Purchase This Domain

Criminal procedure — Interveners in criminal applications — Judicial independence — Administration of justice — Applications under ss. 682 and 683 of the Criminal Code — Leave to intervene granted to the Office of the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice and the Ontario Superior Court Judges’ Association — Did the proposed interveners establish that their participation would provide a useful contribution? — Test for granting leave to intervene in criminal mattersCivil procedure — Interveners — Scope of participation — Terms of intervention — Applications under ss. 682 and 683 of the Criminal Code — Interveners permitted to file factums, rely on materials, and make oral submissions — What is the appropriate scope of participation for interveners in criminal applications? — Rule 30 of the Criminal Appeal Rules governs the extent of intervener participationEvidence — Sealing orders — Fresh evidence applications — Criminal procedure — Crown’s application for a sealing order on future materials filed in relation to ss. 682 and 683 applications — Whether r. 27(10) of the Criminal Appeal Rules mandates a sealing order — Application dismissed as r. 27(10) does not apply to the materials in question

Civil procedure — Jurisdiction — Forum selection clause — Standard of review — Appellants sought to stay proceedings in Ontario based on lack of jurisdiction or a forum selection clause favoring a French court — Did the motion judge err in concluding Ontario had jurisdiction and declining to enforce the forum selection clause? — Standard of review for jurisdictional rulings and forum selection clauses is palpable and overriding error absent an extricable error of lawEvidence — Jurisdictional analysis — Pleadings and evidence — Appellants argued that the plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient material facts to establish jurisdiction — Did the motion judge err in assessing the sufficiency of the pleadings and evidence? — Jurisdictional analysis requires pleadings to assert core elements of a cause of action and establish a connection to OntarioConstruction — Emergency generators — Alleged catastrophic failure — Claims arose from the failure of emergency generators at a hospital in Ontario — Did the alleged torts occurring in Ontario establish jurisdiction? — Jurisdiction established where the tort occurred in Ontario, including where damage was sustainedContracts — Forum selection clause — Applicability and enforceability — Appellants relied on a forum selection clause in a contract assigning jurisdiction to a French court — Did the motion judge err in finding the clause inapplicable and unenforceable? — Forum selection clauses must be proven valid, clear, enforceable, and applicable to the cause of action

Securities — Disclosure and registration requirements — Class action — Alleged violations of Ontario Securities Act and other provincial securities statutes by failing to meet disclosure and registration requirements for security dealers — Whether crypto rights contracts and tokens constitute securities under the Act — Framework for determining compliance with securities legislation — Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5Contracts — Forum selection clauses — Interpretation of Canadian User Agreement — Whether forum selection clause in Canadian User Agreement retroactively conferred jurisdiction over non-Canadian respondents — Standard of review for interpretation of standard form contracts — Governing law and jurisdiction clauses — Principles from Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance CoCivil procedure — Jurisdiction simpliciter — Real and substantial connection test — Application of Van Breda framework — Whether accessing a global online platform from Ontario constitutes a presumptive connecting factor — Rebuttal of presumptive connecting factors — Principles from Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17Civil procedure — Forum non conveniens — Discretionary stay of proceedings — Whether Ireland is the more appropriate forum for adjudicating claims — Consideration of comity, judicial resources, and risk of conflicting decisions — Loss of juridical advantage due to absence of class action regime in Ireland — Principles from Kaynes v. BP, p.l.c., 2014 ONCA 580