Faculty of Law, Queen's University

Sessional Instructor/Course Builder

I taught Administrative Law during the Fall 2017 academic term, and developed LAW207-International Law, delivered in the 2018-2019 academic year.

University of Toronto

Sessional Lecturer

Instructor of POL340Y1 -- International Law

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP

Associate (Litigation)

General litigation practice with particular emphases on employment matters, construction disputes,
administrative-regulatory issues, and constitutional litigation.
Represented clients in various levels of Court in Ontario, as well as Federal Court, Federal Court of
Appeal, Supreme Court of Canada, and various administrative tribunals.
Experience in alternative dispute resolution through mediation and arbitration.
Extensive pro bono practice.
Provided research for and substantive drafting of various firm publications.

Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law

Visiting Scholar

I am a scholarship-supported Guest at MPI Luxembourg, researching comparative civil procedure.

Far North Electoral Boundaries Commission

Report Writer

Providing writing services, research support, consultation analysis, and commission hearing support for provincial government commission consulting with the public and making recommendations regarding creating one-to-two additional electoral districts from the provincial ridings of Kenora-Rainy River and Timmins-James Bay.

1196303 Inc. v. Glen Grove Suites Inc.: Using Privity and Agency to Hold Third Parties Liable

Toronto Law Journal

An analysis of a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision that distinguished and analyzed privity and agency as bases to hold third parties liable for contractual breaches.

1196303 Inc. v. Glen Grove Suites Inc.: Using Privity and Agency to Hold Third Parties Liable

Toronto Law Journal

An analysis of a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision that distinguished and analyzed privity and agency as bases to hold third parties liable for contractual breaches.

Jurisdiction Motions and Access to Justice: An Ontario Tale

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

This article investigates the access to justice concerns surrounding jurisdiction motions in Ontario, having analyzed one hundred and forty-seven jurisdiction motions decided in Ontario between 2010 and 2015. The author challenges the previously expressed view that jurisdiction motions are presently being “abused” by defendants and their counsel. He also suggests that trends in jurisdiction motions this decade point to some improvement from an access to justice perspective. Nonetheless, jurisdiction motions are frequently presenting an impediment to access to justice, with uncertainty in the law likely being the primary reason for this. The author considers potential proposals to address the access to justice concerns inherent in jurisdiction motions, concentrating on reconsidering the substantive law of jurisdiction or adopting the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act.

1196303 Inc. v. Glen Grove Suites Inc.: Using Privity and Agency to Hold Third Parties Liable

Toronto Law Journal

An analysis of a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision that distinguished and analyzed privity and agency as bases to hold third parties liable for contractual breaches.

Jurisdiction Motions and Access to Justice: An Ontario Tale

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

This article investigates the access to justice concerns surrounding jurisdiction motions in Ontario, having analyzed one hundred and forty-seven jurisdiction motions decided in Ontario between 2010 and 2015. The author challenges the previously expressed view that jurisdiction motions are presently being “abused” by defendants and their counsel. He also suggests that trends in jurisdiction motions this decade point to some improvement from an access to justice perspective. Nonetheless, jurisdiction motions are frequently presenting an impediment to access to justice, with uncertainty in the law likely being the primary reason for this. The author considers potential proposals to address the access to justice concerns inherent in jurisdiction motions, concentrating on reconsidering the substantive law of jurisdiction or adopting the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act.

Ontario Court of Appeal upholds liability for tort of intentional interference with economic relations

Osler Update (republished by Ontario Bar Association)

The Ontario Court of Appeal has now emphasized that the tort of intentional interference with economic relations has narrow applicability, but does occur. In its March 2, 2016 decision in Grand Financial Management Inc. v. Solemio Transportation Inc., the Court considered a case in which one party (Grand Financial) threatened to put another (Solemio) out of business. Grand Financial also sought to disrupt Solemio’s business by influencing the actions of a third party (Arnold Bros.) and illegitimately seizing security interests held by another third party (RBC). The decision also raised several issues of appellate practice.

1196303 Inc. v. Glen Grove Suites Inc.: Using Privity and Agency to Hold Third Parties Liable

Toronto Law Journal

An analysis of a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision that distinguished and analyzed privity and agency as bases to hold third parties liable for contractual breaches.

Jurisdiction Motions and Access to Justice: An Ontario Tale

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

This article investigates the access to justice concerns surrounding jurisdiction motions in Ontario, having analyzed one hundred and forty-seven jurisdiction motions decided in Ontario between 2010 and 2015. The author challenges the previously expressed view that jurisdiction motions are presently being “abused” by defendants and their counsel. He also suggests that trends in jurisdiction motions this decade point to some improvement from an access to justice perspective. Nonetheless, jurisdiction motions are frequently presenting an impediment to access to justice, with uncertainty in the law likely being the primary reason for this. The author considers potential proposals to address the access to justice concerns inherent in jurisdiction motions, concentrating on reconsidering the substantive law of jurisdiction or adopting the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act.

