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.
The freedom of the internet allows for uninhibited self-expression. While many embrace this freedom to share positive stories, ideas, and feedback, others exploit it to spread malicious rumors or make derogatory comments without facing immediate consequences. The cloak of anonymity can embolden such individuals, making the internet a potential hotbed for defamation.
In the constantly evolving realm of legal jurisprudence, the case of Sase Aggregate Ltd. v. Langdon offers intriguing insights into the principles of knowing receipt, knowing assistance, and unjust enrichment. This article dives into why Sase Aggregate Ltd., the appellant, was unsuccessful in both its initial application to the lower court and its subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
For many business owners, the question “How much is my business actually worth?” weighs heavy on their minds. This is particularly true if you’re considering selling your business. The value of your business significantly influences the returns you receive from its sale. This factor not only affects your negotiation strategies but also has potential implications for your future financial well-being. The process of determining this value is known as business valuation, and it’s an intricate, multilayered exercise that requires expert knowledge.
The recent appeal in Park Lawn Corp. v. Kahu Capital Partners Ltd. to the Court of Appeal of Ontario has thrown open the floodgates of discussions on the costs, efficiency, and economic implications of anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) motions.
When the invisible line of respect between individuals in society is crossed through defamatory comments, the law provides a remedy through defamation lawsuits. However, these cases are not black-and-white. Their outcomes can be influenced by the actions and behaviour of involved parties – both before and after the publication of the defamation. In Ontario, this scrutiny of conduct plays a pivotal role in shaping legal outcomes.
Understanding defamation law, especially when considering the potential damages, is no small feat. The nuances and complexities can be overwhelming, yet having a clear comprehension of what the damages entail is invaluable for plaintiffs and defendants alike. In Ontario, defamation law encompasses three key types of damages: Aggravated, Special, and Punitive Damages.
There is an ever-present tension between the right to freedom of speech and the need to protect individuals and corporations from defamation. In Ontario, Canada, the Protection of Public Participation Act 2015 (Ontario PPPA) aims to tip the balance towards the former, providing a robust defence for those who choose to express their views on matters of public interest.
When we talk about “parliamentary privilege,” we refer to a set of rights and protections that enable lawmakers at the federal and provincial levels in Canada to perform their duties without fear of being legally liable. These privileges safeguard the democratic principles Canada is built upon, ensuring each branch of government respects the others’ roles.
In 2019, Ontario recognized “publicity which places an individual in a false light” – the “false light tort” – as a part of the common law. Despite its relatively straightforward definition, the false light tort remains puzzling due to its ambiguous parameters, unique elements, and potential utility.
How does Canadian tax law impact professional athletes? To understand this, we need to think about multiple scenarios, and consider the athlete’s residency, their affiliations with Canadian or foreign-based teams, and the ever-changing political landscape surrounding the taxation of sports franchises in Canada.
When your cargo or luggage gets damaged or lost during international air transport, you might think that the airline will compensate you for your losses. However, the legal landscape surrounding airline liability for international cargo and baggage is complex. It’s governed by international conventions like the Warsaw Convention and the Montreal Convention, which establish specific rules and liability limits for airlines.
The business judgment rule has its roots firmly planted in the need to facilitate 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.
Civil fraud, also known as deceit, is a serious economic tort or civil wrong that involves a deliberate deception through false representation. It requires four elements: a false representation by the defendant, their knowledge (or recklessness) of the falsehood, the plaintiff’s action influenced by this representation, and a loss suffered by the plaintiff as a result.
The judicial system in Nevada plays a critical role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring the fair administration of justice. The courts covered include Municipal Courts, Justice Courts, Small Claims Court, District Courts, Family Courts, and Appellate Courts, comprising the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.
An “insider” is broadly defined, including the corporation, directors, officers, major shareholders, employees, and professionals like lawyers or accountants. Liability extends to those receiving confidential information from insiders (tippees). Insiders cannot tip others for trading advantages. If an insider tips an unrelated person, they are liable for damages and accountable to the corporation for benefits received.
In recent months, the rise of advanced artificial intelligence and natural language processing technologies, such as Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, has sparked a debate about their potential impact on various industries, including the legal profession. The million-dollar question inevitably arises: Will LLMs replace lawyers (and perhaps judges also), or at the very least, lead to a massive paradigm shift in law practice?
Social media has changed advertising, and while traditional media still has a place in the market, social media’s massive potential consumer base is hard to ignore. Advertisers must now concentrate on social media engagement.
In defamation cases, an apology may play a crucial role in the assessment of damages. However, it is important to note that courts lack the jurisdiction to order defendants to apologize. The existence of an apology, the sincerity of the defendant, and the extent of the publicity given to the apology are factors that courts consider when determining damages.
Trespass to the person is a longstanding area of tort law that addresses actions involving direct physical contact or threats to an individual’s physical or mental well-being.
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.
Parenting time and decision-making responsibility are two different things in family law. This blog post will focus on parenting time, a term that has replaced the meaning of what was previously called “access” in the Divorce Act and most provincial statutes.
Traditionally, fraud has been understood as involving deceit or intentional misrepresentation. However, the courts have expanded the concept to encompass equitable or constructive fraud, which includes various forms of unfair dealing and unconscionable conduct in contractual matters.
Yes, believe it or not, you can sue a city. Municipal corporations, which include cities, are no longer immune to liability as they were in the past. They can be held accountable for various wrongdoings, such as tortious acts, breaches of contract, and neglecting statutory duties.
Rylands v. Fletcher is a landmark case in English tort law that established the principle of strict liability for certain harmful activities. The rule states that a person who uses their land for non-natural purposes and accumulates a potentially dangerous substance on their property may be held strictly liable if that substance escapes and causes damage to another’s property.
Fair comment is one of defamation law’s most important defences. It protects opinion on matters of public interest, but only when the underlying facts are true, the statement is recognizable as comment and not fact, and the opinion is one that a person could honestly hold. This article explains every element of the defence, the role of malice, and what the standard actually means in practice.
Most people focus on whether their defamation claim is strong. But in Ontario, whether you can even bring the claim depends on a six-week statutory notice requirement that must be met before filing. Miss it, and the action is gone regardless of its merits. This article explains exactly what the notice requirement demands, how discoverability affects the clock, and how the rules differ across Canada.
The tort of conversion primarily deals with the unlawful interference of another person’s movable personal property, known as chattels. In contrast to trespass to goods, conversion demands more than just a simple invasion of the plaintiff’s possessory rights; it necessitates an interference that denies the plaintiff’s title.
The term “principal residence” refers to a taxpayer’s primary dwelling or housing unit for a specific tax year. The taxpayer, their spouse, common-law partner, former spouse, or child must ordinarily inhabit the residence. A personal trust can also claim a principal residence if it is regularly occupied by a specified beneficiary or their immediate family.
The tort of intimidation, a relatively less explored area of common law, has been recognized and established through a series of judicial decisions. The House of Lords in Rookes v. Barnard (“Rookes“) formally acknowledged the existence of this tort, which has since been accepted as part of the common law in Canada.
The Canadian cosmetics industry generates billions of dollars. In 2021, the cosmetics market in Canada generated approximately USD 1.24 billion in revenue, and industry revenue is expected to grow by 1.45% annually to reach USD 1.8 billion by 2024.
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