Ontario Take Five July 2013

604-879-4280 | [email protected]

July 2013

ONTARIO EDITION EDITION

INSIDE THIS ISSUE:

Featured Cases:

Insurance; Multiple Insurers; Equitable Contribution; Unjust Enrichment

Civil Procedure; Status Hearing; Dismissal for Delay Caused by Plaintiff - With Counsel Comments

Jurisdiction; Forum Selection Clause; Attornment

Contract; Contribution and Indemnity; Limitation Period

Lease; Privity of Contract; Waiver of Subrogation

op

Prepare to Win.

O N P O I N TLEGAL RESEARCH

02

04

11

13

08

mailto:[email protected]

OnPoint Legal Research | Take Five

604.879.4280 | [email protected]

PB

2

Aviva Insurance Company of Canada v. Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada, 2013 ONCA 416Areas of Law: Insurance; Multiple Insurers; Equitable Contribution; Unjust Enrichment

In 1985, a fire occurred in a Toronto apartment building resulting in several

deaths and many others serious injuries. Litigation resulted and, amongst other defendants, the owner of the building, Axes Investments Inc. (“Axes”), and the property manager, Tandem Group Management Inc. (“Tandem”), were both found liable. There were three insurance policies available to respond to their liability: a primary policy by Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada (“Lombard”) up to $1 million insuring both Axes and Tandem; an umbrella policy by Lombard up to $9 million insuring both Axes and Tandem; and a policy by Aviva Insurance Company of Canada (“Aviva”) up to $5 insuring only Tandem. During trial, Axes and Tandem were jointly represented by one counsel appointed by Lombard and found liable as “one defendant” without apportionment. There is no disagreement that the Lombard primary policy responded to the first $1 million in damages. However, as damages well exceeded $1 million, this dispute arises on whether the Lombard umbrella policy or the Aviva policy responded next. Several hearings took place, one of which determined

BACKGROUND

~Doctrines of equitable contribution and unjust enrichment applied to obligate co-insurer to contribute 50/50 to loss despite initial full payment by other co-insurer~

CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE JUDGMENT


http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2013/2013onca416/2013onca416.pdf




July 2013


PB

3

Aviva ICC v. Lombard GICC, (cont.)

The appeal was dismissed. Both the trial judge and Court of Appeal noted

with significance that by representing Axes and Lombard in the tort actions as “one defendant” without obtaining an apportionment of liability as between Axes and Tandem, it appeared that both insurers were trying “to outwit the other” with each attempting to avoid payment of the excess all together. However, the principles of equitable contribution and unjust enrichment operated in this case to require Lombard to contribute to Aviva half of its payment of the excess loss. Traditionally, in insurance cases, equitable contribution applied to prevent over-recovery of the insured when more than one insurer covered the same risk, requiring all such insurers to share on a pro

rata basis for the loss. Further, equitable contribution applies to avoid a windfall to other relevant insurers when a single insurer pays the entire loss arising out of shared liability. Therefore, even though Lombard was not required to pay the loss on behalf of Tandem, it was required respond to the loss on behalf of Axes. By putting forward a “single defendant” in the tort action attracting a single damage award against both Axes and Tandem without any apportionment of liability, Lombard and Aviva effectively acted as a “single insurer” and were equally obligated to pay the plaintiffs accordingly. The mere fact that Aviva “blinked” first to pay the entire loss did not reduce Lombard’s obligation to respond had the tort plaintiffs decided to pursue Axes alone.

APPELLATE DECISION

that Aviva was next in line to respond. Aviva appealed the decision but before the appeal was released, the tort plaintiffs demanded payment and Aviva suggested to Lombard a joint payment on a 50/50 basis, but Lombard disagreed. Aviva then paid the remaining Axes/Tandem portion of the plaintiff’s damages. After payment,

the Court of Appeal’s decision was released varying the trial judge’s order to clarify that Aviva was only responsible for Tandem’s liability. As a result, Aviva successfully obtained an order granting recovery of one-half of its damages payment from Lombard. Lombard appealed.




