Administrative monetary penalties (“AMPs”) are an enforcement tool for regulatory bodies to deter non-compliance. AMPs impose financial sanctions for regulatory contraventions in an efficient manner as they do not require a traditional court proceeding. Since AMPs are applied through an administrative process and do not result in a criminal record, they are viewed as administrative or civil rather than penal in nature. In some regimes, AMPs may reach the million dollar and beyond range, which raises constitutional concerns about due process and the lack of safeguards to prevent wrongful determinations of liability for contraventions.

In June 2009, Parliament enacted the Environmental Violations Administrative Monetary Penalties Act (“EVAMPA”), initiating the use of AMPs to prevent violations of environmental laws. EVAMPA provides that AMPs are enforced on an absolute liability basis as the due diligence defence and the mistake of fact defence are not available. The Act also set limits on the AMPs, with a maximum penalty for a violation by an individual being $5,000 and that of a corporation being $25,000. The regime was completed in June 2017 when the Environmental Violations Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations (the “Regulations”) came into force. The Regulations provide the formula for calculating an AMP, including baseline penalties for different violations and aggravating factors that increase the amount of the penalty. The aggravating factors consist of a history of non-compliance, the extent of environmental harm caused, and the amount of economic gain resulting from the violation.

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.

Feeling overwhelmed about taking parental leave as a lawyer? You’re not alone. Between firm policies, file handoffs, and the return-to-work juggle — it’s a lot to manage. Michelle Stephenson, Associate at Corman Feiner, shares key considerations before, during, and after leave to help you feel more prepared.

Financial expert evidence often plays an important role in arbitration. The expert’s job is to break down complex financial and technical issues and present them clearly to the tribunal. Curious about what happens behind the scenes as an expert prepares and delivers their opinion? Read more.

New to appeals? Not all Orders are automatically stayed! Kira Domratchev from Gowling WLG explains when a stay applies, the key legal test, and why pursuing an appeal requires careful strategy.

Lawyers are expected to stay current. Are you confident in your process for tracking legislative changes? Learn practical strategies and tools to stay informed and avoid costly oversights.

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.