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
Silence is generally not fraud, but in a range of circumstances it is, and the consequences are the same as those of 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.
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
When people or organizations place their trust in someone to act on their behalf, the law imposes a special standard of conduct known as a
Breach of Confidence in Canadian Law: Trust, Misuse, and Remedies In commercial and professional relationships, trust is currency. Parties routinely exchange non-public information, such as
Urgent Commercial Remedies in Ontario: Protecting Rights Before It’s Too Late Commercial disputes can escalate quickly, especially where there is a risk that evidence will
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 part of every civil action 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 the sharpest instrument 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 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 costs call for a carefully 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 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.
Pleadings are the bedrock of any civil litigation case in Ontario. What they are, how they work and why they matter should be understood by anyone involved in a lawsuit, as plaintiff or as defendant. 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.
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.
The range of mortgagor remedies, from redemption and challenging an improvident sale to injunctions, relief against forfeiture, disputing a deficiency and the consumer-protection rules, shows a legal system that insists on fairness and procedure.
When borrowers default on their mortgage obligations, the mortgagee (often a bank, private lender, or another financial institution) has several remedies to recover its loan amount and secure or dispose of the underlying property.
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.
Knowledge of the contract damages rules (expectation and 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 is one of the most frequently litigated torts in Ontario. This article explains the three-element test, what makes a statement defamatory under Canadian law, how courts assess reference and publication, and where the line falls between actionable defamation and protected expression.
Enforcing a foreign judgment in Ontario involves a body of law that respects international judgments while safeguarding local standards. Ontario courts generally uphold foreign decisions, allowing creditors to seek enforcement through a registration or recognition process. However, local debtors may raise defences, such as jurisdictional challenges or public policy conflicts. Grigoras Law acts for parties enforcing a judgment and for parties resisting one.
In Ontario, defamation claims can involve various types of damages, with aggravated damages being one of the critical compensatory mechanisms. Aggravated damages are awarded to provide additional compensation when the defendant’s conduct has caused further harm to the plaintiff beyond the initial defamation.
The law of defamation has changed with the rise of the Internet and social media platforms. The traditional principles of defamation law, which were primarily localized, now face new challenges in determining where a defamatory statement published online has caused harm and where legal action should be pursued.
Consent can be a complete defence in defamation cases. If someone agrees to a defamatory statement, they can’t later claim defamation. This can be explicit, like signing a contract, or implied through actions, such as repeating a defamatory remark publicly. Understanding this legal concept can help in situations where consent might affect your rights.
Defamation law often treads a fine line between protecting individual reputation and upholding freedom of expression. In that balance, the defence of justification, or truth, has a central place.
For now, Thorpe v. Boakye serves as a leading case in understanding the evolving law of digital platform liability. It highlights a significant divergence between Canadian and U.S. legal systems in handling online defamation. Canadian courts appear more open to considering platforms like Google as publishers and thus potentially liable, whereas U.S. law, under the CDA, leans heavily towards protecting these platforms from such liabilities.
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.
In the world of false statements and their legal repercussions, malicious falsehood stands out as a unique tort focusing on economic harm stemming from disparaging remarks about one’s property or goods.
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 →