PB

4

In December 2007, the appellant commenced a claim against several

parties involved in two real estate transactions relating to a single property. Amongst the appellant’s claims were allegations of breaches of contract and fiduciary duties on the part of two real estate agents, vicarious liability of a real estate brokerage firm and professional negligence against solicitors involved in the transactions. Prior to this action, a separate action was commenced against the appellant in February 2007 in which the appellant was noted in default in June of that same year. Following commencement of the appellant’s action in December 2007, little happened in the litigation. A status hearing took place in February 2012, at which time pleadings had still not been finalized, one defendant (but not

the appellant) had served an affidavit of documents, no documentary productions had been exchanged and no examinations for discovery had taken place.

The status hearing judge held that the appellant had not made any efforts to move the litigation forward. Further, two of the respondents had passed away during this period without having been examined for discovery. In reaching the decision, the status hearing judge applied a two-part conjunctive test whereby the onus is on the plaintiff (appellant) to sufficiently explain the delay so as to satisfy to the court that the action should proceed and that to do so would not prejudice the defendants (respondents). The status hearing judge held that the appellant was unable to adequately

Faris v. Eftimovski, 2013 ONCA 360Areas of Law: Civil Procedure; Status Hearing; Dismissal for Delay Caused by Plaintiff

BACKGROUND

~Different legal tests apply to Rules 24.01 and 48.14(13) even though both may dismiss action for delay caused by plaintiff~







http://www.tvsbarristers.com/

July 2013


PB

5

Faris v. Eftimovski, (cont.)

explain the delay and that alone was sufficient to dismiss the action. However, she also found that even if the delay could be explained, the deaths of the two respondents would result in severe prejudice to the respondents should the action continue.

APPELLATE DECISION

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 24.01 and 48.14(13) both

allow a court to dismiss an action for delay. The court must balance the interest of the plaintiff to have the matter heard on its merits with the interest of the defendant to have it resolved expediently and efficiently when exercising its discretion under these rules.

Despite their similarity, however, different tests are applicable under each rule. Rule 24.01 empowers a defendant who has complied with the rules to move to dismiss an action for delay where a plaintiff has failed to take a specified action in the litigation process enumerated in the rule. Under this rule, a high threshold has been established to dismiss an action for delay as the timelines required of the plaintiff are short, and judges and masters are hesitant to deny a plaintiff their opportunity to be heard. On the other hand, Rule 48.14(13) enables the court to control the litigation progress by providing for a status hearing. Often this does not arise for a considerable period of time after an

action has been commenced. Under this rule, the onus is squarely on the plaintiff to show why the action should not be dismissed for delay.

The status hearing judge applied the correct test by finding that the appellant was unable to explain the delays in the proceeding and, even if he had, the defendants would be prejudiced if the action were allowed to proceed. Accordingly, the decision of the status hearing judge dismissing the action for delay was upheld.




PB

66

“In Faris v. Eftimovski, the Court of Appeal

dealt with the appeal from a dismissal of an action for delay at a contested status hearing. Although many of the defendants had either consented to or not opposed a timetable for continuation of action, a few opted to put the plaintiff to his onus of showing cause why the action should not be dismissed for delay. After a full hearing with both affidavit evidence and argument, the status hearing judge dismissed the action.

In upholding that dismissal, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to affirm the distinction between a Rule 24.01 motion to dismiss for delay and the analysis at a status hearing under Rule 48.14(13). Although the distinction between the two tests became a cornerstone of the Court of Appeal’s decision, it was interestingly not a primary area on which submissions were made

COUNSEL COMMENTS, Cont. Faris v. Eftimovski, 2013 ONCA 360

during the appeal hearing itself. The focus at the hearing was predominantly on the application of the conjunctive status hearing test.

