Canada: Top 5 Civil Appeals from the Court of Appeal (December 2017)

Last Updated: December 19 2017
Article by Mark J. Freiman

1. Levac v. James, 2017 ONCA 842 (Blair, Juriansz and Miller JJ.A.), November 3, 2017

After performing an audit of a pain management clinic's infection prevention and control practices (IPAC), Toronto Public Health investigators identified patients who had developed infections after receiving injections administered at the clinic.

One of the patients commenced an action and brought a motion seeking certification as a class action as well as partial summary judgment against a physician at the clinic. The two motions were argued one after the other on the same day and the motion judge issued one set of reasons and one order regarding both. He granted partial summary judgment and certified the class proceeding. In his analysis of certification, the motion judge discarded the formulation of the breach of care common issue that he had certified at the certification hearing, instead certifying a fourth formulation of his own devising.

The physician appealed, arguing that the motion judge compromised procedural fairness.

The Court of Appeal agreed, and allowed the appeal.

Writing for the court, Miller J.A. noted that a certification judge may, in some circumstances, depart from the wording of a common issue that the parties have agreed upon and proposed, but emphasized that the requirements of procedural fairness impose limits on when and how that discretion may be exercised.

Miller J.A. went on to note that the motion judge did not view his change to the wording of the formulation of the breach of care common issue as merely a "distinction without a difference". He clearly understood the new wording as capturing "permutations of the duty of care issue" absent from the three formulations previously advanced, better portraying the distinction between negligent performance and negligent design of the IPAC practice. Regardless of whether the new wording actually did so, Miller J.A. held that the parties were denied the opportunity to address that question through submissions to the motion judge. Miller J.A. also noted that the physician may well have contested certification of the class proceeding had he known the certified common issue would be the one formulated by the motion judge. He was deprived of the opportunity to contest not only the final formulation of the common issue, but certification of a proceeding premised on that issue.

Miller J.A. rejected the respondent's submission that any unfairness from a lack of notice of the common issues was cured by the appeal process. The opportunity to argue an appeal with knowledge of the certified common issue did not cure the unfairness of arguing a summary judgment motion under a misapprehension about the common issue in question, and the ability to contest the certified common issue on appeal did not provide an adequate remedy for the lack of opportunity to convince the motion judge against certifying that issue at first instance. Miller J.A. held that it is crucial that litigants receive a fair process when they initially argue a certification motion, particularly since a certification judge's substantive conclusions are not easily set aside on appeal.

The matter was sent back for a new certification motion.

2. Holmes v. Hatch Ltd., 2017 ONCA 880 (Cronk, Huscroft and Nordheimer JJ.A.), November 20, 2017

The appellant employer, Hatch Ltd., appealed from summary judgment awarding the respondent employee, Paul Holmes, 18 months' reasonable notice at common law for the termination of his employment, subject to his mitigation obligations and applicable statutory deductions.

The motion judge's conclusion turned on her finding that Hatch breached the termination clause contained in the parties' employment agreement. Specifically, the motion judge found that Hatch failed to consider Holmes' years of service, position, and age when fashioning his termination package, contrary to the express language of the termination clause. This failure was a fundamental breach of contract that, at law, constituted a repudiation by Hatch of the entire employment agreement. As a result, the motion judge concluded, Holmes was entitled to common law damages based on reasonable notice of termination.

In a succinct decision, the Court of Appeal held that the summary judgment must be set aside and the matter remitted back to the Superior Court of Justice for a new hearing.

The motion judge's conclusion was based on her finding that Hatch breached the employment agreement. The court pointed out, however, that Holmes did not plead this, nor did he allege in his pleading that Hatch repudiated the agreement on that basis. Moreover, he did not advance these claims in his materials or on the motion. It was only when the motion judge raised the notion of this type of breach during oral argument that the parties made oral and subsequent written submissions on this issue. Hatch was therefore denied the opportunity to lead evidence on the precise allegation on which the motion judge's decision ultimately turned.

As the court emphasized in Rodaro v. Royal Bank (2002), 59 O.R. (3d) 74 (C.A.), it is fundamental to the litigation process that lawsuits be decided within the boundaries of the pleadings. The law assumes that the parties' pleadings properly delineate all relevant claims in dispute and define the issues. A finding of liability and resulting damages against a defendant on a basis that was not pleaded cannot stand, as the defendant was deprived of the opportunity to address that issue in the evidence at trial.