Ontario Court of Appeal upholds liability for tort of intentional interference with economic relations

Osler Update (republished by Ontario Bar Association)

The Ontario Court of Appeal has now emphasized that the tort of intentional interference with economic relations has narrow applicability, but does occur. In its March 2, 2016 decision in Grand Financial Management Inc. v. Solemio Transportation Inc., the Court considered a case in which one party (Grand Financial) threatened to put another (Solemio) out of business. Grand Financial also sought to disrupt Solemio’s business by influencing the actions of a third party (Arnold Bros.) and illegitimately seizing security interests held by another third party (RBC). The decision also raised several issues of appellate practice.

Rule 2.1 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure: Responding to Vexatious Litigation While Advancing Access to Justice?

Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice

This article analyzes the first three years of the operation of Rule 2.1 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Rule”), which allows a court to very summarily dismiss litigation that is “on its face” frivolous, vexatious, and/or abusive. The author explores the history of and rationale for the Rule, in the context of the access to justice crisis in Ontario, and in light of the perceived inadequacy of alternative mechanisms for addressing the dangers raised by vexatious litigants. He then reviews all 190 Rule 2.1 decisions decided between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2017, with the goal to provide guidance for future lawyers and judges considering using the Rule. This is followed by an analysis of the effects on access to justice of the Rule, in terms of providing speedy and cost-efficient resolution of actions on their merits. The author concludes by considering how the Rule should be used in the future – doctrinally, institutionally, and ethically. His conclusions are hopeful. The Rule is powerful, and its use should prompt some pause in judges and lawyers. By and large, however, the Rule has been very well employed. It has resulted in immense savings of time and financial expense and many cases model fairness to vulnerable parties. In rare instances where the Rule’s (attempted) use has been inappropriate, costs in terms of delay and financial expense are usually minimal. The Rule is ultimately an inspiring example of how civil procedure can be amended to facilitate access to justice.

1196303 Inc. v. Glen Grove Suites Inc.: Using Privity and Agency to Hold Third Parties Liable

Toronto Law Journal

An analysis of a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision that distinguished and analyzed privity and agency as bases to hold third parties liable for contractual breaches.

Jurisdiction Motions and Access to Justice: An Ontario Tale

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

This article investigates the access to justice concerns surrounding jurisdiction motions in Ontario, having analyzed one hundred and forty-seven jurisdiction motions decided in Ontario between 2010 and 2015. The author challenges the previously expressed view that jurisdiction motions are presently being “abused” by defendants and their counsel. He also suggests that trends in jurisdiction motions this decade point to some improvement from an access to justice perspective. Nonetheless, jurisdiction motions are frequently presenting an impediment to access to justice, with uncertainty in the law likely being the primary reason for this. The author considers potential proposals to address the access to justice concerns inherent in jurisdiction motions, concentrating on reconsidering the substantive law of jurisdiction or adopting the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act.

Ontario Court of Appeal upholds liability for tort of intentional interference with economic relations

Osler Update (republished by Ontario Bar Association)

The Ontario Court of Appeal has now emphasized that the tort of intentional interference with economic relations has narrow applicability, but does occur. In its March 2, 2016 decision in Grand Financial Management Inc. v. Solemio Transportation Inc., the Court considered a case in which one party (Grand Financial) threatened to put another (Solemio) out of business. Grand Financial also sought to disrupt Solemio’s business by influencing the actions of a third party (Arnold Bros.) and illegitimately seizing security interests held by another third party (RBC). The decision also raised several issues of appellate practice.

Rule 2.1 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure: Responding to Vexatious Litigation While Advancing Access to Justice?

Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice

This article analyzes the first three years of the operation of Rule 2.1 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Rule”), which allows a court to very summarily dismiss litigation that is “on its face” frivolous, vexatious, and/or abusive. The author explores the history of and rationale for the Rule, in the context of the access to justice crisis in Ontario, and in light of the perceived inadequacy of alternative mechanisms for addressing the dangers raised by vexatious litigants. He then reviews all 190 Rule 2.1 decisions decided between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2017, with the goal to provide guidance for future lawyers and judges considering using the Rule. This is followed by an analysis of the effects on access to justice of the Rule, in terms of providing speedy and cost-efficient resolution of actions on their merits. The author concludes by considering how the Rule should be used in the future – doctrinally, institutionally, and ethically. His conclusions are hopeful. The Rule is powerful, and its use should prompt some pause in judges and lawyers. By and large, however, the Rule has been very well employed. It has resulted in immense savings of time and financial expense and many cases model fairness to vulnerable parties. In rare instances where the Rule’s (attempted) use has been inappropriate, costs in terms of delay and financial expense are usually minimal. The Rule is ultimately an inspiring example of how civil procedure can be amended to facilitate access to justice.

