Looseleaf Updates – August 26, 2026

by Linda Fontaine | Aug 26, 2026 | Commentary, New Books

The following looseleaf texts have been updated:

CANADIAN DIVORCE LAW AND PRACTICE, 2ND EDITION

Release No. 7, August 2026

Highlights

In this release the definition of "family violence" has been augmented to include the Supreme Court of Canada case Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, in which a new tort of intimate partner violence was recognized.

In recognizing a new tort of intimate partner violence, the Supreme Court of Canada differentiated "family violence" from "intimate partner violence". In addition to including physical acts of violence and psychological abuse, the tort of intimate partner violence considered tactics of isolation, manipulation, humiliation, surveillance, economic abuse, sexual coercion, and intimidation that can control and entrap intimate partners.

See Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 CarswellOnt 7706, 2026 CarswellOnt 7707, 2026 SCC 16, 2026 CSC 16 (S.C.C.), reversing in part 2023 CarswellOnt 10325, 2023 ONCA 476 (Ont. C.A.), varying 2022 CarswellOnt 2367, 2022 ONSC 1303 (Ont. S.C.J.) and 2022 CarswellOnt 2986, 2022 ONSC 1549 (Ont. S.C.J.)

This release also updates cases that consider the appropriate quantum of spousal support payable when a payor spouse either exceeds the SSAG "ceiling" of $350,000 or does not meet the "floor" of $20,000. Notable cases include:

• The arbitrator erred by concluding that the SSAG formulas were of limited assistance on the basis that the husband's income may be over the $350,000 SSAG ceiling. See Eldridge v. Eldridge, 2024 CarswellBC 131, 2024 BCCA 21 (B.C. C.A.).
• Taking into account the needs of the wife, the ability of the husband to pay, and fairness, not formulas, warranted support payable just under the low range of support as calculated by the SSAG using the husband's full income for support purposes. See J.W.C. v. J.L.C., 2026 CarswellNfld 93, 2026 NLSC 46 (N.L. S.C.).
• The husband's income significantly exceeded the SSAG ceiling, and spousal support was ordered at the low range of the SSAG, to terminate in10 years, where the wife had delayed efforts to become financially self-sufficient. See W1908 v. H1908, 2025 CarswellBC 2145, 2025 BCSC 1390 (B.C. S.C.).
• Where the husband's retirement was reasonable in the circumstances, with an employment income of zero and possible investment income of $14,000 left his total income below the SSAG floor, and ongoing spousal support was terminated on an interim basis. See Kelly v. Gammon, 2022 CarswellAlta 174, 2022 ABQB 57 (Alta. Q.B.).

CANADIAN EMPLOYMENT LAW

Release No. 3, July 2026

What's New in This Update

This release updates the case law and commentary in Chapter 33 (Prosecution) and Chapter 35 (Human Rights).

Highlights

Chapter 35 -- I. Introduction -- § 35:1. The Legislation -- and Job Descriptions and Fiduciary Status - Although the Ontario Human Rights Code contains no express limitation restricting the tribunal's jurisdiction to matters within provincial competence, it remains a provincial statute and cannot confer authority over matters that fall within Parliament's exclusive jurisdiction. The constitutional doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity prevents one level of government from legislating in a way that impairs the core of the other's legislative powers: Trudel v. Meta Platforms Inc., 2026 ONSC 789 (Ont. Div. Crt.) at para. 20.

Chapter 35 -- VI. Discrimination on the Basis of Disability -- § 35:52. Physical Disability - In the course of finding that whether an element of a statutory human rights claim is made out is inherently a contextual fact-based inquiry and not a jurisdictional question, the Ontario Divisional Court emphasized that in Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Montreal (City); Quebec (Commission de droits de la personne et des droit de la jeunesse) v. Boisbriand (City), 2000 SCC 27 (CanLII), [2000] 1 SCR 665 (Boisbriand), the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the exclusive application of the bio-medical model of disability in favour of a contextual analysis that considers the socio-political dimensions of discrimination: Bokhari v. Top Medical Transportation Services, 2026 ONSC 1073 (Ont. Div. Crt.) at paragraphs 26, 49 and 51.

Chapter 35 -- VI. Discrimination on the Basis of Disability -- § 35:57. Perceived Disability - "At paragraph 54 of Bokhari v. Top Medical Transportation Services, 2026 ONSC 1073, the Ontario Divisional Court noted that while the Supreme Court in Boisbriand acknowledged that "normal ailments" like a cold "will generally not" constitute a disability because there is "normally not a negative bias" against these ailments, the court did not lay down a hard and fast rule that transitory injuries were necessarily excluded from the meaning of disability. In this regard, the Supreme Court of Canada was careful to emphasize that the multidimensional analysis of disability required under human rights legislation focuses on "obstacles to full participation in society rather than on the condition or state of the individual."