As the decision suggests, the nature and extent of

prejudice occasioned by the deaths of two key parties, Wally Magee and Anthony Laskowsky, was a hotly contested issue at both the status hearing and the Court of Appeal. What is particularly interesting is that the Court of Appeal appears to view a plaintiff’s discovery obligations as defendant-specific. That steps away from the more common “stages” approach to litigation -- i.e., pleadings, documentary discovery, examinations for discovery, etc.

It is not uncommon for the discovery process to remain in abeyance pending the close of pleadings. However, in Faris v. Eftimovski, the Court of Appeal held that an indulgence granted by the plaintiff to other defendants

Counsel Comments provided by Todd Robinson, Counsel for the Respondent, Wally Magee

Todd Robinson


July 2013


PB

77

did not excuse the plaintiff from moving the action forward with the remaining defendants. Specifically, the decision appears to endorse that where examination of a defendant could have been performed (even if pleadings were not yet closed), and that defendant dies, the death may be a proper basis for asserting non-compensable prejudice for which the plaintiff is responsible.

The Court of Appeal has previously indicated that defendants have no obligation to move an action forward and has further suggested that, so long as the defendants have not resisted or impeded the progress of an action, their conduct may be irrelevant at a status hearing: 1196158 Ontario Inc. v. 6274013 Canada Ltd., 2012 ONCA 544 at paras. 27-30.

Status hearings are often viewed as a perfunctory step at which a timetable is imposed by the court and the action thereafter continues. In many cases, timetable orders will continue to be the norm. However, where an action has fallen into abeyance for too long and little progress has been made in the two years after issuance, that may no longer be the case. These recent decisions of the Court of Appeal should be a warning to plaintiffs (and plaintiffs’ counsel) to ensure they are doing what they can to keep actions moving forward.

What remains to be addressed is whether or not a plaintiff failing to meet its onus at a status hearing should nevertheless be permitted to continue the action against those defendants who had either consented to or not opposed the continuation of the action. Although raised by the appellant’s counsel in argument at the hearing, the Court of Appeal did not address the issue in its decision. It will perhaps wait for another day.”

COUNSEL COMMENTS, Cont.




PB

8

This dispute arises from the sale of a valuable painting

in which the appellant alleges was sold without his authority. The appellant, Nahum Gelber (“Gelber”), was a Canadian citizen and successful businessman who resided in Monaco. The respondent, Alexandre Van Damme (“Van Damme”), approached Gelber back in 2006 to purchase the painting and purports to have entered into a sale contract with Gelber’s agent. Gelber, however, refused to deliver the painting on the basis that he never authorised the sale. Van Damme commenced a legal action in the New York Supreme Court for specific performance requiring Gelber to deliver the painting. The action was brought in New York pursuant to a forum selection clause in the contract alleged to be the sale contract. The painting was not in Gelber’s possession, but instead was located in his son’s

Van Damme v. Gelber, 2013 ONCA 388Areas of Law: Jurisdiction; Forum Selection Clause; Attornment

BACKGROUND

~Pleading substantive merits of claim in a jurisdiction while challenging that jurisdiction amounts to attornment~







http://www.decinc.ca

July 2013


PB

9

Van Damme v. Gelber, (cont.)

home in Toronto. Van Damme brought an application in Ontario to preserve the painting and prohibit its sale or movement, in which the parties eventually consented to in an order. During that application, Gelber had argued that Ontario was forum non conveniens and that New York was the more appropriate forum. After the consent order was made, Gelber brought a motion in the New York proceedings challenging that jurisdiction, alleging that he was not party to the alleged contract of sale and therefore the forum selection clause did not apply to him. The New York Supreme Court refused to decide on the jurisdiction issue as a preliminary matter and ordered Gelber to proceed with his defence and all relevant depositions and discoveries. In Gelber’s filed defence, he raised his jurisdictional challenges as well as other substantive defences. After completion of the depositions and discoveries, both parties brought a motion for summary judgment. The New York Supreme Court found that Gelber was a party to the sale contract and was therefore bound by the forum selection clause. As a result, Van Damme’s summary judgment motion for specific performance was granted. During Gelber’s motion for summary judgment, Gelber went beyond his jurisdiction challenge and made several non-jurisdictional arguments that went to the substantive merits of Van Damme’s claim for specific performance.

