Insights & Analysis
A curated hub of legal analysis, practical guides, and timely updates from Grigoras Law — written for clients, professionals, and the public.
Plain-language explainers, case commentaries, and practice notes across civil litigation, commercial litigation, business law, appeals, and select cross-border topics.
What You'll Find
Our Information Portal gathers blog posts, video blogs, case commentaries, and practice notes — written in plain language for practical use.
Complex legal topics explained clearly for clients, professionals, and the public.
Recent developments, new case law, and procedural changes as they happen.
Actionable takeaways so you can move from reading to decision-making with confidence.
The information provided here is for general informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Content may not be comprehensive or current at the time you read it. You should consult a qualified lawyer on any specific legal question or matter. Grigoras Law is not responsible for any damage or loss due to reliance upon this information. Use at your own risk.
Find What You Need
Search our library of blog posts, case commentaries, and practice notes by keyword.
Latest Content
Explore our collection of articles, case commentaries, and insights.
A false review on Google Maps can reach thousands of people and stay there indefinitely. The person behind it may be anonymous and untraceable. Can you sue Google instead? Recent Canadian decisions in Thorpe v. Boakye and Jeffery v. Almusslat suggest the answer is increasingly yes, where the platform had notice, had control, and chose not to act.
The board of directors sits at the centre of Canadian corporate governance, bearing ultimate legal responsibility for how a corporation is managed. This article covers the statutory requirements for board composition, the meaning of director independence, what powers the board can and cannot delegate, and how unanimous shareholders’ agreements redistribute duties and liabilities between directors and shareholders.
When you know a wrong has been committed but cannot identify who did it, ordinary civil procedure offers no path forward. The Norwich Order fills that gap. It compels a third party mixed up in wrongdoing to disclose information before proceedings start, allowing a victim to identify a wrongdoer, trace stolen assets, or confirm whether a cause of action exists. This article explains the test, the limits, and how the remedy works in practice.
Silence is generally not fraud — but in a meaningful range of circumstances it is, and the consequences are identical to an outright lie. This article explains when Canadian courts will find that a party’s failure to speak is actionable fraud, what duty to disclose arises and from what relationships, how half-truths are treated, and how fraudulent concealment can suspend limitation periods that would otherwise bar a claim.
Ontario’s corporate statutes give dissenting shareholders the right to exit at court-determined fair value — but the remedy is only as strong as the procedure you follow and the valuation methodology behind it. This guide covers all three types of appraisal remedy and explains how Chartered Business Valuators and courts actually determine what shares are worth.
Here is a scenario that sounds almost too harsh to be real. A woman agrees to pay her ex-husband’s life insurance premiums in exchange for
Breach of Fiduciary Duty When people or organizations place their trust in someone to act on their behalf, the law imposes a special standard of
Breach of Confidence in Canadian Law: Trust, Misuse, and Remedies In commercial and professional relationships, trust is currency. Parties routinely exchange non-public information—technical data, strategic
Urgent Commercial Remedies in Ontario: Protecting Rights Before It’s Too Late Commercial disputes can escalate quickly, especially where there is a risk that vital evidence
Flight delays, denied boarding, and cancellations are among the most common disruptions in modern air travel. For passengers, the legal consequences of these events depend on whether the disruption is classified as delay or nonperformance and on which legal framework applies.
Rule 49 offers to settle are a cornerstone of civil litigation in Ontario. They reflect a deliberate policy choice to encourage settlement and reduce the burden of trials. By attaching significant costs consequences to the rejection of reasonable offers, the rule compels litigants to weigh the risks of trial carefully.
Cross-examination is widely regarded as one of the most powerful tools in the trial process. It is not only a feature of the adversarial system but a defining characteristic that sets it apart from other legal traditions. Through cross-examination, the evidence of witnesses is tested for accuracy, reliability, and truthfulness. Where examination-in-chief allows a party to present its own case in an orderly fashion, cross-examination permits opposing counsel to probe, challenge, and, where appropriate, dismantle that account.
The ruling in Kulyk v. Guastella reminds us of the importance of timely dealing with civil defamation claims, regardless of concurrent criminal proceedings. Justice Myers’ decision, grounded in the interpretation of the Limitations Act, emphasizes an objective standard for initiating defamation claims. Potential plaintiffs must therefore remain vigilant and proactive in protecting their legal rights against defamatory accusations, even amidst criminal proceedings.
Pleading fraud requires clarity, precision, and a well-documented factual basis. While the potential for recovering consequential or even punitive damages can be attractive, the risks of dismissal and adverse cost implications underscore the need for a meticulously prepared claim.