Tanudjaja v. Canada (Attorney General): Distinguishing Injusticiability and Deference on Motions to Strike

Advocates' Quartly

An analysis of a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision that held that a claim alleging that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains a right to housing is injusticiable. We argued that the claim was in fact justiciable. However, it was still appropriate to strike the claim as it failed to disclose a cause of action. While clarifying the meaning of one of Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure may be necessary for such a result to be uncontroversial, such clarification would nonetheless be welcome in an effort to create a more efficient system of civil justice.

1196303 Inc. v. Glen Grove Suites Inc.: Using Privity and Agency to Hold Third Parties Liable

Toronto Law Journal

An analysis of a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision that distinguished and analyzed privity and agency as bases to hold third parties liable for contractual breaches.

Jurisdiction Motions and Access to Justice: An Ontario Tale

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

This article investigates the access to justice concerns surrounding jurisdiction motions in Ontario, having analyzed one hundred and forty-seven jurisdiction motions decided in Ontario between 2010 and 2015. The author challenges the previously expressed view that jurisdiction motions are presently being “abused” by defendants and their counsel. He also suggests that trends in jurisdiction motions this decade point to some improvement from an access to justice perspective. Nonetheless, jurisdiction motions are frequently presenting an impediment to access to justice, with uncertainty in the law likely being the primary reason for this. The author considers potential proposals to address the access to justice concerns inherent in jurisdiction motions, concentrating on reconsidering the substantive law of jurisdiction or adopting the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act.

Ontario Court of Appeal upholds liability for tort of intentional interference with economic relations

Osler Update (republished by Ontario Bar Association)

The Ontario Court of Appeal has now emphasized that the tort of intentional interference with economic relations has narrow applicability, but does occur. In its March 2, 2016 decision in Grand Financial Management Inc. v. Solemio Transportation Inc., the Court considered a case in which one party (Grand Financial) threatened to put another (Solemio) out of business. Grand Financial also sought to disrupt Solemio’s business by influencing the actions of a third party (Arnold Bros.) and illegitimately seizing security interests held by another third party (RBC). The decision also raised several issues of appellate practice.

Rule 2.1 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure: Responding to Vexatious Litigation While Advancing Access to Justice?

Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice

This article analyzes the first three years of the operation of Rule 2.1 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Rule”), which allows a court to very summarily dismiss litigation that is “on its face” frivolous, vexatious, and/or abusive. The author explores the history of and rationale for the Rule, in the context of the access to justice crisis in Ontario, and in light of the perceived inadequacy of alternative mechanisms for addressing the dangers raised by vexatious litigants. He then reviews all 190 Rule 2.1 decisions decided between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2017, with the goal to provide guidance for future lawyers and judges considering using the Rule. This is followed by an analysis of the effects on access to justice of the Rule, in terms of providing speedy and cost-efficient resolution of actions on their merits. The author concludes by considering how the Rule should be used in the future – doctrinally, institutionally, and ethically. His conclusions are hopeful. The Rule is powerful, and its use should prompt some pause in judges and lawyers. By and large, however, the Rule has been very well employed. It has resulted in immense savings of time and financial expense and many cases model fairness to vulnerable parties. In rare instances where the Rule’s (attempted) use has been inappropriate, costs in terms of delay and financial expense are usually minimal. The Rule is ultimately an inspiring example of how civil procedure can be amended to facilitate access to justice.

Tanudjaja v. Canada (Attorney General): Distinguishing Injusticiability and Deference on Motions to Strike

Advocates' Quartly

An analysis of a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision that held that a claim alleging that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains a right to housing is injusticiable. We argued that the claim was in fact justiciable. However, it was still appropriate to strike the claim as it failed to disclose a cause of action. While clarifying the meaning of one of Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure may be necessary for such a result to be uncontroversial, such clarification would nonetheless be welcome in an effort to create a more efficient system of civil justice.

Justiciability, Access to Justice, and Summary Procedures in Public Interest Litigation

Supreme Court Law Review

A revision of the earlier Federal Law Review article for a Canadian audience in the aftermath of the Wall decision, this article seeks to benefit the access to justice concerns that summary procedures address with the ones that they can cause, particularly in the public law realm.

1196303 Inc. v. Glen Grove Suites Inc.: Using Privity and Agency to Hold Third Parties Liable

Toronto Law Journal

An analysis of a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision that distinguished and analyzed privity and agency as bases to hold third parties liable for contractual breaches.