Over the following four years, Gelber brought numerous motions challenging the decision of the New York Supreme Court as well as appeals challenging the judgment entered in the court, all of which failed. Van Damme successfully brought a motion in the Ontario Supreme Court to enforce the New York judgment in Ontario and was awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis. Gelber appealed both the order recognizing and enforcing the New York judgment and the costs award.




PB

10

Van Damme v. Gelber, (cont.)

APPELLATE DECISION

Gelber’s appeal was only successful on the costs order. The Ontario motion judge’s order recognizing and enforcing the New York judgment was upheld on the

basis that Gelber attorned to the jurisdiction of the New York Supreme Court by litigating the merits of the claim in that jurisdiction. It was clear on the evidence that in the New York proceedings, Gelber’s pleadings went beyond challenging the jurisdiction of the New York court to pleading several substantive defences. It was this finding of Gelber’s attornment that provided the Ontario motion judge with the basis to recognize and enforce the New York judgment. However, the Court of Appeal made it clear that it did not agree with the motion judge’s remark that Gelber’s position in the earlier Ontario proceedings to protect the painting, that New York was the more appropriate forum, amounted to an attornment to the jurisdiction of the New York Supreme Court. It was only his conduct in the New York proceedings that determined whether he had attorned to the jurisdiction of the New York court. As Gelber was found to have attorned to the New York jurisdiction and that a similar award would have been made by the courts in Ontario, the order was thus held recognizable and enforceable in Ontario. Gelber was, however, successful in overturning the motion judge’s award of substantial indemnity costs against him. The Ontario motion judge had made a significant error by focusing on Gelber’s conduct in the New York proceedings when he should have focussed only on his conduct in the Ontario proceedings. The Court of Appeal determined that Gelber had not improperly delayed or complicated the Ontario litigation and, as such, the costs awarded to Van Damme were reduced to a partial indemnity basis.

SOME OF ONPOINT’S RECENT WORK:We Can Be Argumentative…

Our client was swamped dealing with the legal and factual aspects of a complex summary judgment application. In the midst of preparation, he realized he could bolster his other arguments by relying on the presumption against interference with vested rights. He requested us to research the presumption and its specific application to the facts of the case. We drafted the law in argument form, and he was able to insert it directly into his argument in time to meet the deadline for filing.


July 2013


PB

11

Canaccord Capital Corporation v. Roscoe, 2013 ONCA 378Areas of Law: Contract; Contribution and Indemnity; Limitation Period

BACKGROUND

~Section 18 of Limitations Act, 2002 applies to contribution and indemnity claims based in contract~

The appellant, Gregory Roscoe (“Roscoe”), had been an investment

advisor for the respondent investment dealer, Canaccord Capital Corporation (“Canaccord”). In August 2008, two of Roscoe’s former clients, Mr. and Mrs. Cavanagh (the “Cavanaghs”), initiated a claim against Canaccord and Roscoe claiming for losses arising from an investment for which Roscoe was their investment advisor. In response, Canaccord funded and delivered a joint defence against the Cavanaghs and in

April or May 2009, settled with them without Roscoe’s involvement. In its pleadings, Canaccord did not cross-claim against Roscoe and Roscoe had retained independent counsel who advised Canaccord that he denied any liability and would dispute any claim for indemnity. In January 2010, Canaccord requested indemnification pursuant to Roscoe’s employment contract, but Roscoe continued to deny any wrongdoing and opposed Canaccord’s claim for indemnification.


brilliant [bril-yuhnt]– adjective

1. having or showing great intelligence, talent, quality, etc.