In this case, while the motion judge did attempt to ensure fairness to the parties by inviting submissions on the issue, she ultimately decided the summary judgment motion on the basis of a legal theory of liability that was neither pleaded nor advanced by Holmes in support of his motion. Prior to oral argument of the motion, Hatch was unaware of the evidentiary burden that it had to meet, and was denied the opportunity to lead evidence responsive to the allegation belatedly raised against it.

In the court's view, this fatally compromised the fairness of the hearing.

The court also noted that because the motion judge concluded that Hatch had fundamentally breached and repudiated the employment agreement, thereby rendering it invalid, she did not address or rule on Holmes' arguments concerning the enforceability of the employment agreement. Among other things, Holmes had argued that the termination provision did not reflect a clear agreement to contract out of the common law or, in the alternative, that it was ambiguous on this issue, that the termination clause violated the provisions of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 1990, c. 41, and that it was not supported by any valid consideration. These issues remained to be determined.

The appeal was allowed.

3. Colucci v. Colucci, 2017 ONCA 892 (Sharpe, Blair and Epstein JJ.A.), November 22, 2017

Does the Superior Court have jurisdiction under the Divorce Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.) to vary or discharge child support arrears where an application is brought after the children are no longer "children of the marriage"? In this decision, the Court of Appeal considered this question.

The Coluccis were married in 1983 and divorced in 1996. They had two children, born in 1988 and 1989. The appellant was ordered to pay child support to the respondent at the time of the divorce in the amount of $115 per week for each child. He made more or less regular payments until April 1998. Thereafter, payments were irregular and they eventually ceased in June 1999. Since the divorce, the appellant had worked as an unskilled labourer in Canada, the United States and Italy. His income tax returns and other financial disclosure reported a declining income since 1997.

By the time both children were over 18 years of age and no longer "children of the marriage", the appellant had accrued more than $175,000 in support arrears.

The appellant brought a motion to change the child support order retroactively and to have his arrears rescinded on the ground that there had been a change in circumstances. The respondent brought a cross-motion to dismiss the application for want of jurisdiction. The appellant brought a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to determine the issue of whether it had jurisdiction to retroactively vary child support by discharging child support arrears which had accumulated pursuant to a court order, notwithstanding that the children were no longer entitled to support because they were no longer "children of the marriage" as defined by the Divorce Act as of the date of the motion to vary.

The motion judge dismissed the appellant's motion and granted summary judgment dismissing the application to vary, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in D.B.S. v. S.R.G.; L.J.W. v. T.A.R.; Henry v. Henry; Hiemstra v. Hiemstra, 2006 SCC 37. D.B.S. – which dealt with four applications to vary child support orders, two under Alberta legislation and two under the Divorce Act – held that a court does not have jurisdiction to entertain an original application for child support under s. 15.1(1) of the Divorce Act if the children are no longer "children of the marriage". The motion judge concluded that D.B.S. similarly deprives the court of jurisdiction to rescind or vary an existing order for child support under s. 17(1) of the statute.

The Court of Appeal disagreed.

Although Henry v. Henry (one of the four cases decided with D.B.S.) involved an application for retroactive variation of a child support order, the Supreme Court did not directly consider the issue of whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain an application to vary a child support order after the children are no longer "children of the marriage". To answer this question, Sharpe J.A. turned to a line of jurisprudence which, in his view, supported the principle that the test for jurisdiction to vary differs from the test for jurisdiction to make an original order.

In Buckingham v. Buckingham, 2013 ABQB 155, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench concluded that both the wording of the Divorce Act and the principles of child support favoured distinguishing D.B.S. and interpreting s. 17(1) to allow a court to vary a child support order even though the children are no longer children of the marriage. Sharpe J.A. noted that the reasoning in Buckingham has been followed in a number of Ontario trial level decisions under the Divorce Act, including Timmers v. Timmers, 2016 ONSC 306 and Charron v. Dumais, 2016 ONSC 7491, and that Ontario cases decided under the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3 have held that the court has jurisdiction to vary child support orders retroactively after the children cease to be dependants (frequently citing Buckingham in support). In Smith v. McQuinn, 2016 ONSC 7997, the court held that the case law has created exceptions to the D.B.S. analysis in a number of circumstances, including in variation proceedings where there is an existing order and an established support obligation under the Divorce Act. Sharpe J.A. identified other Ontario cases which have avoided applying D.B.S. by framing the motion as a matter of enforcement rather than variation, or by approaching it as a variation even where there is no existing court order.

As the Alberta court observed in Buckingham, the interpretation of s. 15.1(1) in D.B.S. turned on the precise wording of that provision, which confers jurisdiction to make a child support order for any who were, "at the material time", "children of the marriage". The jurisdiction to vary a child support order under s. 17(1), however, is at large and is not limited by those words. Sharpe J.A. agreed that given the significant difference between the language of the two provisions, the court was not bound to import the interpretation accorded to s. 15.1(1) by the Supreme Court in D.B.S. when interpreting s. 17(1).

