Civil Litigation
-
March 24, 2026
SCC judges probe what Charter s. 33 ‘override’ may mean for survival of Charter judicial review
The argument that a legislature’s use of the Charter’s s. 33 “override” clause can temporarily prevent judges from striking down a law but not from reviewing the law’s constitutionality or stating that the law infringes Charter rights and freedoms sparked a lively exchange between counsel and the bench as the Supreme Court of Canada kicked off its inquiry into the constitutionality of Quebec’s controversial “secularism” (Bill 21) law.
-
March 24, 2026
Ontario court backs municipality’s decision on controversial bus shelter ads
Ontario’s top court has rejected efforts by a political party to put ads on municipal bus shelters expounding their views on gender issues, and a lawyer involved in the case is saying the decision provides a template for cities to follow when confronted with similar issues.
-
March 24, 2026
Dalhousie U and King’s College to resurrect joint journalism-law program
Two universities in Nova Scotia are re-launching a joint degree program combining law and journalism in a bid to create professionals able to “cut through the noise” of today’s world.
-
March 24, 2026
Cineplex Inc. v. The King: Negative proceeds of disposition?
In the decision of Cineplex Inc. v. The King, 2026 TCC 15, the primary issue was the characterization of a $26,610,551.98 payment related to a complex business restructuring (the payment). Was the payment on account of capital or income?
-
March 24, 2026
The joint expert playbook: Why courts rarely let you walk away
The first part of this series examined what Rules 20.1 and 20.2 of the Family Law Rules require, when joint expert retainers make sense, and what Numair v. Numair and Zantingh v. Zantingh tell us about how courts respond when the process breaks down. This part picks up from that foundation: once a joint retainer is in place, courts set a high threshold before permitting competing expert evidence — and several well-worn failure modes can derail the engagement before the report is ever finalized.
-
March 24, 2026
Court finds it has no jurisdiction for Ontario resident’s crypto loss
In a case where an Ontario resident alleged the loss of six bitcoins, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has found that it did not have jurisdiction simpliciter over an electronic payment service based out of Europe despite the alleged damage.
-
March 24, 2026
Generative AI not immune from potential legal action
The use of AI chatbots by self-represented litigants and lawyers has raised alarms in the justice system because the chatbots are prone either to hallucinate cases or to cite a legitimate case for a proposition which simply cannot be found in that case. With respect to lawyers, in general, the courts have awarded personal costs sanctions against them and are beginning to refer them for potential disciplinary penalties. A lawyer has a duty to not mislead a court.
-
March 24, 2026
CanLII, Caseway resolve lawsuit over alleged bulk downloading of records
The Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLII) and AI legal research platform Caseway have settled a lawsuit over Caseway’s alleged use of records from CanLII’s website without authorization.
-
March 24, 2026
ABORIGINAL STATUS AND RIGHTS - Aboriginal persons - Indians - Registration - Indian Register - Entitlement to status
Appeal by Attorney General of Canada (Canada) from a decision allowing the respondents’ statutory appeal from the registrar’s refusal to register them under the Indian Act, 1985.
-
March 24, 2026
When does an email settlement become binding? Lessons from JH Drilling in Alberta
Settlement negotiations increasingly happen by email, often before a formal agreement is signed. In JH Drilling Inc. v. Barsi Enterprises Ltd., 2026 ABKB 48 (JH Drilling). The Alberta Court of King’s Bench confirmed that an email correspondence may constitute a contract binding upon the parties. As a binding contract, the parties’ settlement agreement may preclude further litigation.