See also: Lawyers who save time and money outsourcing their legal research and drafting to OnPoint Legal Research Law Corporation.





http://www.onpointlaw.com



PB

12

Canaccord Capital Corporation v. Roscoe, (cont.)

APPELLATE DECISION

On review of the Legislative history of the limitation period applicable to claims for contribution and indemnity, the Court of Appeal noted with importance

that s. 18 of the Act had marked a departure from the framework set out in 1948 in An Act to amend The Negligence Act, S.O. 1948, c. 61, s. 3 by broadening the scope of its application. The old model was limited to claims for contribution and indemnity as between two tortfeasors with a one-year limitation period that began to run upon settlement or judgment in the relevant action. S. 18, on the other hand, applies to claims as between two “wrongdoers”, “whether the right to contribution and indemnity arises in respect of a tort or otherwise”. Further, s. 18 shortens the limitation period by providing a two-year period that begins to run from the date the first wrongdoer is served with the underlying claim. Thus the scope of s. 18 of the Act extends beyond claims in tort to cover others, such as those in contract. Further, the purpose of the Act is to provide certainty and uniformity to parties and specifying exceptions to this section runs against this goal. Reading s. 18 with the overall purpose of the Act reiterates that s. 18 was intended to provide clarity and finality to parties wishing to claim contribution and indemnity regardless of the underlying legal theory. Therefore, the claim of Canaccord was time-barred by s. 18 of the Act.

Almost three years after Canaccord was served with the Cavanagh’s statement of claim, Canaccord commenced this indemnity action alleging that Roscoe had breached his employment contract and claimed, as damages, the amount of the settlement with the Cavanaghs plus the legal fees it incurred. Roscoe brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the indemnity action on the basis that, because it was commenced more than two years after Canaccord was served the Cavanagh statement of claim, it was time-barred pursuant to s. 18 of the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B (the “Act”). The motion judge held that

because the indemnity action arose from a breach of contract, s. 18 did not apply as it was not a claim for “contribution and indemnity as between one wrongdoer and another”. The motion judge also interpreted Roscoe’s employment contact as stating that Roscoe’s obligation to indemnify Canaccord only arose “at the point of a judgment of a court, a decision of an administrative body, an arbitration award or a settlement”. The motion judge concluded that the indemnity action was therefore governed by the basic two-year limitation period that had begun to run when Canaccord settled the Cavanagh’s action less than two years prior.


July 2013


PB

13

Williams-Sonoma Inc. v. Oxford Properties Group Inc., 2013 ONCA 441Areas of Law: Lease; Privity of Contract; Waiver of Subrogation

BACKGROUND

~Benefit of waiver of subrogation in contract extended to non-party independent contractor~

At the time of the action, the appellants, Williams-Sonoma Inc.,

Williams-Sonoma Canada Inc., Pottery Barn and Pottery Barn Kids, were tenants at the Yorkdale Shopping Centre in Toronto (the “Tenants”). The landlord, Yorkdale Shopping Centre Holdings Inc. (the “Landlord”), had contracted the respondent, EllisDon, to provide construction work at the mall. The third floor of the mall had been vacant and the Landlord provided EllisDon with that space for its office and storage. During the early hours in the morning one day, a vandal managed to enter this third floor area and open a fire hose, resulting in significant water damage to the Tenants’ premises alleged to be in the range of $7 million. The leases between the Tenants and the Landlord required the Tenants to have insurance covering water damage to both their leased premises and their property within those premises. Each of these leases contain a subsection 8.3.1 that states that the tenant waives all claims against Landlord and “those for whom the [Landlord] is in law responsible” regarding occurrences required to be insured against by the tenant, such as water damage. The Tenants brought an action in tort against

the respondent, EllisDon, alleging that it had failed to properly secure the area where the fire hose was located. EllisDon brought a motion for summary judgment alleging that because the Landlord was responsible in law for EllisDon within the meaning of subsection 8.3.1 of the Tenants’ leases, the benefit of that subsection extended to them and therefore the Tenants had waived their claim. The motion judge followed the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd. v. Can-Dive Services Ltd., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 108 (“Fraser River”) to find that even though EllisDon was not a party to the lease, the benefit of subsection 8.3.1 extended to them, and she dismissed the action.








