01 Plain Language for clients and counsel
Written to be used.
Complex legal topics explained clearly for clients, professionals, and the public, and precise enough to actually inform the decisions that follow.
Plain-language explainers, case commentaries, and practice notes across civil litigation, commercial litigation, business law, appeals, and select cross-border topics. Read, then get in touch if your situation calls for it. The Information Portal is a working archive, not marketing copy. Each post is written by counsel at the firm and drafted to the same standard of care we apply to the files we handle.
What you'll find
Each post is written by counsel at the firm and drafted to the same standard of care we apply to the files we handle. The aim is practical: explain the doctrine, note what has changed, and point to what matters next. Long-form articles, case commentary, and short practice notes on the mechanics of procedure.
Complex legal topics explained clearly for clients, professionals, and the public, and precise enough to actually inform the decisions that follow.
Recent developments, new case law, and procedural changes, written up as they happen with the practical consequences drawn out plainly.
Actionable takeaways so readers can move from reading to decision-making, whether that is on their own, with in-house counsel, or with us.
The information provided on this site 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. Consult a qualified lawyer on any specific legal question or matter. Grigoras Law is not responsible for any damage or loss arising from reliance upon this information.
Find what you need
Search the library of blog posts, case commentaries, and practice notes by keyword.
Latest content
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 give individuals who invest in a company some means of monitoring its activities, participating in major decisions, and seeking redress if those at the helm engage in improper or unfair conduct.
Majority rule is the foundation of corporate governance. Shareholders typically vote their shares to elect directors, ratify major transactions, and set the 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.
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.
In corporate law, accountability and integrity come first. Ontario’s legal framework offers stakeholders a remedy when corporations suffer at the hands of their own management; namely, derivative actions.
In corporate law, shareholders possess a range of rights. When these rights are jeopardized, or when the corporation’s actions seem unjust or prejudicial, shareholders can turn to specific remedies enshrined in the law.
The business judgment rule has its roots in the need for an environment of innovation and growth in business. Recognizing that running a business often involves taking risks, this rule has been developed to shield directors and officers who are willing to take calculated chances to propel a corporation forward.
The Lowest Intermediate Balance Rule (“LIBR“) is an essential concept in the legal world, particularly in cases involving the tracing of funds. It is an evidential rule that assumes that when a person commingles their own funds with funds belonging to someone else, they are assumed to have spent their own funds first.
The tort of passing off in Canadian law is founded upon the notion that no individual should be allowed to represent their products or services as those of another. The Supreme Court of Canada has set forth three key elements that a plaintiff must establish to succeed in a passing off action: goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage.
The Ontario Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act provides relief to borrowers when they have been subjected to harsh and unconscionable transactions. This legislation allows the court to grant relief where the cost of the loan is excessive or the transaction is unfair.
Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 (the “Act”), unfair practices include false, misleading, or deceptive representations made by a supplier in the course of selling or promoting a product or service. The Act prohibits suppliers from engaging in unfair practices and provides consumers with various remedies for violations of the Act.
In law, promises matter, particularly regarding the protection of reliance. This post will be about the protection of reasonable reliance on statements made by a party to a contract or a potential contract. In a contract, the preservation of one party’s reliance may be equally as significant as the protection of both parties’ reasonable expectations.
When a default occurs, the mortgagee, or lender, has the right to accelerate the mortgage payment or seek specific performance or damages. They can also sell the property to repay their debt. If the sale proceeds are less than the mortgage debt, the mortgagee can sue the borrower for the deficiency. If the sale results in a surplus, the mortgagee must pass it on to the next encumbrancer or the borrower.
In Ontario, a program, known as the Whistleblower Program, was made available for public comment in 2015 and includes a confidential submission process for individuals to provide information to the OSC. In contrast, whistle-blower protection laws in the United States have a long history dating back over 150 years.
