make decisions - such as those offered by OpenAI, Google and Anthropic. These models analyze, interpret or respond to user input and produce output in the form of text, images, or speech. Depending on their design and capabilities, AI-enabled products may rely on additional components including open-source libraries, cloud infrastructure, computing resources, servers, and development tools to build, run and maintain AI systems. These building blocks are supplied, hosted or managed by the vendor of the product, its affiliates or by third party providers. The network of external components and third-party service providers that support the operation of an AI product is analogous to a traditional product supply chain in that multiple actors and dependencies contribute to the final product that is delivered to the user.

In Lundin Mining Corp. v. Markowich, the Supreme Court of Canada was presented with an opportunity to resolve one of the most persistent ambiguities in Canadian securities law: what does it mean for a development to constitute a change "in the business, operations or capital" of an issuer? These terms are not defined in securities legislation, regulatory instruments, policy statements, leading jurisprudence, or securities law textbooks. Lower courts have attempted to fill the void with various definitions, factors, and thresholds. Despite the clear need for conclusive guidance, the majority effectively declined the invitation.

The Court dismissed the dictionary definitions and thresholds used by lower courts. However, instead of interpreting the statutory terms, the Supreme Court restated settled law on factors not at issue, endorsed the Court of Appeal's seemingly tautological proposition that "a change is a change", and insisted that “business”, “operations” and “capital” are well enough understood without further elaboration.

The result is a decision that purports to clarify the law while leaving its central question unanswered.

Whereas past generations may have thought of gender as a binary concept — male and female — in recent years, gender identity has become much more complex. According to the 2021 Census, more than 100,000 people in Canada identify as transgender or non-binary, representing approximately 0.33% of the population aged 15 or older. 

As our understanding of gender evolves, it is important for lawyers to be respectful of gender diversity and avoid making assumptions about gender. For wills and estates practitioners, one way to achieve this objective is through gender-inclusive will drafting. Not only does such drafting show courtesy to those who survive the client, but gender-inclusive will drafting may also help minimize the need to apply to the court for directions. 

This article discusses three strategies for preparing gender-inclusive wills: the use of gender-neutral language, reducing the use of pronouns, and how to identify beneficiaries whose legal names may not align with their gender identity.

There is a popular misconception that searches by regulators who are seeking administrative monetary penalties (“AMPs”) are not subject to the Charter. Perhaps this misconception stems from the Guindon line of cases that have held that AMPS do not qualify as offences under the Charter. This misconception becomes all the more important as the magnitude of recent AMPS has crept into the territory formerly occupied by criminal law.

I.  AMPs are not Offences: Guindon Strikes Back

The most recent example of “Guindon Strikes Back” is the decision of Justice Andrew Little of the Competition Tribunal in Commissioner of Competition and Google Canada Corporation and Google LLC. Justice Little held that a potential AMP of $90 plus billion was hypothetical and the evidence did not show that an AMP for abuse of dominance would inherently “over-deter” or be punitive. It was however recognised that Google could be exposed to a maximum AMP that is very significant in absolute dollar terms. The Tribunal applied the four factor test in Guindon and held that Google had not met the “indisputably high bar” of the true penal consequences test and was not entitled to the procedural protections in section 11 of the Charter because if was not “charged with an offence” under the abuse of dominance provisions of the Competition Act.