Rule 2.1: Blunt Force for Patently Frivolous, Vexatious, & Abusive Proceedings; Beware! New Limitation cases; Facebook jurisdiction case; Green v. LS of Manitoba; Unplanned parenthood | CPDonline.ca

Rule 2.1: Blunt Force for Patently Frivolous, Vexatious, and Abusive Proceedings; Beware! New Limitation cases; Facebook jurisdiction case; Green v. LS of Manitoba; Unplanned parenthood

Rule 2.1: Blunt Force for Patently Frivolous, Vexatious, and Abusive Proceedings; Beware! New Limitation cases; Facebook jurisdiction case; Green v. LS of Manitoba; Unplanned parenthood
Also valid for NFLD and Labrador (posted in the last 365 days).

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

Login to watch this video if you have a subscription. Learn more about subscriptions.
Credits
Substantive: 1.0
1 hour
Presenter(s)
Martha Cook
Kim Cura
Kenneth Fraser
Karen Hulan
Susan Toth
Source
Middlesex Law Association
Provider
CPDOnline.ca
Language
English
Length
1 hour
Price
$99.00 plus tax
MLA's 2018 Straight from the Bench Conference
Includes Handouts

Martha Cook

Presenter Martha Cook discusses two recent Ontario Court of Appeal cases addressing when a claim is ‘discovered’ for the purposes of s. 5 of the Limitations Act, 2002 and what evidence is needed to prove it. 

Karen Hulan

For the first time, the Supreme Court of Canada considered in a consumer context the application of the common law test for enforcing forum selection clauses.  The test is now modified for some consumer contracts, at least where there is an alleged violation of a constitutional or quasi-constitutional right.  In so doing, the Court acknowledged issues that can be unique to consumer contracts including issues of consent and fairness that are not always present between sophisticated parties to commercial contracts.

Susan Toth

My presentation is a case brief of Green v Law Society of Manitoba and comparing it briefly to Groia v Law Society of Upper Canada. The presentation will cover the Standard of Review for decisions of Law Societies, as well as whether the Law Society has the jurisdiction to impose automatic suspensions for failure to complete mandatory CPD. In addition, if they do, is it reasonable for the Law Society to impose automatic suspensions.

Ken Fraser

I will be providing a brief case comment on Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in PP v DD. This case focuses on an unsuccessful claim for alleged damages arising out of an unplanned pregnancy.

Presenters

Martha Cook

Kim Cura

Kenneth Fraser

Partner at Cohen Highly LLPKen is a partner in the family law department at Cohen Highley LLP. While in law school, Ken was on the Dean’s Honour List and upon graduating with distinction he received the Law Society of Upper Canada Award for Outstanding Achievement in Legal Studies. He joined Cohen Highley shortly after being called to the Bar of Ontario in 2010. Ken was born and raised in Brampton, Ontario.

Ken lives in London with his wife and two young children. He is actively involved in the community, including serving as a member of the Resident Review Panel with Youth Opportunities Unlimited and as a member of Riverside United Church.

Karen Hulan

Susan Toth

Susan is a proud first generation Canadian and a partner at the law firm of Polishuk, Camman & Steele. She practices employment, labour, and human rights law as well as general civil litigation. She also teaches at Brescia University College and Western University. She is passionate about advocacy, social justice, and her city, which she channels in her role as a board member of the Urban League of London and as the Vice-Chair of the London Police Services Board. In 2017, she received the Top 20 Under 40 Londoner award as well as a Canada 150 medal in recognition of her community work.

Share this Page