Current Issue

cover image
April, 2018
  • OCA rules title insurance exception did not apply

    The Court of Appeal has found that an exclusion barring a victim of a mortgage fraud from collecting insurance coverage did not apply when the funds in the transaction were transferred through lawyers’ trust accounts.
  • Judge orders punitive damages to be paid

    A small claims deputy judge has ordered a lawyer to pay punitive damages after he threatened criminal charges against a physiotherapist who was bringing a civil action against him.
  • OCA sends vicarious liability case to trial

    The Court of Appeal has opened the door to a firm possibly being found vicariously liable for the actions of a lawyer who practised in association with it.


  • n/a

    End legal stigma against people with HIV

    For those with access to treatment, HIV has transformed into a chronic medical condition. However, in many other ways, Canada is stuck in the 1980s.
  • Gabrielle Giroday

    Read the fine print

    Recently, the Canadian Bar Association offered carefully worded recommendations to a federal finance committee tasked with reviewing the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.

Focus On

  • Case is reminder evidence can be used without consent

    A recent decision of the Ontario Judicial Council is a reminder that evidence of misconduct in a professional disciplinary hearing will likely be admitted even if it has been obtained surreptitiously by a private individual and without consent.

Inside Story

  • Monday, April 23, 2018

    Monday, April 23, 2018

    Kirk Boggs To Receive Insurance Law Award

    New Judges Appointed

    CLA Blasts Bill C-75 In Position Paper

    Law Times Poll


  • Apr 23, 2018

    Editorial Cartoon: April 23, 2018


Click here to view past digital editions.
cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

A Law Society of Ontario tribunal has ruled that a lawyer charged with offences related to child pornography should not be subject to an interlocutory suspension. Do you agree with this decision?