Welcome to Volume 4, Issue 3 of McCarthy Tétrault
Co-Counsel: Litigation. In this issue, as in all our publications,
we aim to provide you with a deeper level of analysis to current
We begin with the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Canada
(A.G.) v. Telezone, with a look at how Telezone
widens the net of federal government liability by providing
litigants with a choice of procedure to challenge the decision
making of federal boards, commissions and tribunals.
We analyze another Supreme Court of Canada case, the landmark
insolvency decision, Century Services Inc. v. Canada
(Attorney General). Not only did the Supreme Court overrule
the Ontario Court of Appeal decision on the issue of Crown
priorities but also, for the first time, it considered and
explained the approach courts should employ when applying the
Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA)
and the interaction among Canada's multiple insolvency related
This issue contains "need-to-know info" for our
readers in all the courts across our country and
For example, must harm be "common" in order to justify
the certification of a class action? The Québec Court of
Appeal recently tackled this issue, and we cover it in these
And, what should be done if the Competition Bureau, with its
substantial investigative powers, comes knocking at the door with a
search warrant? We offer 13 practical guidelines in this issue.
Our firm has a highly advanced litigation support services
group. We highlight using litigation support in this edition as a
way to control e-discovery costs.
Turning outward, this issue also reviews Kuwait Airways
Corp. v. Iraq, the Supreme Court of Canada decision dealing
with recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment against a
On pensions, the Alberta Court of Appeal decision in
Halliburton Group Canada Inc. v.Alberta
will be of interest to pension plan sponsors.
We round out our analysis of leading developments with an
overview of the Ontario Securities Commission guidance on the use
of rights plans in the Baffinland case.
And, we complete our investigations with our regular
"Reflections" column by the Honourable James M. Farley,
QC. In this one, he starts off like Charles Dickens with an
unfortunate "tale of two decisions" about unclear and
confusing conclusions regarding the tort of unlawful interference
with economic relations, then adds a dash of Sgt. Joe Friday (of
Dragnet fame), with that character's "Just give me the
facts" line that sums up what some wish was the higher
courts' approach to these issues.
We hope you enjoy "all the facts" in this issue, as
well as our own authors' "reality checks" on what
these developments mean to you.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).