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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance

Results:1-10 of 95

The Supreme Court concludes there is no need to prove psychiatric illness to establish mental injury: Saadati v. Moorhead
  • McCarthy Tétrault LLP
  • Canada
  • July 18 2017

Is a Plaintiff required to prove that they suffer from a recognized psychiatric illness in order to recover for mental injury? The Supreme Court has

Le processus d’oppositions et d’appel en matière d’impôt de l’ARC : des modifications à l’horizon
  • Blake Cassels & Graydon LLP
  • Canada
  • December 16 2016

Le 29 novembre 2016, le vérificateur général du Canada a publié les rapports du vérificateur général pour l’automne 2016, y compris celui intitulé

Recours annoncé en révision des appels d'offres
  • Miller Thomson LLP
  • Canada
  • August 17 2016

Dans la foulée des recommandations contenues au rapport de la Commission Charbonneau, le gouvernement a tout récemment publié le Projet...

Examen portant sur l'évolution des milieux de travail de l'Ontario : le rapport intérimaire est publié
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • August 2 2016

Le 27 juillet 2016, le Rapport intérimaire sur l'Examen portant sur l'évolution des milieux de travail de l'Ontario a été publié. Ce rapport donne le

Turpin v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Co.
  • Harper Grey LLP
  • Canada
  • October 12 2011

An insured brought a claim against her travel insurer for medical expenses incurred while on vacation.

An ethical dilemma
  • Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
  • Canada
  • May 25 2011

A recent decision of the Federal Court deals with the ethical dilemma that counsel for the plaintiff found themselves in relating to evidence that had been presented to the Court as part of the plaintiff's claim.

Some hope for employers dealing with employees on long-term disability leave
  • Stikeman Elliott LLP
  • Canada
  • January 20 2011

The Ontario courts have released another interesting decision regarding the contractual concept of frustration as it applies to the termination of employees receiving long term disability benefits (see our October 27, 2010 post "Further "frustration" for employers dealing with employees on long term disability").

The case of D.C. v. The Queen: the Court of Appeal of Québec recognizes the viral load as a relevant factor to appreciate the criminal conduct in a case of non-disclosure of HIV
  • McCarthy Tétrault LLP
  • Canada
  • January 6 2011

On December 13th, 2010, the Court of Appeal of Québec rendered an important decision in the case D.C. v. The Queen on a criminal law matter where the liability of an HIV-positive person was at issue because of the non-disclosure of her serologic status to her sexual partner.

The Excellent Care for All Act, 2010
  • Miller Thomson LLP
  • Canada
  • December 15 2010

Bill 46, the Excellent Care for All Act, 2010 (the "ECFAA") became law in Ontario on June 8, 2010.

Further "frustration" for employers dealing with employees on long term disability
  • Stikeman Elliott LLP
  • Canada
  • October 27 2010

Dealing with employees who are on long-term disability is challenging at the best of times for employers.