- OH PUKKA! English luggage company told to pack its bags and go home
- Class Actions and Copyright: Ontario Superior Court Certifies Class Action for Infringement of Copyright in Lawyer's Court Documents
- Does attornment trump arbitration and choice of forum clauses?
- Faithless Fiduciaries and Employment Bonuses: When Can a Company Refuse to Pay?
- Simple Procedure, Complex Costs: Large Costs Awarded Under the Simplified Rules in a Defamation Case
OH PUKKA! English luggage company told to pack its bags
and go home
By:
Paul Harris
The recent case involving The Pukka Luggage Company Limited ('Pukka') and their attempts to register their PUKKA trademark, offers businesses an insight into the workings of the European Union trade mark institutions, and provides some valuable guidelines and lessons.
Read the full article - OH PUKKA! English luggage company told to pack its bags and go home
Class Actions and Copyright: Ontario Superior Court
Certifies Class Action for Infringement of Copyright in
Lawyer's Court Documents
By:
Matthew Estabrooks
Justice Perell of the Ontario Superior Court certified a class action against Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. claiming infringement of the copyright in documents filed in court by lawyers and paralegals. Lorne Waldman, a prominent Toronto immigration lawyer and the representative plaintiff, alleges that the "Litigator" service, offered by Thomson's legal publishing arm, Carswell, infringes the copyright of the class members by making available, without permission and for a fee, copies of court documents authored by the lawyers and law firms which make up the proposed class.
Justice Perell, in a decision that thoroughly canvases the law of class action certification, granted certification.
Read the full article - Class Actions and Copyright: Ontario Superior Court Certifies Class Action for Infringement of Copyright in Lawyer's Court Documents
Does attornment trump arbitration and choice of forum
clauses?
By:
D. Lynne Watt and
Erin Brownlee
On February 10th 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada heard a landmark case that has the potential to change the way arbitration and choice of forum clauses are enforced in this country.
In Momentous.ca Corporation et al. v. Canadian American Association of Professional Baseball et al., 2010 ONCA 722, 103 O.R. (3d) 467, the Court was faced with a conflict surrounding the downfall of the Ottawa Rapidz professional baseball team, owned by subsidiary companies of Momentous.ca.
Read the full article - Does attornment trump arbitration and choice of forum clauses?
Faithless Fiduciaries and Employment Bonuses: When Can a
Company Refuse to Pay?
By:
Benjamin Na and
Joe Thorne
In Mady Development Corp. v. Rossetto, 2012 ONCA 31, the Ontario Court of Appeal considered whether a fiduciary employee is entitled to unpaid bonuses where the employee has been terminated for cause relating to a breach of his fiduciary duty.
The Court concluded that the fiduciary employee was entitled to be paid his bonuses notwithstanding his breach of fiduciary duty. In ordering the bonuses paid, the Court reaffirmed the principle that a breach of fiduciary duty by an employee does not necessarily negate the employer's obligation to pay pre-termination bonuses. A fiduciary's entitlement to a bonus is discretionary. It depends on all the facts before the Court and the general principles governing fiduciary relief.
Read the full article - Faithless Fiduciaries and Employment Bonuses: When Can a Company Refuse to Pay?
Simple Procedure, Complex Costs: Large Costs Awarded
Under the Simplified Rules in a Defamation Case
By:
D. Lynne Watt and
Brieanne Brannagan
Justice Roccamo, of the Ontario Superior Court, upheld an Assessment Officer's decision to award a Plaintiff $92,900 costs in a defamation suit in a case brought under the Simplified Rules. The Court determined that the Assessment Officer's reasons appropriately considered the principle of proportionality, the reasonable expectations of the losing party and the factors enumerated under Rule 58.06(1), all while accounting for the purpose of the Simplified Rules.
The Court reaffirmed that the principle of proportionality should not be applied rigidly under the Simplified Rules. Additionally, the Court found that the Assessment Officer properly considered the conduct of the Defendant, which unnecessarily protracted both the proceedings, generally, and the costs assessment itself. Finally, the Court noted that case law supports costs awards that exceed the value of the claim in defamation cases.
Read the full article - Simple Procedure, Complex Costs: Large Costs Awarded Under the Simplified Rules in a Defamation Case
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.
CPD Bootcamp 2017: Adding Value To Your Role As In-House Counsel - Working Together To Deliver Value To Our Mutual Clients (Video)