Businesses of every size invest substantial time and money into developing their brand, trade names, and goodwill. Whether it’s a distinctive logo, a well-recognized label, a slogan that resonates with customers, or even a unique style of packaging, these assets help a business establish its identity and build a loyal consumer base. When others attempt to imitate or capitalize on this reputation—confusing the public in the process—the law of passing off and unfair competition in Canada comes into play.
Shareholder rights in Ontario rest on a framework that includes corporate statutes like the OBCA and CBCA, the corporation’s own governing documents, and common law principles developed through years of judicial precedent. These rights ensure that individuals who invest in a company have some means of monitoring its activities, participating in major decisions, and seeking redress if those at the helm engage in improper or unfair conduct.
Pleadings are the bedrock of any civil litigation case in Ontario. Understanding what they are, how they function, and why they matter is crucial for anyone involved in a lawsuit—whether you are a plaintiff seeking compensation or a defendant trying to minimize liability. The Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure (particularly Rules 25 to 29) lay out precise requirements for drafting, serving, and amending pleadings, as well as for bringing additional parties or claims into the fold.
Transferring property from one person to another without expecting anything in return is a familiar concept—yet the legal treatment of gifts in Canada can be surprisingly intricate. Courts and statutes have developed specific rules about what qualifies as a gift, how gifts are perfected, whether certain gifts are revocable or conditional, and how disputes can be resolved
Majority rule is a cornerstone of corporate governance. Shareholders typically vote their shares to elect directors, ratify major transactions, and guide the strategic direction of the company. Yet majority power must not be exercised at the expense of those holding fewer shares. Canadian law—through what is commonly known as the oppression remedy—prohibits actions that unjustly marginalize or harm minority shareholders.
The range of mortgagor remedies—redemption, challenging an improvident sale, seeking an injunction or stay, requesting relief against forfeiture, questioning deficiency claims, relying on consumer-protection rules, and more—illustrates a legal system striving for fairness and procedural rigor.
When borrowers default on their mortgage obligations, the mortgagee (often a bank, private lender, or another financial institution) has several powerful tools to recover its loan amount and secure or dispose of the underlying property.
Private-sector privacy laws in Canada underscore the notion that personal information belongs, first and foremost, to the individual. Organizations are entrusted with that data only for legitimate, specified purposes, with meaningful consent. From the right to access and correct data, to rules on collecting, using, disclosing, and safeguarding information, these laws aim to ensure that businesses remain accountable while individuals retain control over their digital identities.
Malicious prosecution is a tort that protects individuals from being wrongfully subjected to criminal proceedings initiated or continued for improper reasons. Abuse of process, while similar, deals with the misuse of the court’s procedures themselves.
A services contract sets the ground rules for one party’s performance of services for another. Whether you’re hiring a web developer, an engineering consultant, a marketing agency, or a company to provide specialized equipment maintenance, a written agreement helps ensure both sides understand their obligations.
Money laundering isn’t just the stuff of thrillers or high-stakes financial crime dramas; it is a profound global issue that poses a real threat to the integrity of financial systems, public safety, and economic stability. In Canada, a robust set of statutes, regulations, and reporting obligations aims to thwart these illegal practices, penalize offenders, and ensure that legitimate businesses avoid inadvertently facilitating criminal activity.
Knowledge of contract damages rules—expectation vs. reliance, the near-impossibility of punitive damages in standard breach cases, and the central importance of mitigating losses—is integral to protecting your interests.
Mareva injunctions, Norwich orders, and Anton Piller orders stand outside the ordinary run of interlocutory remedies in Ontario litigation. Each embodies the court’s willingness to intervene where ordinary procedural tools would be inadequate.
In modern commercial transactions, the negotiation process is often as significant as the final contract itself. Parties enter into talks expecting open communication, fair dealing, and a genuine effort to find common ground.
Defamation in Ontario refers to statements that diminish a person’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable individuals. To establish defamation, three elements must be proven: the statement was defamatory, referred to the plaintiff, and was published to at least one other person. Defamatory statements often allege misconduct, dishonesty, or incompetence, but context plays a critical role. Not all criticisms qualify as defamation—trivial insults or hyperbolic remarks typically do not meet the legal threshold.
Enforcing a foreign judgment in Ontario involves navigating a unique legal landscape that respects international judgments while safeguarding local standards. Ontario courts generally uphold foreign decisions, allowing creditors to seek enforcement through streamlined processes. However, local debtors may raise defences, such as jurisdictional challenges or public policy conflicts. Whether you’re enforcing a judgment or resisting one, Grigoras Law provides the expertise needed to guide you through this complex process.
Information Portal
When it's time to move from reading to resolving, Grigoras Law handles civil, commercial, and appellate matters across Ontario — and select cross-border files.
our team of experienced lawyers are at your service