Sharpe J.A. also agreed with the Alberta court that allowing a court to vary an existing order after the children cease to be "children of the marriage" is consistent with the principles of child support. The amount of child support depends upon the income of the parents: as the parents' income changes, so too does the obligation to pay support. Most important, child support orders should foster certainty, predictability, and finality, balanced against flexibility and fairness. As the Supreme Court explained in D.B.S., child support orders are not set in stone: orders may be varied when underlying circumstances change.

Sharpe J.A. held that the very existence of s. 17(1) demonstrates that finality has its limits and that neither children nor parents can safely assume that support orders will never change. The interest of certainty and finality does not justify erecting a rigid jurisdictional bar on variation applications simply because the children are no longer "children of the marriage".

The Court of Appeal granted summary judgment declaring that the court had jurisdiction to entertain the application, and remitted the matter back to the Superior Court for a determination on the merits.

4. E.T. v. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, 2017 ONCA 893 (Sharpe, Lauwers and Miller JJ.A.), November 22, 2017

The appellant, E.T., was the father of two primary school-aged children who attended a school within the jurisdiction of the respondent, Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board. A member of the Greek Orthodox Church, E.T. advised the Board that his religious beliefs required him to shelter his children from "false teachings". He provided the Board with a list of topics that included matters such as "moral relativism", "environmental worship", "instruction in sex education", and "discussion or portrayals of homosexual/bisexual conduct and relationships and/or transgenderism as natural, healthy or acceptable", and asked the Board to provide him with advance notice of any classroom instruction or discussion of these issues so that he could decide whether or not to withdraw his children from those classes.

The Board offered to exempt the appellant's children from the "Healthy Living" portion of the elementary program, a discrete part of the curriculum involving education on human development and sexual health. The Board explained to the appellant, however, that given the integrated nature of its program and the generality of the items on his list, it was neither practical nor possible to comply with his request for prior notification of any time one of the items on his list would arise for discussion in the classroom. The Board also expressed concern that if E.T.'s children were required to leave class every time one of the impugned topics came up for discussion, its policy of providing an inclusive and non-discriminatory program would be undermined.

E.T. brought an application seeking declaratory relief, asserting that his parental authority over the education of his children had been denied and that his freedom of religion as guaranteed under s. 2(a) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was violated by the Board's failure to provide him with the accommodation he requested. He also asserted a claim of religious discrimination under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, and a violation of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2.

The application judge held that while the Board's refusal to provide the requested accommodation engaged the appellant's religious freedom, its decision was reasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed E.T.'s appeal on the ground that he failed to establish any interference with or violation of his religious freedom.

Sharpe J.A. observed that the appellant's claim rested on a "general and pervasive dissatisfaction" with the nature of the Board's curriculum with respect to matters of equity, non-discrimination, and inclusiveness. He noted that E.T. did not provide concrete evidence of any interference with his right to religious freedom, a "central and fatal shortcoming" in his case. Indeed, E.T. did not prove a single instance where his children were coerced to do something that was contrary to his or their religious beliefs or where they were denied the right to manifest or observe their religion as they wished. Nor did the appellant provide any evidence that his right to inculcate his children with his own religious views was curtailed or infringed.

While he accepted E.T.'s "sincere religious belief" that he has an obligation to shelter his children from what he described as "false teachings", Sharpe J.A. held that the Supreme Court has made it clear that exposing students who are attending non-denominational public schools to ideas that may challenge or even contradict their parent's sincerely-held religious beliefs does not amount to an infringement of religious freedom. A sincere religious belief alone was insufficient to establish interference with E.T.'s freedom of religion: his subjective belief that he must shield his children from "false teachings" did not gain absolute protection. Rather, the onus remained on E.T. to provide evidence that, from an objective standpoint, the instruction and activities to which his children were exposed interfered with his ability to protect them from "false teachings". In Sharpe J.A.'s view, the appellant failed to satisfy that onus.

Thus, while he agreed with the result reached by the application judge, Sharpe J.A. disagreed with his conclusion that E.T. established an infringement of his s. 2(a) Charter right to freedom of religion.

Sharpe J.A. further held that E.T. could not, by virtue of his religious beliefs, insist that a non-denominational public school board restructure its inclusive and integrated program, designed to meet its statutory objective of ensuring a respectful and accepting climate for all children, in order to ensure that his own children were not exposed to any views that he did not accept.

