February 12th, 2018
In Nadrarajalingam v. Zhao, Shaun Laubman, James Renihan and Brad Vermeersch won judgment for their client following an expedited trial. The plaintiff commenced an action to challenge whether a debt owed to the client was due and owing. Less than two months after the claim was commenced, a hybrid trial was held and judgment was obtained for the client. The reasons for judgment can be found here: Nadrarajalingam v. Zhao – Corrected Reasons for decision 2018-02-02
February 12th, 2018
In Liu v. Lin, Shaun Laubman, Brad Vermeersch and Phil Underwood successfully obtained a Mareva Order for their client. The Mareva prevents the defendant from selling, encumbering or otherwise dealing with his primary asset in Ontario, his home, before trial.
January 22nd, 2018
Matthew Gottlieb, Paul Fruitman and Fahad Siddiqui successfully protected a privileged settlement meeting in an appeal before the Divisional Court. A secret recording of the meeting was released to the media and a partial transcript was filed in Court. LOLG lawyers obtained emergency interim and permanent Orders preventing disclosure. The Divisional Court upheld the permanent Order protecting the meeting, declined to revisit the costs awarded below, and awarded additional costs for the appeal. The Court’s decision can be accessed here: Singh v. PCPO (Div. Ct.)
January 16th, 2018
On January 16, 2018, Ian Matthews spoke at the Law Society of Ontario’s “Powerful Pleadings” continuing professional development program for lawyers. Ian’s topic was “Drafting Clear and Effective Statements of Claim”.
December 20th, 2017
On December 18, 2017, in a victory for civil liberties, Associate Chief Justice Frank Marrocco of the Ontario Superior Court struck down Canada’s solitary confinement laws as unconstitutional. The Court declared that the current regime’s lack of any independent review of decisions to keep inmates in confinement is unconstitutional, and made important findings regarding the harms caused by keeping inmates in confinement. Indeed, the Court recognized that in light of the voluminous evidence before the Court, there can be “no serious question the practice is harmful” and “quite capable of producing serious permanent observable negative mental health effects” that “can manifest in as little as 48 hours”.
The constitutional challenge to Canada’s solitary confinement laws was launched by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association in early 2015. Lawyers for the CCLA were Jonathan Lisus, Larissa Moscu and Fahad Siddiqui of LOLG, with co-counsel from McCarthy Tetrault. A copy of the decision can be found here: Corp of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association v HMQ 121117