Jurisdiction Motions and Access to Justice: An Ontario Tale

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

This article investigates the access to justice concerns surrounding jurisdiction motions in Ontario, having analyzed one hundred and forty-seven jurisdiction motions decided in Ontario between 2010 and 2015. The author challenges the previously expressed view that jurisdiction motions are presently being “abused” by defendants and their counsel. He also suggests that trends in jurisdiction motions this decade point to some improvement from an access to justice perspective. Nonetheless, jurisdiction motions are frequently presenting an impediment to access to justice, with uncertainty in the law likely being the primary reason for this. The author considers potential proposals to address the access to justice concerns inherent in jurisdiction motions, concentrating on reconsidering the substantive law of jurisdiction or adopting the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act.

Ontario Court of Appeal upholds liability for tort of intentional interference with economic relations

Osler Update (republished by Ontario Bar Association)

The Ontario Court of Appeal has now emphasized that the tort of intentional interference with economic relations has narrow applicability, but does occur. In its March 2, 2016 decision in Grand Financial Management Inc. v. Solemio Transportation Inc., the Court considered a case in which one party (Grand Financial) threatened to put another (Solemio) out of business. Grand Financial also sought to disrupt Solemio’s business by influencing the actions of a third party (Arnold Bros.) and illegitimately seizing security interests held by another third party (RBC). The decision also raised several issues of appellate practice.

Rule 2.1 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure: Responding to Vexatious Litigation While Advancing Access to Justice?

Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice

This article analyzes the first three years of the operation of Rule 2.1 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Rule”), which allows a court to very summarily dismiss litigation that is “on its face” frivolous, vexatious, and/or abusive. The author explores the history of and rationale for the Rule, in the context of the access to justice crisis in Ontario, and in light of the perceived inadequacy of alternative mechanisms for addressing the dangers raised by vexatious litigants. He then reviews all 190 Rule 2.1 decisions decided between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2017, with the goal to provide guidance for future lawyers and judges considering using the Rule. This is followed by an analysis of the effects on access to justice of the Rule, in terms of providing speedy and cost-efficient resolution of actions on their merits. The author concludes by considering how the Rule should be used in the future – doctrinally, institutionally, and ethically. His conclusions are hopeful. The Rule is powerful, and its use should prompt some pause in judges and lawyers. By and large, however, the Rule has been very well employed. It has resulted in immense savings of time and financial expense and many cases model fairness to vulnerable parties. In rare instances where the Rule’s (attempted) use has been inappropriate, costs in terms of delay and financial expense are usually minimal. The Rule is ultimately an inspiring example of how civil procedure can be amended to facilitate access to justice.

Tanudjaja v. Canada (Attorney General): Distinguishing Injusticiability and Deference on Motions to Strike

Advocates' Quartly

An analysis of a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision that held that a claim alleging that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains a right to housing is injusticiable. We argued that the claim was in fact justiciable. However, it was still appropriate to strike the claim as it failed to disclose a cause of action. While clarifying the meaning of one of Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure may be necessary for such a result to be uncontroversial, such clarification would nonetheless be welcome in an effort to create a more efficient system of civil justice.

Justiciability, Access to Justice, and Summary Procedures in Public Interest Litigation

Supreme Court Law Review

A revision of the earlier Federal Law Review article for a Canadian audience in the aftermath of the Wall decision, this article seeks to benefit the access to justice concerns that summary procedures address with the ones that they can cause, particularly in the public law realm.

Individual Accountability for Corporate Wrongdoing: A Perspective from United States Practice as Reflected in the Yates Memorandum

Osler Update

On September 9, 2015, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates of the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued a memorandum entitled “Individual Accountability for Corporate Wrongdoing” (the “Yates Memorandum”) to provide clear guidance to federal prosecutors on how to treat individuals and assess their culpability in investigations of criminal and civil corporate misconduct, particularly in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.

1196303 Inc. v. Glen Grove Suites Inc.: Using Privity and Agency to Hold Third Parties Liable

Toronto Law Journal

An analysis of a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision that distinguished and analyzed privity and agency as bases to hold third parties liable for contractual breaches.

Jurisdiction Motions and Access to Justice: An Ontario Tale

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

This article investigates the access to justice concerns surrounding jurisdiction motions in Ontario, having analyzed one hundred and forty-seven jurisdiction motions decided in Ontario between 2010 and 2015. The author challenges the previously expressed view that jurisdiction motions are presently being “abused” by defendants and their counsel. He also suggests that trends in jurisdiction motions this decade point to some improvement from an access to justice perspective. Nonetheless, jurisdiction motions are frequently presenting an impediment to access to justice, with uncertainty in the law likely being the primary reason for this. The author considers potential proposals to address the access to justice concerns inherent in jurisdiction motions, concentrating on reconsidering the substantive law of jurisdiction or adopting the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act.