Lauwers and Miller JJ.A. concurred with the result reached by Sharpe J.A. and also dismissed the appeal for lack of evidence, but with different reasoning. For Lauwers J.A., who authored the concurring opinion, the central issue for the court was the limit imposed by the Charter on a province's power to use publicly funded education to inculcate, in the language of s. 264 of the Education Act, certain beliefs and dispositions that educational authorities have determined to be desirable or necessary.

Lauwers J.A. observed that the appeal was governed by the framework established by the Supreme Court in Doré v. Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12, and Loyola High School v. Québec, 2015 SCC 12. The first step is to determine "whether the decision engages the Charter by limiting its protections". If so, the second step is to determine "whether, in assessing the impact of the relevant Charter protection and given the nature of the decision and the statutory and factual contexts, the decision reflects a proportionate balancing of the Charter protections at play". In Lauwers J.A.'s view, E.T.'s claim met the first half of the first step of this test: his religious freedom was implicated. However, Lauwers J.A. was unable to find that the appellant had proven substantial interference with his freedom of religion, as the balance of the first step of the Doré/Loyola framework would require.

The appeal was dismissed.

5. York (Municipality) v. Irwin, 2017 ONCA 906 (Sharpe, Epstein and van Rensburg JJ.A.), November 24, 2017

The appellant, Robert Irwin, was charged with various offences under Part III of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33 (POA). Specifically, he was alleged to have violated the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 23 (BCA) by not complying with six orders to comply that the respondent, the Regional Municipality of York, issued in 2013. The municipality alleged that various additions and alterations to Irwin's property were made without a building permit.

Irwin testified at a trial before a Justice of the Peace that the 2013 orders were identical to orders to comply that had been issued against him in 1995 and 1996, which had led to charges that were withdrawn. Irwin sought an order requiring the respondent to provide disclosure of prior charges and prosecutions against him. The Justice of the Peace made the disclosure order after hearing argument.

The respondent applied to the Superior Court for an order for certiorari under s. 140 of the POA. The application judge granted an order quashing the disclosure order and requiring the Justice of the Peace to continue with the trial of the charges.

The application judge held that although the earlier orders may well have applied to the same buildings on the property and required the same actions, they had different compliance deadlines and therefore constituted distinct offences. In his view, the respondent was entitled to issue more than one order to comply, and each failure to comply would be a distinct offence. The application judge also accepted that while Irwin might have relied on the withdrawal of the earlier charges had he appealed the six orders, he could not now attack the validity of the order having failed to avail himself of the appeal mechanisms under the BCA.

Irwin appealed under s. 140(3) of the POA. He argued that the application judge erred in granting certiorari during the trial and that any issue as to the relevance of the earlier orders ought to have awaited an appeal post-trial. He submitted that the application judge ought not to have granted the order without finding that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice had occurred, as required by s. 141(4) of the POA, and that the test was not met in this case.

The Court of Appeal agreed.

The court emphasized that applications for certiorari should be granted only rarely. The test for intervention mid-trial by certiorari under s. 140 of the POA is whether an erroneous ruling made during the trial renders the proceeding "so unfair that the interests of justice require the court to intervene and grant prerogative relief". The court held that the application judge erred by failing to consider the substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice test in s. 141(4) of the POA, and in determining on the merits and mid-trial the issue of whether the earlier orders were relevant to the appellant's defence.

The court held that the justice of the peace was entitled to determine questions of the relevance of evidence and to make disclosure orders, without such decisions being challenged mid-trial. Even if the disclosure order was wrong, complying with it would not amount to a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. The disclosure order would not preclude the respondent from arguing that the materials disclosed were not in fact relevant and did not afford a defence. The effect of the application judge's order, however, was that any defence based on earlier compliance was effectively taken off the table. The issue of whether Irwin's argument amounted to a collateral attack on the order to comply should have been resolved at trial on a proper record.

The order of certiorari was set aside.

www.lerners.ca

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.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
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).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration
Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:
  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.
  • Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.
    If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here
    If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here

    Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

    Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

    Use of www.mondaq.com

    You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

    Disclaimer

    Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

    The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

    Registration

    Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

    • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
    • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
    • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

    Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

    Information Collection and Use

    We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

    We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

    Mondaq News Alerts

    In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

    Cookies

    A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

    Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

    Log Files

    We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

    Links

    This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

    Surveys & Contests

    From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

    Mail-A-Friend

    If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

    Emails

    From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

    *** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .

    Security

    This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

    Correcting/Updating Personal Information

    If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

    Notification of Changes

    If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

    How to contact Mondaq

    You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

    If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.

    By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions