Litigation Law, Mediation Law and Arbitration Law

When it comes to suing prior counsel for professional negligence, caselaw has shown us that timing is crucial. In Ontario, the Limitations Act, 2002 provides a standard two-year limitation period...

In Price v. Smith & Wesson, the Court partially allowed the plaintiffs' appeal of a motion judge's decision to not certify their class action. The Court certified their negligence claim against a gun manufacturer...

When a minor causes serious harm, questions about who should be held legally responsible often arise.

In Stack v The King, 2024 TCC 137, the Tax Court of Canada blocked the Canada Revenue Agency's attempt to obtain various documents, including an email record, that were protected by solicitor-client privilege.

Litigation routinely involves thousands or even tens of thousands of documents. Expensive and time-consuming disputes over what must be disclosed and what is protected by privilege are commonplace.

Two adult sisters accuse their uncle of sexually assaulting them as young children through spoken words and emails sent to family members. The uncle successfully sues them for defamation.

On June 8, 2012, Genentech’s lawsuit seeking a declaration that US Patent No. 6,733,752 was invalid and not-infringed by Genentech’s trastuzumab product (HERCEPTIN).

On April 19, 2012, the Québec Court of Appeal (the Court) rendered the first decision on misleading advertising since the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada (the SCC) in Richard v. Time Inc. In Perreault v. McNeil PDI Inc.,

This bulletin outlines numerous recent developments affecting the health sector covering the areas of constitutional law, procurement law and privacy law.

On June 8, 2012, Genentech’s lawsuit seeking a declaration that US Patent No. 6,733,752 was invalid and not-infringed by Genentech’s trastuzumab product (HERCEPTIN).

The fundamental question that the new Ontario summary judgment rule attempts to answer is neither new, nor complex.

On May 23, 2012, the Federal Court released its public reasons in three companion decisions, all written by Madam Justice Snider, in respect of litigation brought separately by Teva Canada Limited ("Teva") and Apotex Inc. ("Apotex") against Sanofi-Aventis and related companies ("Sanofi") pursuant to section 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (the "Regulations").