Current Issue

cover image
September, 2017
  • Tax changes could have costly consequences

    Proposed changes to private incorporation tax rules could have costly consequences for corporate clients, say lawyers who have reviewed potential shifts to the Income Tax Act. The federal Liberal government has been at the centre of ongoing controversy over the proposed changes, which were announced this summer and could go into effect later this fall.
  • Entity regulation encouraged to boost diversity

    To really address barriers faced by racialized licensees, some lawyers say the Law Society of Upper Canada needs to implement entity regulation to significantly boost diversity in the legal profession. The law society is rolling out a first round of recommendations approved by Convocation in December 2016 to battle the barriers faced by racialized licensees.
  • OCA rules on amicus rates

    In a case that could eventually have implications for whether amicus curiae can be appointed in family law matters, the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that the attorney general is not obligated to negotiate payment for amicus above legal aid rates. In Morwald-Benevides v. Benevides, the attorney general appealed the appointment of amici in a family law matter involving a “toxic” custody dispute.


  • Charles Gluckstein

    Proceed cautiously on ABS

    Ontario lawyers are currently being asked to share their opinions on alternative business structures in the province. If accepted, this would mean the delivery of legal services through civil society organizations to facilitate access to justice. I believe that alternative business structures — known as ABS — have the potential to have a positive effect in Ontario, especially when viewed from the perspective of increasing access to justice.
  • Gabrielle Giroday

    Editorial Obiter

    Contingency caution

    Controversy over contingency fees isn’t new. However, a ruling this week in the family law realm has important takeaways. In Jackson v. Stephen Durbin and Associates, Ontario Superior Court Justice Thomas Lofchik ordered a Toronto law firm to refund a $72,000 premium it charged to a family litigant for the favourable result achieved at trial in a custody battle.

Focus On

  • Potential changes concern pharma companies

    Proposed changes to the way Canada puts a ceiling on patented drug prices have put pharmaceutical companies on alert, says an Ottawa intellectual property lawyer. Earlier this summer, Health Canada released a consultation report entitled “Protecting Canadians from Excessive Drug Prices” that included a number of suggested amendments to the federal Patented Medicines Regulations, which are in turn used by the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board to determine the level at which a drug’s price crosses the threshold to become excessive.
  • Rush to register trademarks before 2019

    According to Vaccari, the amendments also provide additional tools that will help tackle potential misuse of the application process by trolls. When they take effect, they will add a new ground of opposition to s. 38(2) of the Trade-marks Act, allowing registrations to be challenged where the applicant was not using and did not intend to use the mark in association with a specified good or service at the time it was filed. “Oppositions are going to increase, and that’s something they have seen in Europe, too. Some squatters are going to be trolls who see it as an opportunity to make money, but I’m not sure how successful they will be,” Vaccari says.
  • Rejection of doctrine may encourage exaggerated claims

    The Supreme Court of Canada’s rejection of the promise doctrine incentivizes patent applicants to exaggerate claims about their invention’s capabilities, according to an intellectual property professor. Jeremy de Beer, a professor at the University of Ottawa’s faculty of law, appeared before the nation’s top court in the case of AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc., which ended with a 9-0 judgment dismissing the controversial doctrine as “unsound.”
  • Challenge on offensive trademarks could bring clarity

    Canadian intellectual property lawyers say brand owners would benefit from the clarity a Constitutional challenge would bring to the country’s ban on offensive trademarks. This summer, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of the portion of its law prohibiting disparaging trademarks, ruling that the ban infringed on First Amendment free speech rights.

Inside Story

  • Monday, September 25, 2017

    Monday, September 25, 2017

    Another Step Forward For Law School

    Accessibility Showcase Launched

    Paper Recommends New Approach

    Law Times Poll


  • Sep 25, 2017

    Editorial Cartoon: September 25, 2017


Click here to view past digital editions.

Law Times Poll

A group of benchers opposed to the Statement of Principles will need to win the support of their colleagues to repeal the requirement. Do you think they will be successful in repealing the statement of principles in the coming year?