Ontario Court of Appeal upholds liability for tort of intentional interference with economic relations

Osler Update (republished by Ontario Bar Association)

The Ontario Court of Appeal has now emphasized that the tort of intentional interference with economic relations has narrow applicability, but does occur. In its March 2, 2016 decision in Grand Financial Management Inc. v. Solemio Transportation Inc., the Court considered a case in which one party (Grand Financial) threatened to put another (Solemio) out of business. Grand Financial also sought to disrupt Solemio’s business by influencing the actions of a third party (Arnold Bros.) and illegitimately seizing security interests held by another third party (RBC). The decision also raised several issues of appellate practice.

Rule 2.1 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure: Responding to Vexatious Litigation While Advancing Access to Justice?

Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice

This article analyzes the first three years of the operation of Rule 2.1 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Rule”), which allows a court to very summarily dismiss litigation that is “on its face” frivolous, vexatious, and/or abusive. The author explores the history of and rationale for the Rule, in the context of the access to justice crisis in Ontario, and in light of the perceived inadequacy of alternative mechanisms for addressing the dangers raised by vexatious litigants. He then reviews all 190 Rule 2.1 decisions decided between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2017, with the goal to provide guidance for future lawyers and judges considering using the Rule. This is followed by an analysis of the effects on access to justice of the Rule, in terms of providing speedy and cost-efficient resolution of actions on their merits. The author concludes by considering how the Rule should be used in the future – doctrinally, institutionally, and ethically. His conclusions are hopeful. The Rule is powerful, and its use should prompt some pause in judges and lawyers. By and large, however, the Rule has been very well employed. It has resulted in immense savings of time and financial expense and many cases model fairness to vulnerable parties. In rare instances where the Rule’s (attempted) use has been inappropriate, costs in terms of delay and financial expense are usually minimal. The Rule is ultimately an inspiring example of how civil procedure can be amended to facilitate access to justice.

Tanudjaja v. Canada (Attorney General): Distinguishing Injusticiability and Deference on Motions to Strike

Advocates' Quartly

An analysis of a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision that held that a claim alleging that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains a right to housing is injusticiable. We argued that the claim was in fact justiciable. However, it was still appropriate to strike the claim as it failed to disclose a cause of action. While clarifying the meaning of one of Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure may be necessary for such a result to be uncontroversial, such clarification would nonetheless be welcome in an effort to create a more efficient system of civil justice.

Justiciability, Access to Justice, and Summary Procedures in Public Interest Litigation

Supreme Court Law Review

A revision of the earlier Federal Law Review article for a Canadian audience in the aftermath of the Wall decision, this article seeks to benefit the access to justice concerns that summary procedures address with the ones that they can cause, particularly in the public law realm.

Individual Accountability for Corporate Wrongdoing: A Perspective from United States Practice as Reflected in the Yates Memorandum

Osler Update

On September 9, 2015, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates of the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued a memorandum entitled “Individual Accountability for Corporate Wrongdoing” (the “Yates Memorandum”) to provide clear guidance to federal prosecutors on how to treat individuals and assess their culpability in investigations of criminal and civil corporate misconduct, particularly in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.

Public Inquiries’ Terms of Reference: Lessons from the Past – And For the Future

Manitoba Law Journal

Terms of reference define public inquiries’ power, yet there has been little analysis of them. In this article, the author analyzes the terms of reference of six different public inquiries – three widely considered successful (the Walkerton Inquiry, Goudge Inquiry, and Kaufman Commission), three widely considered unsuccessful (the Somalia Inquiry, Cornwall Inquiry, and Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women Inquiry) – to investigate how terms of reference contribute to the success of public inquiries. Throughout all analyzed inquiries, there is an inevitable tension between wanting to have clear terms of reference that provide guidance to the inquiries, without being so restrictive so as to impede the commissioners from fulfilling their work. He ultimately concludes that specificity is the side on which governments should err when crafting the investigative portions of terms of reference. However, he suggests that it is completely acceptable – and likely desirable – to place little if any restrictions on the policy-recommending functions of public inquiries, or the procedural/operational aspects of their terms of reference. He also suggests that fewer commissioners lead to more effective investigative inquiries.

1196303 Inc. v. Glen Grove Suites Inc.: Using Privity and Agency to Hold Third Parties Liable

Toronto Law Journal

An analysis of a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision that distinguished and analyzed privity and agency as bases to hold third parties liable for contractual breaches.

Jurisdiction Motions and Access to Justice: An Ontario Tale

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

This article investigates the access to justice concerns surrounding jurisdiction motions in Ontario, having analyzed one hundred and forty-seven jurisdiction motions decided in Ontario between 2010 and 2015. The author challenges the previously expressed view that jurisdiction motions are presently being “abused” by defendants and their counsel. He also suggests that trends in jurisdiction motions this decade point to some improvement from an access to justice perspective. Nonetheless, jurisdiction motions are frequently presenting an impediment to access to justice, with uncertainty in the law likely being the primary reason for this. The author considers potential proposals to address the access to justice concerns inherent in jurisdiction motions, concentrating on reconsidering the substantive law of jurisdiction or adopting the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act.

