Cannabis is Legal, now what?; Standard of Review for Arbitrators; Summary Judgment: A case comment; The Power of Equity: A case comment |

Cannabis is Legal, now what?; Standard of Review for Arbitrators; Summary Judgment: A case comment; The Power of Equity: A case comment

Watch the two minute teaser above before purchasing this video.

To purchase this video please click “Add to Cart”.

Login to watch this video if you have a subscription. Learn more about subscriptions.
Substantive: 1.0
1 hour
Benjamin Blay
George Hamzo
Leanne Kuchynski
James Zegers
Middlesex Law Association
1 hour
$119.00 plus tax
Includes Handouts

Marijuana is Legal – Now What? examined the recent changes to the laws pertaining to the possession of marijuana. Marijuana is still for the most part an illegal substance: the federal Cannabis Act and the provincial Cannabis Control Act provide only narrow exceptions to the general prohibition against possession. 

The standard for review for arbitrators’case comment explored the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2017 decision in Teal Cedar v. British Columbia, where the court held that the proper standard of review of a commercial arbitrator’s decision is almost always reasonableness. The court made an important distinction between an appeal of a civil litigation judgment, where nature of the question is dispositive of the standard to be applied, and the decision of a commercial arbitrator where the nature of the question is not determinative of the standard to be applied. Even where the parties agree beforehand on the standard of review, the court will have final say on this issue. Arbitrators will almost always be subject to the reasonableness standard.

A summary judgment case comment reviewed the Court of Appeal’s decision in Canaccord Genuity Corp. v. Pilot, 2015 ONCA 716.  The Court of Appeal engaged the principles of good faith contractual performance, rescission for misrepresentation, set-off, and the appropriateness of summary judgment in cases with multiple defendants.” 

The Power of Equity: A Case Comment on Moore v Sweet, 2018 SCC

52 addressed whether unjust enrichment can overcome the statutory

provisions of the Insurance Act, RSO 1990 c. I.8 in Moore v Sweet, 2018 SCC 52. In this case, the ex-spouse of the deceased and the new common law spouse of the deceased disputed over the entitlement to proceeds of a life insurance policy. The majority determined that unjust enrichment had been established, a constructive trust was an appropriate remedy, and that equity prevailed over the statutory authority in this case. 


Benjamin Blay

Ben is a partner at Cohen Highley LLP and practises in commercial litigation, including insolvency, secured transactions, Internet law, contractual disputes, shareholder and partnership disputes, real estate litigation, creditor remedies, debt recovery, estate litigation, commercial tenancy matters and defamation (particularly online defamation). Drawing on experience from his prior career, Ben now writes and presents on the principles of eDiscovery.

Ben has argued before various levels of court, up to and including the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

While a student at Western University, he was co-Director of the Dispute Resolution Centre at Western University’s Community Legal Services and holds certificates in mediation and negotiation. During his articles, Ben sat on the Student Division Executive of the Ontario Bar Association as the Articling Ambassador for Southwestern Ontario.

Law is a second career for Ben. Prior to law, Ben spent 15 years managing information technology and marketing for a large Southwestern Ontario insurance brokerage.

When he is not working, Ben spends as much time as he can reading on a deck overlooking Georgian Bay.

George Hamzo

George Hamzo is an Associate Lawyer at Lerners LLP in the Business Law Group and Commercial Litigation Group.  He practices primarily in Employment Law. He attended Huron University College and obtained his B.A. in political science. He later attended the University of Waterloo and obtained his M.A. in Global Governance. In 2014, he graduated from Western Law and was called to the bar in 2015. Since then, he has appeared at various levels of court and represented his clients in front of numerous tribunals.  Please note that George’s bio can be found at the firm website:

Leanne Kuchynski

Leanne is an associate in Siskinds’ general litigation group, primarily practicing in the areas of estate and capacity litigation. Leanne routinely advises and represents clients in disputes concerning the validity and interpretation of Wills, claims regarding the proper administration of an estate, claims against trustees and attorneys for property and personal care, and contested and unopposed guardianship applications.

Leanne obtained her J.D. at the University of Windsor, Faculty of Law in 2016. She joined Siskinds as a summer student and later as an articling student and was called to the bar in 2017.

Prior to law school, Leanne obtained a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Criminology from Western University. Leanne further obtained a Master of Arts Degree in Sociology also from Western University, where she was a Teaching and Research Assistant. Leanne successfully defended her Master’s Thesis, which examined human trafficking policy in Canada.

James Zegers

James Zegers was called to the Bar in 1995. He practices criminal law exclusively. He has been laying low during the Covid-19 pandemic, but is now ready for action. He is the past-President of the Middlesex Law Association and the former Music Director of Court House Rocks.

Share this Page