PB

14

Williams-Sonoma Inc. v. Oxford Properties Group Inc., (cont.)

APPELLATE DECISION

There are certain exceptions to the doctrine of privity of contract.

These have been dealt with in two key decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada where it was held that certain circumstances exist where the doctrine of privity ought to be applied less rigidly in order to recognize the rights of a third party beneficiary and the contractual provisions made for its benefit. Fraser River set out a two-part test that, if met, allowed the third party to benefit from the relevant clause in the contract to which it was not a party. The first part required an intention between the parties to the contract to extend the benefit of the clause at issue to the third party seeking to rely on that clause. The second part required the activities of the third party seeking to rely on the clause to be the very activities contemplated by the parties of the contract that fall within the scope of that provision. In this case, even though EllisDon was not a

party to the lease, the Fraser River test was met. The Tenants and Landlord intended subsection 8.3.1 to apply to third parties whom the Landlord was “in law responsible”. Interpreting this phrase, the Court of Appeal determined that “in law responsible” extended beyond the notion of vicarious liability to include the parties whom the Landlord was legally responsible via the operation of a contract of indemnity. Clause 8.4 of the leases state that the Landlord agreed to indemnify the Tenants in respect of losses caused by a class of persons, including independent contractors, thus making the Landlord “in law responsible” to the Tenant for EllisDon. The second part of the test was also met as the contractual services performed by EllisDon were type of activities contemplated by parties in the indemnity provision in the lease. Therefore the appeal was dismissed, albeit for reasons slightly different than those of the motion judge.


“Excellent speakers – I only dream of being as well educated and well spoken.”

“For a lawyer in private practice who wants to research the law with confidence, it was well worth the price of admission.”

“I really enjoyed the course. I found the information very practical and pertinent to my work.”

FOURTH ANNUAL ONPOINT FEATURE COURSE

Legal Research: From Issues to Solutions 2013

Comments from past attendees: November 28, 2013The Four Seasons Hotel

9:00 am - 4:15 pm

Includes Full Afternoon High Tea Service

Earn 6 CPD CrEDits

inCLUDEs 2 HOUrs EtHiCs/PraCtiCE MGMt

COMPOnEnt

“A practical and comprehensive summary of legal research tools and techniques. The presenters really

knew their craft.”

November 28, 2013The Four Seasons Hotel

9:00 am - 4:15 pmIncludes Full Afternoon

High Tea Service

Earn 6 CPD CrEDits

inCLUDEs 2 HOUrs EtHiCs/PraCtiCE MGMt

COMPOnEnt


OnPoint Legal Research L.C. has been researching and preparing memoranda and facta for other lawyers for over 14 years. In the

fourth annual presentation of this course, OnPoint research lawyers and guest research specialists from Davis LLP, Borden Ladner Gervais, and Dentons Canada LLP will draw from their experience to demonstrate how to map out research strategies, examine which resources to use to tackle various problems, and navigate through electronic sources. We will provide countless “insider” tips, discuss legislative research techniques, and lead an interactive session on how to approach a sample legal issue.

Who should attend?

We have created this course for all levels. It is appropriate for senior lawyers wanting a refresher course or needing to be updated on the lastest techniques, junior lawyers wishing to become better researchers, and students wanting to start off their careers with valuable tips from research specialists.

Paralegals will also benefit from this course.


Ellen Vandergrift, OnPoint Legal Research- Ellen clerked at the Court of Appeal of Alberta before articling and practicing at Fraser Milner Casgrain. She subsequently spent several years as legal counsel to the Queen’s Bench and has now been with OnPoint for over eight years. She is well-suited to appellate work and particularly enjoys researching and analyzing complex legal issues and preparing facta.