Ontario Court of Appeal upholds liability for tort of intentional interference with economic relations

Osler Update (republished by Ontario Bar Association)

The Ontario Court of Appeal has now emphasized that the tort of intentional interference with economic relations has narrow applicability, but does occur. In its March 2, 2016 decision in Grand Financial Management Inc. v. Solemio Transportation Inc., the Court considered a case in which one party (Grand Financial) threatened to put another (Solemio) out of business. Grand Financial also sought to disrupt Solemio’s business by influencing the actions of a third party (Arnold Bros.) and illegitimately seizing security interests held by another third party (RBC). The decision also raised several issues of appellate practice.

Rule 2.1 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure: Responding to Vexatious Litigation While Advancing Access to Justice?

Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice

This article analyzes the first three years of the operation of Rule 2.1 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Rule”), which allows a court to very summarily dismiss litigation that is “on its face” frivolous, vexatious, and/or abusive. The author explores the history of and rationale for the Rule, in the context of the access to justice crisis in Ontario, and in light of the perceived inadequacy of alternative mechanisms for addressing the dangers raised by vexatious litigants. He then reviews all 190 Rule 2.1 decisions decided between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2017, with the goal to provide guidance for future lawyers and judges considering using the Rule. This is followed by an analysis of the effects on access to justice of the Rule, in terms of providing speedy and cost-efficient resolution of actions on their merits. The author concludes by considering how the Rule should be used in the future – doctrinally, institutionally, and ethically. His conclusions are hopeful. The Rule is powerful, and its use should prompt some pause in judges and lawyers. By and large, however, the Rule has been very well employed. It has resulted in immense savings of time and financial expense and many cases model fairness to vulnerable parties. In rare instances where the Rule’s (attempted) use has been inappropriate, costs in terms of delay and financial expense are usually minimal. The Rule is ultimately an inspiring example of how civil procedure can be amended to facilitate access to justice.

Tanudjaja v. Canada (Attorney General): Distinguishing Injusticiability and Deference on Motions to Strike

Advocates' Quartly

An analysis of a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision that held that a claim alleging that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains a right to housing is injusticiable. We argued that the claim was in fact justiciable. However, it was still appropriate to strike the claim as it failed to disclose a cause of action. While clarifying the meaning of one of Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure may be necessary for such a result to be uncontroversial, such clarification would nonetheless be welcome in an effort to create a more efficient system of civil justice.

Justiciability, Access to Justice, and Summary Procedures in Public Interest Litigation

Supreme Court Law Review

A revision of the earlier Federal Law Review article for a Canadian audience in the aftermath of the Wall decision, this article seeks to benefit the access to justice concerns that summary procedures address with the ones that they can cause, particularly in the public law realm.

Individual Accountability for Corporate Wrongdoing: A Perspective from United States Practice as Reflected in the Yates Memorandum

Osler Update

On September 9, 2015, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates of the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued a memorandum entitled “Individual Accountability for Corporate Wrongdoing” (the “Yates Memorandum”) to provide clear guidance to federal prosecutors on how to treat individuals and assess their culpability in investigations of criminal and civil corporate misconduct, particularly in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.

Public Inquiries’ Terms of Reference: Lessons from the Past – And For the Future

Manitoba Law Journal

Terms of reference define public inquiries’ power, yet there has been little analysis of them. In this article, the author analyzes the terms of reference of six different public inquiries – three widely considered successful (the Walkerton Inquiry, Goudge Inquiry, and Kaufman Commission), three widely considered unsuccessful (the Somalia Inquiry, Cornwall Inquiry, and Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women Inquiry) – to investigate how terms of reference contribute to the success of public inquiries. Throughout all analyzed inquiries, there is an inevitable tension between wanting to have clear terms of reference that provide guidance to the inquiries, without being so restrictive so as to impede the commissioners from fulfilling their work. He ultimately concludes that specificity is the side on which governments should err when crafting the investigative portions of terms of reference. However, he suggests that it is completely acceptable – and likely desirable – to place little if any restrictions on the policy-recommending functions of public inquiries, or the procedural/operational aspects of their terms of reference. He also suggests that fewer commissioners lead to more effective investigative inquiries.

Justiciability, Access to Justice & the Development of Constitutional Law in Canada

Federal Law Review

Concentrating on Canadian experience, specifically litigation under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the ‘Charter’), this article seeks to reconcile the access to justice benefits of summary procedures with the government litigant’s duty to act in the public interest (or as a ‘model litigant’) and uphold the rule of law. Though acknowledging the benefits that can result from the use of summary procedures to end litigation, the authors observe that compliance with strict requirements in procedural law are frequently dispensed with in the Charter context. In fact, summary procedures can have a devastating effect on the development of Charter rights. The authors ultimately posit that the government should have a duty of restraint in using summary procedures to end public law litigation, and courts should be reluctant to permit the government to preclude such litigation aimed at advancing the evolution of the Charter from reaching hearings on the merits.

