We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 275

British Columbia Court of Appeal tells Securities Commission that reciprocal orders are not automatic - what could this mean for no admission settlement agreements and reciprocal enforcement in Canada?

  • Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • December 14 2012

A decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal earlier this year highlights one of the pitfalls of “no admission” settlements, exhibiting that a securities regulator in a cooperating jurisdiction may not be able to issue a reciprocal order when the settlement contains no specificity or admission upon which to conclude that any wrongdoing occurred

Wake up and smell the coffee: summary judgment decision dismissing Tim Horton's class action upheld on appeal

  • Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • December 11 2012

In a big win for franchisors, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently dismissed the appeal of an important class action decision awarding summary judgment to the defendant franchisor in Fairview Donut Inc. v. TDL Group Corp

Hav-A-Kar leasing: accelerated payments - close but not quite right

  • Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • December 6 2012

One of the longest standing principles at law is that if there is a breach of contract a party can sue for damages such that they should be placed in the same position as if the contract had been completed

The standard form trap

  • Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • December 3 2012

It’s time to review your standard forms!

All is not lost if a limitations period missed

  • Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • November 26 2012

Missing the limitations period for bringing a court action to recover a debt does not extinguish other legal rights and remedies in respect of that debt, such as bringing an application for bankruptcy or proving a claim in a bankruptcy estate

To err is human and to forgive divine - British Columbia judge relies on equitable principles to save an errant discharge

  • Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • November 6 2012

Every now and again, a mistake is made and a PPSA financing statement is discharged in error

British Columbia Court of Appeal permits hedge fund to requisition a shareholder meeting despite concerns of empty voting

  • Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • October 24 2012

On October 12, 2012, the British Columbia Court of Appeal released its decision in Telus Corporation v. Mason Capital Management LLC, 2012 BCCA 403, overturning a lower court decision invalidating a shareholder requisition for a shareholder meeting

Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismisses claim for punitive damages against directors of a former Ontario issuer

  • Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • October 22 2012

In the recent decision of Frank v. Farlie, Turner & Co., LLC, 2011 ONSC 5519, Mr. Justice Perell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found, among other things, that punitive damages are not available under Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act as such damages are inconsistent with the scheme and purpose of Ontario’s statutory secondary market disclosure liability regime

Using Wayback Machine evidence

  • Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • October 15 2012

A recent decision of the Trade-mark Opposition Board (“the Opposition Board”) has confirmed the admissibility of evidence obtained by using the Wayback Machine

Conspiracy to defraud by facilitating copyright infringement

  • Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • October 15 2012

A recent decision of a criminal court in the United Kingdom found an individual guilty of conspiracy to defraud and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment as a result of copyright infringing activities