Our Panel Knows Research

Chair: Sarah Picciotto, Founder of OnPoint Legal Research- As a clerk to the B.C.S.C. in 1998, Sarah learned the importance of sound legal research. She gained practical experience as a litigator with Edwards Kenny & Bray before leaving practice to establish OnPoint in 2000. Sarah is committed to providing OnPoint’s clients with a competitive edge. She is dedicated to ensuring that OnPoint produces nothing less than exceptional work and offers outstanding service.

Monika Gehlen, Davis LLP- Monika is a partner with Davis LLP, where she specializes in written advocacy, appellate practice, legal opinions, and strategic advice. As a member of the firm's Legal Research and Litigation Practice Groups, Monika has extensive experience in the research and analysis of complex legal issues.

Do-Ellen Hansen, Borden Ladner Gervais- As a partner at Borden Ladner Gervais, Do-Ellen provides complex research analysis and advice on diverse legal issues to private and Crown corporations, banks, and insurers. In the course of her practice, she regularly prepares legal opinions and analyses, litigation briefs, and legal arguments for trials, appeals, and arbitrations.

Michelle Maniago, Borden Ladner Gervais-Michelle Maniago practises in the area of civil litigation and arbitration at Borden Ladner Gervais, with an emphasis on commercial and corporate disputes. She also practises as a legal research lawyer and works with both solicitors and litigators to prepare legal opinions. Prior to joining the firm, Michelle had the opportunity to hone her legal research skills as a clerk with the B.C.C.A.


Meghan Maddigan, Legal Community Liason, Courthouse Libraries BC- Meghan is the point person for training at the library and is committed to helping lawyers succeed in their practice through outreach. Prior to joining Courthouse Libraries BC in 2010, Meghan practiced law for five years with a small firm where she gained first-hand experience learning what is required to conduct successful legal research in private practice.

Eric Sherbine, Dentons Canada LLP- Eric Sherbine is a Research Specialist with Dentons Canada LLP, where he provides legal and business research services. He has substantial legal research experience in both Canada and the United States. Prior to immigrating to Canada, he practiced as an employment and labour lawyer in the US.

Agenda- Legal Research: From Issues to Solutions 2013

8:30- 9:00 Registration and Pastries and Coffee

9:00- 9:15 Welcome from Sarah Picciotto, Founder of OnPoint

9:15- 10:00 Ellen Vandergrift- “Starting Out on the Expedition and Staying on the Right Course”

- The importance of paper and online secondary materials in legal research (texts, digests, encyclopedias and course materials) - Tips on the best secondary sources to use and how to make the most of them - Making good research choices- when to stop, when to take a different path, when to check back with the client or supervising lawyer

10:00-10:45 Do-Ellen Hansen, Michelle Maniago and Ellen Vandergrift- "Navigating the Electronic Terrain, Part One: The General"

- Insider tips from research lawyers who perform computer research every day - Tips on how to construct effective searches and manage search results - Noting up as an essential research tool

10:30- 10:45 Coffee break

10:45- 12:00 Do-Ellen Hansen, Michelle Maniago and Ellen Vandergrift- "Navigating the Electronic Terrain, Part Two: The Specific"

- Pointers on when to use which resource for what task - Cost-efficient uses of electronic resources - Important resources for keeping current

12:00- 1:00 Lunch (on your own, but save room for Full Afternoon Tea Service at 2:30)

1:00- 2:00 Meghan Maddigan- "Tackling Legislative Research Like a Pro”

- Making it modern: How to ensure you are looking at the most current, in-force laws - So many sources, so little time: Where to start and finish when looking at legislation - Working backwards: How to trace specific provisions through time - Who said what: Finding judicial consideration of legislation

2:00- 2:30 Eric Sherbine, "Handling American Research Sources" - Available resources for specific tasks - Free vs. paid sources - What can you reasonably expect to research without U.S. training - Answers to lawyers' commonly asked questions about conducting U.S. research 2:30- 2:45 Break- Prepare for Full Afternoon High Tea Service during next presentation

2:45-3:15 Monika Gehlen , "Presenting Your Work- Writing to Win" - Tips for better written advocacy - Factum writing 3:15- 4:15 Group Panel- “Time to Take the Plunge: A Sample Research Issue, Step By Step”

Agenda (cont.)