1196303 Inc. v. Glen Grove Suites Inc.: Using Privity and Agency to Hold Third Parties Liable

Toronto Law Journal

An analysis of a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision that distinguished and analyzed privity and agency as bases to hold third parties liable for contractual breaches.

Jurisdiction Motions and Access to Justice: An Ontario Tale

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

This article investigates the access to justice concerns surrounding jurisdiction motions in Ontario, having analyzed one hundred and forty-seven jurisdiction motions decided in Ontario between 2010 and 2015. The author challenges the previously expressed view that jurisdiction motions are presently being “abused” by defendants and their counsel. He also suggests that trends in jurisdiction motions this decade point to some improvement from an access to justice perspective. Nonetheless, jurisdiction motions are frequently presenting an impediment to access to justice, with uncertainty in the law likely being the primary reason for this. The author considers potential proposals to address the access to justice concerns inherent in jurisdiction motions, concentrating on reconsidering the substantive law of jurisdiction or adopting the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act.

Ontario Court of Appeal upholds liability for tort of intentional interference with economic relations

Osler Update (republished by Ontario Bar Association)

The Ontario Court of Appeal has now emphasized that the tort of intentional interference with economic relations has narrow applicability, but does occur. In its March 2, 2016 decision in Grand Financial Management Inc. v. Solemio Transportation Inc., the Court considered a case in which one party (Grand Financial) threatened to put another (Solemio) out of business. Grand Financial also sought to disrupt Solemio’s business by influencing the actions of a third party (Arnold Bros.) and illegitimately seizing security interests held by another third party (RBC). The decision also raised several issues of appellate practice.

Rule 2.1 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure: Responding to Vexatious Litigation While Advancing Access to Justice?

Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice

This article analyzes the first three years of the operation of Rule 2.1 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Rule”), which allows a court to very summarily dismiss litigation that is “on its face” frivolous, vexatious, and/or abusive. The author explores the history of and rationale for the Rule, in the context of the access to justice crisis in Ontario, and in light of the perceived inadequacy of alternative mechanisms for addressing the dangers raised by vexatious litigants. He then reviews all 190 Rule 2.1 decisions decided between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2017, with the goal to provide guidance for future lawyers and judges considering using the Rule. This is followed by an analysis of the effects on access to justice of the Rule, in terms of providing speedy and cost-efficient resolution of actions on their merits. The author concludes by considering how the Rule should be used in the future – doctrinally, institutionally, and ethically. His conclusions are hopeful. The Rule is powerful, and its use should prompt some pause in judges and lawyers. By and large, however, the Rule has been very well employed. It has resulted in immense savings of time and financial expense and many cases model fairness to vulnerable parties. In rare instances where the Rule’s (attempted) use has been inappropriate, costs in terms of delay and financial expense are usually minimal. The Rule is ultimately an inspiring example of how civil procedure can be amended to facilitate access to justice.

Tanudjaja v. Canada (Attorney General): Distinguishing Injusticiability and Deference on Motions to Strike

Advocates' Quartly

An analysis of a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision that held that a claim alleging that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains a right to housing is injusticiable. We argued that the claim was in fact justiciable. However, it was still appropriate to strike the claim as it failed to disclose a cause of action. While clarifying the meaning of one of Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure may be necessary for such a result to be uncontroversial, such clarification would nonetheless be welcome in an effort to create a more efficient system of civil justice.

Justiciability, Access to Justice, and Summary Procedures in Public Interest Litigation

Supreme Court Law Review

A revision of the earlier Federal Law Review article for a Canadian audience in the aftermath of the Wall decision, this article seeks to benefit the access to justice concerns that summary procedures address with the ones that they can cause, particularly in the public law realm.

Individual Accountability for Corporate Wrongdoing: A Perspective from United States Practice as Reflected in the Yates Memorandum

Osler Update

On September 9, 2015, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates of the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued a memorandum entitled “Individual Accountability for Corporate Wrongdoing” (the “Yates Memorandum”) to provide clear guidance to federal prosecutors on how to treat individuals and assess their culpability in investigations of criminal and civil corporate misconduct, particularly in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.

