A curated hub of legal analysis, practical guides, and timely updates from Grigoras Law—written for clients, professionals, and the public.
Grigoras Law’s Information Portal gathers plain-language explainers, case commentaries, and practice notes across
civil litigation, commercial litigation, business law, appeals, and select cross-border topics (including international
and Nevada matters). We focus on practical takeaways, Ontario procedure, and timely developments—so you can move
from reading to action with confidence.
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.
Found this article helpful? When it’s time to act, our team handles civil, commercial, and appellate work across Ontario (and select cross-border matters). Clear strategy, responsive service, and focused advocacy—start with a brief intake.
our team of experienced lawyers are at your service