Rule 21 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure is a mechanism for dealing with situations where a claim brought by a plaintiff is clearly of a kind for which no legal relief is available or where the defence submitted by the defendant is not valid. The rule allows for the determination of certain preliminary issues that may dispose of a legal proceeding without the need for a trial, to avoid delays and have issues disposed of promptly and in accordance with the Rules.
In the case of Environmental Waterproofing Inc v. Huron Tract Holdings Inc., [2023] O.J. No. 157, the court was tasked with determining which creditor had priority over a garnishment of funds held by the Sheriff.
In Ontario, under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, directors of a corporation have a legal responsibility to satisfy themselves that the corporation is financially stable before making certain transactions. This includes the payment of dividends, redemption or reacquisition of shares, reduction of stated capital, or provision of financial assistance to certain non-arm’s length persons.
As a director or officer of a public corporation in Ontario, you need to be aware of the legal implications of your actions. The Criminal Code of Canada includes a number of provisions that pertain to fraud, and these can apply to those in leadership positions within a company.
The question of how cryptocurrencies are classified under Canadian bankruptcy law has again been brought to the forefront with the collapse of Bahamas-based cryptocurrency exchange FTX . . . While there is broad acceptance that cryptocurrencies are likely assets, there is no widespread agreement on how to classify them – are they financial assets, intangible assets, inventory, investment property or something else?
When it comes to court-appointed receiverships, there can be much confusion surrounding the issue of rent obligations. The main tension arises from the fact that existing legal principles don’t always align with what a receiver would like to do in practice.
The Consumer Protection Act, 2002 (“CPA”) is a piece of legislation in Ontario that was put in place to safeguard customers’ interests in their interactions with various commercial enterprises. If a consumer’s rights are infringed upon, it details the legal recourses available to them as well as the rights and responsibilities of both businesses and customers.
The Hague Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, 1965 (also known as the Hague Service Convention) is an international treaty that sets out the rules for serving judicial and extrajudicial documents abroad in civil or commercial matters.
Section 37 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (the “Act”) of Ontario regulates the rights and responsibilities of parties in connection to liens on lands for improvements performed under a mistake of title.
A lien is a legal claim or right to a piece of property as security for the payment of a debt or other obligation, according to the Act. A lien on lands for improvements describes a circumstance in which a person has made improvements to a piece of property under the assumption that they are the owner or have some other legal interest in the property.
The oppression remedy is intended to offer shareholders, directors, and officers with a method to seek redress where they have been subjected to oppressive treatment by the corporation. This may include instances in which the corporation has operated in a manner that is unfairly prejudicial to the interests of specific shareholders or has disregarded the rights of its directors or officers.
Rule 31.10 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the right to examine a non-party. This rule allows a party to a legal action to request that a non-party to the action be examined for discovery purposes. Examining a non-party is done to gather information or evidence that may be relevant to the case.
Law Bytes: Commercial Tenancies – Termination or Distraint?
If a party fails to provide satisfactory responses or declines to address valid inquiries during the discovery or cross-examination process, a motion for undertakings and refusals might be needed. This motion requests the court’s intervention to compel the party being examined to comply with their undertakings or address questions that were inappropriately refused.
Law Bytes: Claims Against Cryptoasset Trading Platforms
When it is time to move from reading to resolving, Grigoras Law handles civil, commercial, and appellate matters across Ontario, and select cross-border files. The right counsel changes the calculation. For plaintiffs, that means a practical assessment of viable causes of action, a realistic view of recovery prospects, and a clear read on urgent interim relief if the facts support it. For defendants, it means pleadings assessed, defences triaged, and a strategy that keeps the file from consuming your business while it runs.
A contract has been breached, a partner has acted against your interests, a director has crossed a line, or money is at risk of disappearing. You want to understand what can be recovered, what urgent relief is available before trial, and whether the case is worth running.
Start plaintiff intake → Defendant intakeYou have been served with a statement of claim, an oppression application, or a demand that threatens proceedings. You need the pleadings assessed, the defences triaged, and a strategy that keeps the file from consuming your business while it runs.
Start defendant intake →