Chapter 35 -- VI. Discrimination on the Basis of Disability -- XII. Discrimination on the Basis of Sex -- § 35:90. Sexual Harassment -- Requirement of a Sexual Component - The maker of offending comments need not have been motivated by the desire to engage in sexual relations with those to whom the comments are made for the comments to constitute sexual harassment. For example, distribution of pornography in the workplace, in and of itself, has been held to constitute sexual harassment: Westjet v. T.H., 2026 FCA 20 at paragraph 24 referencing Poliquin v. Devon Canada Corporation, 2009 ABCA 216 at paragraphs 55 to 60. Lewd comments and demeaning comments based on gender or sexual orientation have been found to constitute sexual harassment in the absence of any sexual intent on the part of the maker. In the Westjet case the, Federal Court of Appeal found that an arbitrator's conclusion that the respondent's repeated comments and questioning of co-workers about their sexual development and that of their female children, as well as his comments about a co-worker's breasts did not amount to sexual harassment, contradicted the well-established case law on sexual harassment. The Federal Court of Appeal noted that the comments and questions were sexual in nature, were made repeatedly, and the respondent knew or should have known that they were inappropriate and unwelcome. The Federal Court of Appeal held that the arbitrator's failure to follow established case law, or, at the very least to provide a rational analysis for the departure, rendered the decision unreasonable, at paragraph 29.

Chapter 35 -- VI. Discrimination on the Basis of Disability -- XV. Procedure -- § 35:133. Other Avenues for Legal Redress for Breaches of Human Rights Legislation - In Weeks v. Abbotsford (City), 2025 BCSC 2120, a class action claim by former female police officers who alleged that they were subjected to gender or sexual orientation-based discrimination, harassment, and bullying by officers and management of British Columbia's municipal police forces that arose during their employment, but unrelated to a dismissal, and that predated the collective agreement, was allowed to proceed. The issue of the negotiation of an article in a collective agreement can be distinct from its application or interpretation and thus, it can be a stand-alone issue or complaint over which a Human Rights Board of inquiry has jurisdiction: University of New Brunswick v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3339, 2025 NBKB 231 at paragraphs 39 and 45 referencing Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 39.

CHILD PROTECTION LAW IN CANADA, 2ND EDITION

Release No. 6, July 2026

What's New in This Update

This release features updates to Chapter 2 (Jurisdiction), Chapter 4 (Motions), Chapter 5 (Protection Application--The Threshold Finding), Chapter 6 (Protection Application--Dispositions), Chapter 8 (Evidence at Trial), Chapter 9 (Summary Proceedings and Agreements) and Chapter 10 (Access).

Highlights

Motions -- Parental Alienation - It is insufficient on a motion to request and order for reunification counselling to simply state that the children won't visit so therefore they must be alienated. Expert evidence is required to identify the cause of the family breakdown and that the counselling would actually benefit the children: Michael v. Gadallah, 2025 ONSC 334.

Motions -- Interim Access - Under s. 94(8) of the Act, the court has broad discretion to impose terms and conditions on access orders, including financial ones, including the payment of transportation costs for a parent to attend access visits: Family and Children's Services of Guelph and Wellington County v. T.S., 2026 ONCJ 148.

Protection Application -- Dispositions -- Temporary Committal Order - The court cautioned against imposing standard or overly broad conditions without evidence. The main concern was the parents' ability to meet the child's significant medical needs. While there was limited evidence of substance use, the court found it insufficient to justify strict conditions like addiction assessments or abstinence requirements: M.H.H.B., Re, 2026 SKKB 66.

Protection Application -- Dispositions -- Permanent Guardianship - All custody-related applications under the FLA must be heard before making a final decision about a child's permanent placement with the Minister: New Brunswick (Minister of Social Development) v. L.K., 2026 NBKB 34.

REGISTRATION OF TITLE TO LAND

Release No. 7, July 2026

What's New in This Update

This release updates the commentary and caselaw in Chapter 5 (Functions of the Registrar), Chapter 6 (Land Descriptions and Registered and Deposited Plans of Survey), Chapter 13 (Mortgages), Chapter 15 (Lis Pendens), Chapter 18 (Statutory Exemptions to Indefeasibility of Title) and Chapter 20 (Builders', Construction and Mechanics' Lien Legislation).

Highlights

Land Descriptions and Registered and Deposited Plans of Survey--The Condominium Acts--The Condominium Corporation--Oppression Remedy - Gordon v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS2300, 2026 BCCRT 654 - Applicant owner of only 3 commercial lots in mixed-use strata building challenges increase in commercial contribution requirement respecting common expenses; applicant alleges new allocation formula based on unit entitlement significantly unfair based increase in commercial share of common expenses from 16% to 21.45%; owner requests return to original allocation scheme and refund of unauthorized amounts paid; strata corporation alleges original allocation scheme violates Act which mandates use of unit entitlement as basis for allocation unless unanimous resolution adopted to approve alternative allocation scheme such that shares should always have been calculated on unit entitlement; strata represented and owner of commercial units reasonably expected share of only 16%; authorities state allocation of common expenses by unit entitlement can give rise to significant unfairness and 34% increase in amount paid towards common expenses is burdensome harsh or inequitable; good faith of strata corporation no defense; order for strata corporation to recalculate share of contributions based on original allocation scheme, determine amounts overpaid and underpaid based on years unit entitlement applied and adjust strata accounts accordingly.

