In short, no.

The Children’s Law Reform Act defines “contact” as “the time a child spends in the care of a person other than the child’s parents, whether or not the child is physically with the person during that time” (Section 18(1)).

In Ontario, although grandparents do not have an automatic legal right to have contact with their grandchildren, they do have the right to make an application for contact. Section 21(3) of the Children’s Law Reform Act states that “any person other than the parent of a child, including a grandparent, may apply to a court for a contact order with respect to the child”. The legislation clearly identifies grandparents as persons who may apply for a contact order from the Court.

1255870 Ontario Limited v. Metrolinxis a recent decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal with respect to the quantum of compensation payable by Metrolinx to 1255870 Ontario Limited (the "Claimant") due to the expropriation of its property, municipally known as 68-70 Parliament Street, Toronto. In this matter the Tribunal was tasked with making a determination of the highest and best use of the property and its dollar-per-square-foot buildable value.

The Tribunal also had to tackle the issues of whether the scheme for which the property was expropriated was properly screened out in accordance with Section 14(4)(b) of the Expropriations Act and whether the lease of a separated, but related, corporation at the property should warrant a deduction in the compensation payable. This article focuses on these two issues.

Toronto is a hub of people and communities from all over the world. For family lawyers that means working for clients that have their feet planted in more than one and possibly several jurisdictions. Family law disputes encompass not just international parenting disagreements but also discovery of assets and compelling evidence from witnesses.

In the past few years, Canadian Courts, administrative tribunal bodies and law societies have rather rushed to adapt to the increasing availability and widespread use of generative artificial intelligence applications such as ChatGPT. This effort to enact guidelines and rules to manage the use of these new tools was undoubtedly, at least in part, a result of the growing number of instances of lawyers in the United States relying on “hallucinated” case-law citations in their submissions.

This article provides a summary and analysis of the Court of Appeal for Ontario (“ONCA”)’s decision in Shirodkar v. Coinbase Global Inc. It discusses the implications of the court’s conclusions for civil litigators who grapple with questions of jurisdiction in their day-to-day practice, and how the court’s findings may require revisiting well-established dogmas about forum selection clauses.

As real estate lawyers practicing in Ontario, we find ourselves navigating a landscape that seems to be constantly shifting beneath our feet. A particularly pronounced trend, and one that’s increasingly demanding our attention, is the notable uptick in Power of Sale proceedings. These now form a significant, and growing, portion of the sales and refinance transactions crossing our desks.

In April 2025, the Ontario Civil Rules Review Working Group (the “Working Group”) released its Phase 2 Consultation Paper in which it proposes broad reforms to the Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Rules”). The proposals purport to reduce costs, encourage early resolution and accelerate access to trial, and would apply to all civil cases commenced in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. If implemented, changes would be made to the complete litigation process, including pre-litigation protocols, the commencement of claims, discovery, and the timing of trials.

In 2024, the Ontario Court of Appeal provided additional commentary and guidance for non-competition provisions in the context of the purchase and sale of a business in Dr. C. Sims Dentistry Professional Corporation v. Cooke. Non-compete provisions are a common restrictive covenant in the sale of a business. Many business owners rely on these provisions when they purchase a business to ensure the vendor is not setting up a new business close-by and in direct competition to the one they just sold. In the Dr. Sims case, the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the trial judge that a 5-year 15 kilometer non-compete provision was reasonable in the context of the sale of a dental practice and therefore enforceable with its terms.

The Federal Court is failing to ensure that Health Canada regulates potentially dangerous pesticide products like Roundup® in a precautionary manner that protects the public interest in environmental protection and public health. A new approach is urgently needed.

In 2024, Ontario’s top court revisited an insurer’s duty to defend its insured when multiple policies are available to respond. The Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”) reviewed the role of non-concurrent insurers and pushed back on coverage overreach. Two recent decisions – Loblaw Companies Limited v. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada and Live Nation Ontario Concerts GP, Inc. v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada – were released within months of each other and, although factually distinct, share some common themes. The two cases emphasize the primacy of pleadings, the inviolability of policy structures (such as self-insured retentions), and the limits on equitable contribution among insurers.

At their core, both cases tackle two insurance law questions: who actually has to defend, and what are the defending insurer’s obligations?

I.  Tightening the Duty to Defend

(i). The Pleadings Rule

In Live Nation, a concertgoer sued Live Nation Ontario Concerts GP, Inc. (“Live Nation”) after being injured by security staff employed by NorthWest Protection Services Ltd. (“NorthWest”), a contract security company retained by Live Nation.

NorthWest’s security services agreement required it to procure and maintain Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) insurance coverage, naming Live Nation as additional insured on the certificate of insurance under a policy with Aviva Insurance Company of Canada (“Aviva”) (the “Aviva Policy”). Although Live Nation had a policy with Starr Indemnity & Liability Company (“Starr”), it had a self-insured retention of one million dollars that had to be exhausted before Starr’s duty to defend and pay defence costs was triggered.