THE INFORMATION PORTAL

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 plans, financial models, or client lists—expecting it will remain confidential. Yet when that trust is broken, Canadian law steps in through the doctrine of breach of confidence. This equitable cause […]

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 will be destroyed, assets concealed, or reputations irreparably harmed. In these circumstances, the ordinary pace of litigation is not enough. Courts in Ontario and across Canada recognize this reality and […]

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.