Research to a

T

We are pleased to be serving Four Seasons' full afternoon tea during our afternoon presentation. Enjoy an assortment of finger sandwiches, scones with Devonshire cream, opera cake, French macarons, lemon tartlets, and

other assorted petit fours, along with a selection of teas or coffee.

Date: November 28, 2013- 9:00 to 4:15 (registration and light continental breakfast starts at 8:30) Format: Live Program with MaterialsFeature: Four Seasons' Full Afternoon High Tea Service at 2:30Location: The Four Seasons Hotel, VancouverPrice: Really Early Bird (before July 30) Regular: $450; Paralegal: $350; Student: $200 Early Bird (before Oct.31) Regular: $475; Paralegal: $375; Student: $225 Starting Nov.1: Regular: $525; Paralegal: $425; Student: $265

SURNAME GIVEN NAME INITIAL

FIRM NAME PHONE EMAIL

Course Registration Form

Position: SOLE PRACTIONER PARTNER ASSOCIATE STUDENT PARALEGAL OTHER __________ Year of Call ______

I’m paying by: Cheque Credit Card (MC or VISA)

CARDHOLDER NAME: CARD NUMBER EXPIRY

SIGNATURE:

By Fax: 604.648.8930 By Mail: OnPoint Law Corporation, 178-2498 W.41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V6M2A7

By Phone: 604.879.4280 Email: [email protected]

REGULAR PRICING (Starting Nov.1, 2013)

Regular -------$525 + $26.25 GST = $551.25Student ------ $265 + $13.25 GST = $278.25Paralegal ----- $425 + $21.25 GST = $446.25

EARLY BIRD (Register by October 31, 2013)

Regular -------$475 + $23.75 GST = $498.75Student ------ $225 + $11.25 GST = $236.25Paralegal ----- $375 + $18.75 GST = $393.75

REALLY EARLY BIRD (Register by July 30, 2013)

Regular -------$450+ $22.50 GST = $47.25Student ------ $200 + $10.00 GST = $210.00Paralegal ----- $350+ $17.50 GST = $367.50



PB

22

OnPoint is a law firm of on-call

research lawyers, all of whom have completed clerkships and litigated with downtown law firms.

Who is OnPoint?

For over 13 years, our firm has completed research and writing projects for lawyers in the private and public sectors, from case summaries to complex memoranda and facta.

Many of our clients consider using our services as equivalent to relying upon work completed by in-house associates, and add a measure of profit accordingly when billing their own clients.

“OnPoint has always performed in a timely, effective and professional manner and has done excellent work at a reasonable price. We do not hesitate to use their services.”

Larry Kahn, QC and Marvin Lithwick, Kahn Zack Ehrlich Lithwick

“OnPoint’s lawyers are knowledgeable, efficient, effective and reliable. Their work is always proficient and timely. It is a pleasure to work with them. They are an invaluable resource to our firm.”

Angiola De Stefanis, Alliance Lex Law Corp.

“All of us at Taylor Veinotte Sullivan use OnPoint’s researchers on our cases. OnPoint’s expertise in a wide range of complicated commercial litigation is invaluable to a firm of our size and is also a real costs savings to our clients” Carey Veinotte, Taylor Veinotte Sullivan

Sarah Picciotto, B.A., LL.B. Founder of OnPoint Legal Research Law Corp.

T.604.879.4280 [email protected]


Ontario Take Five July 2013

Documents

Transcript of Ontario Take Five July 2013