Category: Civil Litigation and ADR

Vexatious Litigant decision, Terracorp et al. v. John Shane Becky et al.

A judge has jurisdiction under the Courts of Justice Act to find that an appellant is a vexatious litigant and, as a consequence, to order that no further proceedings be instituted by them without leave of the Court.  A s. 140 order does not deny a vexatious litigant access to the courts. The additional initial […]

Read More

Standards have to be evenly applied

“[H]aving standards of respectable civic discourse is not a bad thing. But standards that are applied unilaterally to one side are not standards, they’re weapons.” Daniel Greeenfield, Front Page magazine, June 8, 2016 This post is done by Camberwell House for informational, discussion and educational purposes only. It is NOT to provide specific legal advice […]

Read More

“Supreme Court Tightens Standard of Review for Contract Interpretation”

WeirFoulds LLP’s Kenneth Prehogan:  “Following upon the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Heritage Capital Corporation v. Equitable Trust, 2016 SCC 19, it will be significantly more difficult to successfully appeal decisions of trial court judges in contract matters. The Supreme Court ruled on May 6, 2016 that the applicable standard of review for […]

Read More

ALL Small Claims forms can now be submitted online

From the Attorney General’s press release: “Now, all small claims up to $25,000 can be filed online through a convenient, around-the-clock service including claims for amounts that are not definite or exact, such as an award for property damage or personal injury.” “There are two convenient ways to file online: ‘Filing Wizard’ can help people […]

Read More

OHRT makes steakhouse pay $12k after ignoring germaphobe’s requests

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/steakhouse-loses-12000-human-rights-tribunal-ruling-after-ignoring-germaphobes-requests This is a very worrying case.  To my eye it stretches the human rights requirement of “reasonable accommodation” out to “whatever he says he wants”. This post is done by Camberwell House for informational, discussion and educational purposes only. It is NOT to provide specific legal advice and does not do so.   The older […]

Read More

“Cause of Action” – What is it?

A cause of action is ‘the fact or facts which give a person a right to judicial relief”. A right to a judicial relief without any facts backing up does not give rise to a cause of action. Equally, not every fact or situation or problem or loss or negative event gives right to judicial […]

Read More

The “common law” & how it’s different from “equity” & “statutory law”

Defined The “common law” is made up of those principles and “causes of action” relating to the government, property rights and personal rights including physical security which derive their authority solely from usages and customs or from the judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming and enforcing such usages and customs. It is law […]

Read More

“Equity” and how it’s different from “common law” and “statutory law”

Defined Put in a nutshell, it’s when the court concerns itself with fairness. More formally, Black’s Legal Dictionary defines it as: Justice administered according to fairness as contrasted with the strictly formulated rules of the common law. […] A system of jurisprudence collateral to, and in some cases independent of, “law”; the object of which […]

Read More

“Statutory law” and how it’s different from “equity” and “common law”

Defined Statutory law is that body of laws created by legislatures. (Ontario has all statutes, constantly updated, available at its e-laws site.) Such law includes regulations made under the statutes in question if those regulations are properly made pursuant to a valid grant of authority made by the legislature in the statute in question. (This, […]

Read More

“Ont CA upholds tort of intentional interference with economic relations”

“The tort of intentional interference with economic relations has three elements: ”    1. The defendant must have intended to injure the plaintiff’s economic interests. ”    2. The interference must have been by illegal or unlawful means. ”    3. The plaintiff must have suffered economic harm or loss as a result.” Good article by Mark Gelowitz, […]

Read More
Visit Us On TwitterVisit Us On FacebookVisit Us On Linkedin