Most family lawyers have used a joint expert at some point. Fewer have a clear sense of when joint retainers advance a file and when they create more problems than they solve. The difference matters. A well-managed joint retainer saves money, narrows issues, and moves files toward settlement. A poorly managed one generates motion after motion, escalates costs, and poisons settlement prospects.

Understanding where the line sits between those outcomes is not intuitive. It requires familiarity not only with the Family Law Rules, but with how courts apply them and how joint expert retainers operate in practice. This article unpacks the framework under Rules 20.1 and 20.2 of the Family Law Rules, flags the circumstances where joint retainers make sense, and identifies the practical problems that derail them.

The standard of procedural fairness in the context of adjudications initiated under the Construction Act is still nascent. Since the introduction of the adjudication process in 2019, very few matters have been brought to judicial review on the basis of procedural fairness. Adding to the significance of this question is the greater availability of adjudication since Bill 216: Building Ontario For You Act (Budget Measures) came into force in 2024 and permitted “a party to a contract [to] refer a dispute with the other party to the contract respecting any prescribed matter or any matter agreed to by the parties to adjudication.”

Despite a lack of established law, parties to an adjudication may still wish to evaluate the prospect of judicial review of an adjudicator’s decision. This article discusses the available resources that counsel can consider in order to provide guidance on whether procedural fairness is a live issue arising out of an adjudicatory decision.

If a will contains a drafting error, it is well-established in Ontario that the courts may be able to correct it after the testator has passed away through rectification. While this doctrine has been utilized successfully in numerous cases in recent years, rectification can still be difficult to obtain, as demonstrated by a string of recent cases where the courts dismissed requests for this relief. Not only is clear and cogent evidence required to obtain rectification, but in most cases, particularly where rectification is sought after probate has been granted, it appears that such evidence must come from the will-drafter, attesting to the drafting error. This article explores why evidence from the drafting solicitor is so critical when seeking rectification of a will, and then examines the rare circumstances in which this relief may be granted without such evidence. Lastly, a few practical tips for preparing an application to rectify a will are provided.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal's recent decision in Gitxaala v British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner) ("Gitxaala") dramatically increases the ability of Indigenous rights and title holders to use the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People ("UNDRIP") to advance and protect their interests. This article summarizes the decision and highlights two ways we have begun using this decision in our advocacy in British Columbia and across the country: 

• UNDRIP may expand the Duty to Consult and Accommodate ("DTCA"); and
• UNDRIP may be enforceable in the courts where the Crown is not delivering on its promise to recognize and implement UNDRIP rights.

Background

A claim is provable in bankruptcy if it falls under ss. 121–122 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, C. D-3 (“BIA”). If the obligation existed before bankruptcy, the resulting debt is part of the bankruptcy, even if the amount is unknown, contingent, or arises later. Under s. 69.3 of the BIA, all provable claims including family law claims are stayed upon bankruptcy, unless the court lifts the stay under s. 69.4 of the BIA. This paper addresses the impact of bankruptcy on support, equalization, and costs, and provides practical guidance for counsel.

Introduction

Summary judgment is a procedural tool intended to provide a fair and just alternative procedure, “without the expense and delay of a trial”. The Construction Act (the “Act”) does not explicitly provide for the availability of summary judgment; however, it is widely accepted that parties may bring a motion for summary judgment in construction lien matters. In fact, in Industrial Refrigerated Systems Inc v Quality Meat Packers, the court held that leave should rarely be refused, particularly when the motion has been heard on its merits.

It remains to be seen, however, whether a summary judgment can satisfy section 37 of the Act. In this article, we argue that the answer is that summary judgment should satisfy section 37. Summary judgment is a dispositive procedure, which, once granted, disposes of the claim. If leave is granted under the Act, it can dispose of a claim for lien, leaving nothing to be set down for trial.

For good reason, the law of evidence restricts the admission of irrelevant details that may distract a trier of fact or give rise to improper inferences. There are exceptions, instances where such details provide valuable context that assists the trier of fact in understanding or evaluating other evidence. Despite their technical irrelevance, such details may be admissible as “narrative”.

Unsurprisingly, a doctrine that lowers the standard of relevance for admissibility is ripe for abuse. In MJL Enterprises Inc. v SAL Marketing Inc., (“MJL”), the Ontario Court of Appeal criticized the routine admission of documents and testimony “as narrative” and revisited the proper application of the narrative evidence doctrine. The Court had harsh words for those who use “narrative” as a convenient excuse for bringing in evidence without rigorous examination. At the same time, the Court affirmed the value of properly adduced narrative evidence.

This article explains the legal foundation of narrative evidence, unpacks MJL, and offers practical suggestions for counsel who seek to admit or resist narrative material.

The Ontario Superior Court’s decision in Shatilla v. Sorichetti, 2025 ONSC 6339 offers a clear and forceful reminder that even the most carefully negotiated “full and final” minutes of settlement cannot permanently waive a child’s right to support or insulate child support from judicial review. 

The case also sends a cautionary message to family-law practitioners about the growing use of liquidated damages clauses designed to deter future litigation — particularly where those clauses operate, in effect, to penalize a parent for seeking to collect child support. 

When an application for a certificate of appointment of estate trustee is filed, any party with a financial interest in the deceased person’s estate may object to the application. However, there may be uncertainty as to the circumstances under which a notice of objection is merited. While rule 75.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure addresses who may file an objection, which form to use, when the objection is to be filed, and where to file it – the “who”, “what”, “where” and “when” of objecting – the Rules do not address the “why”, being the grounds for filing an objection. Given the Rules’ silence on this point, this article examines a number of circumstances which may necessitate filing a notice of objection

The decision in Ajax v 1940475 Ontario Inc concerns a municipal enforcement application brought under section 38 of the Building Code Act, 1992 (the “Act”). The Town of Ajax (the “Town”) sought a court order requiring the removal of all above-grade work that had been constructed on a mixed use development without a building permit and in the absence of mandatory inspections. The case arose after a series of directives issued by the Town were ignored and after construction was advanced beyond the limits of a conditional permit. The application required the court to examine the purpose of the permitting and inspection regime and to determine whether demolition was necessary to uphold the integrity of that framework.