As AI continues to shape the future of legal practice in Canada, many lawyers are turning to these tools for faster research, document review, and drafting. But with great power comes great responsibility. Recent cases have shown that careless use of AI can lead to serious consequences, including fabricated case precedents and misleading the court. Read more in this latest article by Sayeh Hassan on the challenges and best practices of integrating AI into legal work.

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.

The updated Rules of Civil Procedure in Ontario, effective June 16, 2025 through Ontario Regulation 50/25, introduce significant amendments by updating the procedures for settlement approvals in civil litigation. The amendments clarify the requirements for filing motion records, establish redaction and disclosure protocols, and introduce new provisions for partial settlement agreements and parties under disability.

In a world that celebrates hustle, perfection, and polished highlight reels, it is easy to lose sight of yourself. As legal professionals, we are often expected to have it all together… thriving careers, ideal lives, and unshakable resilience. But with high rates of burn out and job dissatisfaction it seems like something is missing, maybe self-awareness is a key to a happier life and more rewarding career?

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.

Multi-Crown class actions are a novel solution for governments seeking to hold multi-jurisdictional defendants to account for harms on a national scale. Late last year, in Sanis Health Inc. v. British Columbia (“Sanis Health”), the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the constitutionality of this model. Justice Karakatsanis’ majority opinion also reaches beyond the multi-Crown class action model, delivering the Supreme Court’s first comprehensive endorsement of the broader national class action model that – until now – had developed across Canada largely without the Supreme Court’s national oversight.

British Columbia’s Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act

In August 2018, British Columbia launched a class action lawsuit against opioid drug manufacturers, wholesalers, and distributors, alleging that their marketing practices had contributed to the opioid addiction epidemic and harmed the public healthcare system. Later that year, B.C. enacted the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act (“ORA”). Like its precursor tobacco cost recovery legislation, the ORA creates a direct cause of action allowing the B.C. government to sue opioid makers and distributors to recover added health care costs and other damages created by the opioid addiction crisis. Such a legislative mechanism for cost recovery was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in British Columbia v Imperial Tobacco (“Imperial Tobacco”).

Summary

Quantz v. Ontario is a key decision, arising from an accidental disclosure of Ontario Disability Support Program client information, that will have an influence on future privacy class actions. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed this certification motion and described important limitations on the tort of intrusion upon seclusion. The court emphasized that the tort requires a deliberate invasion of privacy and clear evidence of wrongdoing, rather than an accidental leak. This decision is consistent with recent Court of Appeal cases, such as Owsianik v. Equifax Canada and Del Giudice v. Thompson, by which the court restricted the scope of liability for privacy breaches.

Background

On December 20, 2018, an ODSP case worker emailed a spreadsheet containing approximately 45,000 ODSP client names, emails addresses, and ODSP identification numbers to all Ministry case workers. That email was not an improper disclosure of confidential data, as the recipient case workers would already have had access to this information. However, one of the case workers then forwarded the email with the spreadsheet to 103 ODSP clients.

The plaintiff, who was one of the individuals listed on the spreadsheet, claimed that the disclosure of the spreadsheet to the 103 clients identified those ODSP clients thereby stigmatizing them, and impaired their privacy rights as the files contained confidential medical and financial information. The plaintiff asserted several causes of action including intrusion upon seclusion, negligence, breach of confidence, and publication of private facts. The defendant argued that no actionable tort occurred, that the email was sent without willful intent, and that there was no harm or loss. The plaintiff did not allege harm other than anxiety caused by learning of the email.