Estate Trustees During Litigation (“ETDLs”) are appointed under section 28 of the Estates Act to manage the estate while litigation is ongoing, having all the rights and powers of a general administrator other than distributing the residue of the property. Section 38(2) of the Trustee Act, as confirmed in Ingram v Kulynych, 2024 ONCA 678, supports that an ETDL served with a claim can defend it without an additional court order, unless the original appointment order includes a restriction.

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.

Introduction

Minority shareholders in closely held private corporations are profoundly vulnerable. They are often excluded from decision-making, deprived of financial information, and left to trust the goodwill of controlling shareholders. When relations deteriorate, majority shareholders may move assets, drain value, or take other prejudicial steps before any oversight occurs. In such circumstances, delay benefits the majority. Lawyers representing a minority shareholder must therefore act early and decisively.

One of the most effective early interventions lies in section 149 of Ontario's Business Corporations Act (“OBCA”), which requires that corporations appoint an auditor unless the shareholders of a non-offering corporation have unanimously waived that requirement in writing. The provision creates an underutilized tool. Through the imposition of immediate cost and scrutiny upon an uncooperative majority, a minority shareholder can alter the balance of power long before oppression litigation begins.

Introduction: Ontario’s Pet Paradox

In recent years, pets have assumed a central place in households, families and in the hearts of pet owners. This marks a significant shift in how people conceptualize family, companionship, and emotional attachment. Statistics indicate that more than 70 percent of pet owners describe their animals as family members. This categorization has intensified since the COVID-19 pandemic, which recorded a surge in ownership as many Canadians sough comfort, stability and companionship amid social isolation. Despite this social shift, the law in Ontario continues to categorize pets as mere personal property; a categorization increasingly viewed as archaic, and out of step with expectations and understandings of the pet and pet owner bond.

This “pet paradox” refers to the disconnect between the evolved status of pets within a family unit and the legal treatment of pets amidst a familial breakdown. While Ontario has long taken the position, and continues to view and treat pets like personal property, in the recent case of Franco v Franco;Justice Kraft notably reaffirmed the classification of pets as personal property, reiterating Justice Papageorgiou’s decision in Duboff v Simpson that the ”rightful” owner of the pet was the person who purchased and paid for the pet. Despite the relational factors to consider, as laid out in MacDonald, Justice Kraft legal analysis concluded that questions of who owns a pet are resolved as matters of personal property and not by applying a best interest’s framework.

The requirement to obtain leave before commencing a derivative action under the Ontario Business Corporations Act (“OBCA”) is often viewed as an unwelcome layer of time, complexity, and risk. Ten years after the Ontario Court of Appeal signaled an end to repackaging derivative claims as oppression claims to circumvent leave in Rea v. Wildeboer, complainants still frequently opt for an oppression claim even within the acknowledged overlap between the two remedies. Recent cases provided an opportunity to reflect on how courts are currently approaching the leave test and whether historical apprehension remains warranted. Three lessons emerge.

First, the cause of action pleaded does much of the heavy lifting for both the good faith and corporate interest requirements. Second, the level of scrutiny effectively screens abusive claims without posing an insurmountable hurdle in the right case. Third, procedural orders can address minor concerns without barring meritorious actions.

Introduction

Amid the wide-ranging shifts in Canada-US relations, data sovereignty - the legal right to assert authority over data - and its connection to data security has become a pressing concern for Canadians. The advent of artificial intelligence ("AI") underscores the importance of data sovereignty. Data used to train and deploy AI systems hosted on cloud infrastructure may be subject to foreign access and jurisdictional oversight. The cross-border flow of this data can influence how AI systems are developed, governed and regulated.

Cloud providers supply the infrastructure that gives users access to storage, applications and computing resources online, eliminating the need for physical servers or local software. AI systems deployed in the cloud rely on this infrastructure to store data, train models, and deliver services over the internet. In a global cloud environment, laws from various countries may simultaneously apply to data. While major US providers offer scalable, reliable and cost-effective cloud services, data stored in a cloud environment can be subject to foreign law, even if it stays in Canada. For example, the US's Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act (CLOUD Act), enacted in 2018, codified the principle that US law enforcement agencies can compel US-based cloud providers to produce data in their control - regardless of where that data is stored.

If you are a regular at the courthouse, please take a moment to complete this brief survey on the food services available.

It should only take 1–3 minutes. Your responses will remain confidential, and providing contact information is entirely optional.