Public Inquiries’ Terms of Reference: Lessons from the Past – And For the Future

Manitoba Law Journal

Terms of reference define public inquiries’ power, yet there has been little analysis of them. In this article, the author analyzes the terms of reference of six different public inquiries – three widely considered successful (the Walkerton Inquiry, Goudge Inquiry, and Kaufman Commission), three widely considered unsuccessful (the Somalia Inquiry, Cornwall Inquiry, and Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women Inquiry) – to investigate how terms of reference contribute to the success of public inquiries. Throughout all analyzed inquiries, there is an inevitable tension between wanting to have clear terms of reference that provide guidance to the inquiries, without being so restrictive so as to impede the commissioners from fulfilling their work. He ultimately concludes that specificity is the side on which governments should err when crafting the investigative portions of terms of reference. However, he suggests that it is completely acceptable – and likely desirable – to place little if any restrictions on the policy-recommending functions of public inquiries, or the procedural/operational aspects of their terms of reference. He also suggests that fewer commissioners lead to more effective investigative inquiries.

Justiciability, Access to Justice & the Development of Constitutional Law in Canada

Federal Law Review

Concentrating on Canadian experience, specifically litigation under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the ‘Charter’), this article seeks to reconcile the access to justice benefits of summary procedures with the government litigant’s duty to act in the public interest (or as a ‘model litigant’) and uphold the rule of law. Though acknowledging the benefits that can result from the use of summary procedures to end litigation, the authors observe that compliance with strict requirements in procedural law are frequently dispensed with in the Charter context. In fact, summary procedures can have a devastating effect on the development of Charter rights. The authors ultimately posit that the government should have a duty of restraint in using summary procedures to end public law litigation, and courts should be reluctant to permit the government to preclude such litigation aimed at advancing the evolution of the Charter from reaching hearings on the merits.

Book Review of In Search of the Ethical Lawyer: Stories from the Canadian Legal Profession, edited by Adam Dodek & Alice Woolley

Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice

Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History

Member

Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History

Member

Advocates' Society

Member

Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History

Member

Advocates' Society

Member

Ontario Bar Association

Member

Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History

Member

Advocates' Society

Member

Ontario Bar Association

Member

Canadial Council on International Law

Member

Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History

Member

Advocates' Society

Member

Ontario Bar Association

Member

Canadial Council on International Law

Member

Canadian Bar Assocation

Member

Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History

Member

Advocates' Society

Member

Ontario Bar Association

Member

Canadial Council on International Law

Member

Canadian Bar Assocation

Member

Law Society of Upper Canada

Member

Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History

Member

Advocates' Society

Member

Ontario Bar Association

Member

Canadial Council on International Law

Member

Canadian Bar Assocation

Member

Law Society of Upper Canada

Member

Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History

Member

Advocates' Society

Member

Ontario Bar Association

Member

Canadial Council on International Law

Member

Canadian Bar Assocation

Member

Law Society of Upper Canada

Member

Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History

Member

Advocates' Society

Member

Ontario Bar Association

Member

Canadial Council on International Law

Member

Canadian Bar Assocation

Member

Law Society of Upper Canada

Member

Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History

Member

Advocates' Society

Member

Ontario Bar Association

Member

Canadial Council on International Law

Member

Canadian Bar Assocation

Member

Law Society of Upper Canada

Member

Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History

Member

Advocates' Society

Member

Ontario Bar Association

Member

Canadial Council on International Law

Member

Canadian Bar Assocation

Member

Law Society of Upper Canada

Member

Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History

Member

Advocates' Society

Member

Ontario Bar Association

Member

Canadial Council on International Law

Member

Canadian Bar Assocation

Member

Law Society of Upper Canada

Member

Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History

Member

Advocates' Society

Member

Ontario Bar Association

Member

Canadial Council on International Law

Member

Canadian Bar Assocation

Member

Law Society of Upper Canada

Member

Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History

Member

Advocates' Society

Member

Ontario Bar Association

Member

Canadial Council on International Law

Member

Canadian Bar Assocation

Member

Law Society of Upper Canada

Member

Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History

Member

Advocates' Society

Member

Ontario Bar Association

Member

Canadial Council on International Law

Member

Canadian Bar Assocation

Member

Law Society of Upper Canada

Member

Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History

Member

Advocates' Society

Member

Ontario Bar Association

Member

Canadial Council on International Law

Member

Canadian Bar Assocation

Member

Law Society of Upper Canada

Member

Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History

Member

Advocates' Society

Member

Ontario Bar Association

Member

Canadial Council on International Law

Member

Canadian Bar Assocation

Member

Law Society of Upper Canada

Member

Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History

Member

Advocates' Society

Member

Ontario Bar Association

Member

Canadial Council on International Law

Member

Canadian Bar Assocation

Member

Law Society of Upper Canada

Member

Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History

Member

Advocates' Society

Member

Ontario Bar Association

Member

Canadial Council on International Law

Member

Canadian Bar Assocation

Member

Law Society of Upper Canada

Member

Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History

Member

Advocates' Society

Member

Ontario Bar Association

Member

Canadial Council on International Law

Member

Canadian Bar Assocation

Member

Law Society of Upper Canada

Member