The following looseleaf texts have been updated:
THE REGULATION OF PROFESSIONS IN CANADA
Release No. 4, June 2026
What’s New in This Update
This release updates the legal memoranda in Appendix IF–Issues in Focus and adds new terms to Appendix WP–Words and Phrases.
Highlights
Appendix IF. Issues in Focus:
- § IF:1. “Is a duty of fairness owed to a complainant?”
- § IF:2. What level of disclosure is owed to a person facing a hearing before a disciplinary tribunal, and what are the related Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms issues that arise?
- § IF:3. Does the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms operate to protect individuals who face a disciplinary hearing from self-incrimination, particularly when the evidence given may be used against him or her in a subsequent civil or criminal proceeding?
Appendix WP. Words and Phrases–§ WP:244. OTHER PROCEEDING – The court accepts that the phrase “action or other proceeding” [in s. 204(2) of Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8] is expansive and that the term “proceeding” eludes an exhaustive definition. However, that broad meaning cannot include a regulatory proceeding by the College [of Physicians and Surgeons] concerning a MTO Report. This interpretation of “other proceeding” advocated by the applicant would produce absurd consequences.
The applicant’s interpretation would immunize the physician or other regulated health professional from professional regulation within this sphere of practice. This would convey the ironic message that this is one area of practice where the regulated health professional cannot be regulated. The legislature cannot have intended such an outcome.
…..
This interpretation would also create a further absurdity where the [Inquiries, Complaints and Reports] Committee would not perform its statutory screening function and instead refer MTO Report complaints to the Discipline Committee because of the statutory immunity and the Committee’s lack of fact-finding powers to determine if the report was made in good faith.
…..
In contrast, it is entirely consistent with the purpose and context of both the Highway Traffic Act and the Regulated Health Professions Act [,1991, S.O. 1191, c.18] if the College complaint process is not an “other proceeding” subject to statutory immunity.
Jeyaranjan v. Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (2025), 2025 CarswellOnt 21275, 2025 ONSC 6152 (Ont. Div. Ct.) at para. 49, 50, 51, 52 K. Tranquilli J.
REMEDIES IN TORT
Release No. 4, May 2026
What’s New in this Update
This release features updates to the case law and commentary in Chapters 2 (Assault and Battery), 4 (Conversion and Detinue), 5 (Deceit), 16 (Defamation), 19 (Negligence (Special)), 27 (Developing Torts), 29A (Vicarious Liability), and 30 (Damages).
Highlights
CHAPTER 4–Conversion and Detinue – Plaintiff, common law partner of deceased spouse brings claim in conversion against the deceased spouses’ adult children; following the spouses death, the children attended at the house shared by the plaintiff and the deceased individual and removed $252,000.00 from a safe in the basement of the house; evidence indicated that the deceased spouse had intended his common law partner to use the money to support herself following his death, moreover, the defendants did not include a record of the monies in the listing of their father’s estate; trial judge finds act of removal of monies a conversion: Kennedy v. Teakles et al., 2025 NBBR 123; appeal by defendants dismissed in Hoar and Teakles v. Kennedy, 2026, NBCA 12.
CHAPTER 16–Negligence – The plaintiff was driving a 15-year-old minivan through an intersection that was under active paving but the defendant; the undercarriage of the minivan struck an exposed water valve causing an accident and the minivan’s airbags to deploy; while the trial judge determined that the plaintiff was required to provide expert evidence that established the defendant’s breach of the standard of care in clearly marking the site, the trial judge also determined that the plaintiff failed to meet an appropriate standard of care because minivan was old and not sufficiently maintained: Valerio et al v. City of London et al., 2025 ONSC 4332.
CHAPTER 16–Negligence – In addressing the contributory negligence of the driver who was hit when a car from the opposite direction crested a hill and crossed into the driver’s lane, the trial judge determined that there is a need for a ‘robust and pragmatic approach to causation’ however does that not allow a party to fill in the evidence when there is evidence missing about the seconds before impact by the negligent driver and the impacted driver was on his side of the road and driving under the speed limit: Recoskie v. Vandenheuvel et al., 2025 ONSC 5856.
The following looseleaf subscriptions have resumed. The most recent update is highlighted below:
CANADIAN DIVORCE LAW AND PRACTICE, 2ND EDITION
Release No. 4, May 2026
What’s New in this Update
In this release cases have been added to update topics of the allocation of decision-making authority and a parent’s entitlement to information about a child.
Highlights
Notable cases include:
- A party who has not been granted decision-making responsibility still has the right to request and receive information about their child’s wellbeing. See Fatima v. Tunio, 2025 CarswellOnt 17863, 2025 ONSC 5474 (Ont. S.C.J.)
- A temporary order for decision-making authority should not be made unless necessary, particularly in high-conflict cases and matters already on track for trial. See Gjorsovski v. Krajisnik, 2025 CarswellOnt 21526, 2025 ONSC 7220 (Ont. S.C.J.)
- An order regarding international travel for children is an aspect of decision-making responsibility. In a high-conflict situation, particularly if parenting and decision-making has not been resolved on a final basis, it will be in a child’s best interest to permit international travel with one parent only with the consent of the other parent. See Afshar v. Najarzadeh, 2025 CarswellMan 253, 2025 MBKB 92 (Man. K.B.)
- Where the father had not seen the children for more than three years, the mother was granted sole decision-making authority, with either party at liberty to apply for a review of the parenting order upon the father’s successful completion of reunification therapy with a qualified professional. See F.C. v. S.C., 2025 CarswellNS 1254, 2025 NSSC 422 (N.S. S.C.)
- In cases of high conflict, but with each parent having the ability to make decisions, delineating decision-making for separate decisions to individual parents may be appropriate. See L.M. v. K.P., 2024 CarswellOnt 8245, 2024 ONSC 2959 (Ont. S.C.J.)
Note: all text under “What’s New in this Update” and “Highlights” sections is taken verbatim from documents received from the publisher. MLL is not responsible for errors in this content.
Great LEXpectations RSS Feed