While the prorogation of Parliament stalled impending legislation drafted to regulate high impact AI systems, the Canadian government has ramped up its efforts to promote responsible and ethical AI use.

Every week the TLA librarians provide a status update of select popular federal & provincial statutes & regulations. Members are invited to submit requests for updates on certain legal areas or statutes that are currently not tracked.

When does the inadvertent disclosure of solicitor-client communications constitute a waiver of privilege? What can you do to prevent inadvertent disclosure of privileged documents and, if (when) it happens, preserve privilege despite the disclosure?

Tension between rules of evidence and the law of privilege

The rules of evidence minimize the risk that a trier of fact relies on untrustworthy evidence. In contrast, the law of privilege prevents a trier of fact from reviewing trustworthy evidence, but only when the disclosure of such evidence would trench on the public interest in preserving relationships underpinned by confidentiality (e.g., the solicitor-client relationship).

I. Introduction

What counts as a "material change" in a company's "business, operations, or capital" and when must it be disclosed? The answer isn't always clear, and that very question lies at the heart of Lundin Mining, a case that was dismissed, appealed, and went before the Supreme Court of Canada (the "SCC") on January 15, 2025. The anticipated decision, which has yet to be released, could result in a material change to disclosure obligations of public companies.

II. Background

Lundin Mining centers on allegations that Lundin Mining Corporation ("Lundin") failed to promptly disclose significant operational issues at its mine in Chile; namely, a pit wall instability, which arises when the sides of an open pit mine become weak or start to move, and frequently results in a rockslide.

The Canadian Competition Act has seen a whirlwind of changes over the past three years. One major change to the Act is the expansion of remedies available to private parties through Competition Tribunal litigation, as well as an adjustment to the test by which private parties may seek leave to bring Tribunal applications. Specifically, in addition to the ability to order increased administrative monetary penalties, or (“AMPs”) - now up to 3% of worldwide turnover - the Tribunal will soon (as of June 2025) have the ability to order payments directly to those injured by reviewable conduct. The type of actions which may be challenged by private parties has also recently expanded to include abuse of dominant market position, and the test for private parties to obtain leave from the Tribunal to bring cases has been adjusted to make obtaining leave somewhat easier. The combination of these changes adds to the risks associated with allegations of abuse of dominance, as well as to the likelihood of challenges by those affected, in addition to government challenges.

In the realm of wills and estates, solicitors’ negligence claims often focus on estate planning and the execution of testamentary instruments and the corresponding standard of care. However, such claims can also arise from estate litigation and even the settlement of estate claims. This danger is aptly demonstrated by Wiener v. Strickland, a recent solicitor’s negligence case in which a client alleged that his former lawyer did not follow his instructions during estate mediation. Inspired by the Court of Appeal’s decision in this case, this article focuses on minimizing the risk of negligence claims arising from assisting clients in the settlement of estates disputes. First, the article reviews the test for solicitor’s negligence applicable to settlements; then it identifies some precautions that lawyers can take when assisting clients with the settlement of estate litigation, to minimize the risk of future negligence claims.

On July 1, 2025, Ontario’s public sector will face new cybersecurity and AI regulations, but organizations need to start preparing now. This is not just about compliance. It is about risk management, transparency, and accountability. Organizations must be proactive to ensure they are ready for these changes. Jennifer Hunter, Partner at Lerners LLP, explains what these new regulations mean for public sector entities and how they can prepare.

Lexis+ Canada is now available at the TLA Library. Explore how the new and improved interface brings together four LexisNexis products, allowing you to seamlessly search Quicklaw, Practical Guidance, key textbooks, and more!

INTRODUCTION

Ontario has been privy to franchise specific legislation for well over 20 years now. The Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 imposes an obligation on a franchisor to deliver to a prospective franchisee a disclosure document (an “FDD”) which complies with the Wishart Act and the regulations made thereunder. As consumer protection legislation, the Wishart Act, and franchise legislation in other provinces, is designed to afford prospective franchisees the information they need to make an informed investment decision. 

As an incentive to franchisors to comply with their obligation to deliver an FDD, the Wishart Act allows a franchisee to rescind a franchise agreement: (a) within 60 days after receiving the FDD where a franchisor failed to provide an FDD or statement of material change within set timeframes, or where the contents of the FDD fail to meet the requirements set forth in the Wishart Act; and (b) within two (2) years of the signing of the franchise agreement if the FDD was never delivered, or if the FDD was so incomplete that it was deemed to constitute non-delivery.

The market for preconstruction condominiums and newly built homes remains under pressure. Rising interest rates and a volatile bond market have driven mortgage costs upwards and appraisals downward, leaving purchasers in tough waters. Purchasers of new builds are contractually bound—having paid deposits and committed to purchase prices set in a different economic climate. For some, higher interest rates prevent them from securing sufficient financing to close. Others face personal hardships or were misinformed about the transaction process. Regardless of the reason, the fallout from failing to close can be severe: deposits may be forfeited, and damages claims can exceed what buyers ever imagined. Unfortunately, many purchasers who failed to close in 2023 and 2024 are now being served with court actions naming them as Defendants and, in a lot of cases, bankruptcy is the only option.

It has been approximately a year since we last wrote on this topic. In this article, we build on our previous discussion by providing updates on two critical legal developments for preconstruction buyers: the evolving use of relief from forfeiture and the emerging "improvident sale" argument in damages claims. These updates, grounded in recent case law, may serve as precedents for arguments we may see considered in this new wave of failed transaction actions.