Statutory Exceptions to Indefeasibility of Title--Any Public Highway--Ontario - Township of Cleariew et al. v. Wargon et al., 2026 ONSC 2252 - Dispute over ownership of land registered in respondent's name and alleged to be highway by Township; Township seeks declaration of highway and rectification of title under s. 159 of Land Title Act; legal test for dedication turns on whether owner intended to dedicate land for public highway and road actually opened to and accepted by public; road opening bylaw not mandatory to establish acceptance of highway dedication especially given express dedication by deed and historical evidence of construction and use of road by public; at time of purchase, respondent knew land was used for public highway; adverse possession inapplicable to public highway and highway status unaffected by conversion to land title system; exercise of power of rectification respecting land used for public highway is exception to indefeasibility of title; since road registered on title, current owner not bona fide purchaser for value without notice; order for rectification to reflect Township's ownership of public highway.

The following looseleaf subscriptions have resumed. The most recent update is highlighted below:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF CANADA, 5TH EDITION

Release No. 2, July 2026

What's New in This Update

This release features updates to the case law and commentary in Chapters 1 (Sources), 9 (Responsible Government), 15 (Judicial Review on Federal Grounds), 16 (Paramountcy), 22 (Transportation and Communication), 39 (Override of Rights), 40 (Enforcement of Rights), 43 (Expression), 45 (Voting), 47 (Fundamental Justice), 51 (Rights on Being Charged), 52 (Trial Within Reasonable Time), and 53 (Cruel and Unusual Punishment).

Highlights

Distribution of Power -- Judicial Review on Federal Grounds -- Characterization of Laws -- Double aspect - The double aspect doctrine is not a primary doctrine that, like the pith and substance doctrine (and the ancillary powers doctrine), provides a free-standing analytical framework that can be applied in determining whether a law is valid. It is a secondary doctrine that, when invoked, is folded into the analysis of whether a law is valid under the pith and substance doctrine (and the ancillary powers doctrine). This raises the obvious question: at which step of the pith and substance doctrine should the double aspect doctrine be addressed if invoked? The double aspect doctrine is most relevant to the analysis at the second step of the pith and substance doctrine (the classification step), which, recall, requires a determination of whether the matter of a challenged law falls within a head of power allocated to the level of government that enacted it. Under the double aspect doctrine, a law will be found to be valid at the classification step if it relates to an "aspect" of a matter that falls within a head of power allocated to the enacting level of government, even though the matter has another aspect that falls within a head of power allocated to the other level of government. However, the double aspect doctrine will likely also subtly influence the analysis at the first step of the pith and substance doctrine (the characterization step), which, recall, requires a determination of the matter (or pith and substance) of the challenged law. This is because the courts - as noted in an earlier section - tend to use concepts that will assist in classifying a law at the second step of the pith and substance analysis when they characterize a law at the first step of the pith and substance analysis, despite the Supreme Court of Canada's entreaty - also noted in that earlier section - that the courts keep the two steps of the pith and substance analysis distinct. This explains why the double aspect doctrine is addressed in the part of this chapter relating to the characterization of a law under the pith and substance doctrine, rather than the part of the chapter relating to the classification of a law under the pith and substance doctrine (even though, as noted, the double aspect doctrine is also - indeed particularly - relevant to the classification of a law).

Civil Liberties -- Enforcement of Rights -- Remedy Clause -- Apprehended infringements - In R. v. Varennes (2025), the Supreme Court of Canada awarded a s. 24(1) remedy for another Charter infringement that it feared might occur in the future. In that case, the accused, who was charged with the second-degree murder of his spouse, was to stand trial in September 2020, only a few months after the initial outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the months leading up to the trial, various public health restrictions were instituted to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, including a suspension of jury trials. In June 2020, to avoid potential COVID-19 related delays, the accused requested a trial by judge alone, which is allowed under the Criminal Code if both the accused and the Crown consent. The accused argued that potential COVID-19 delays to jury trials risked infringing his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time. However, the Crown refused to consent to a trial by judge alone for public interest reasons. The accused brought a motion seeking an order for a judge-alone trial in the superior court without Crown consent. The trial judge granted the accused's motion for a judge-alone trial and, at the end of his trial, acquitted him of second-degree murder, convicting him of manslaughter instead. The case ended up in the Supreme Court on appeal, where the central issue was whether the trial judge had the jurisdiction to order a judge-alone trial without Crown consent. Karakatsanis J., who wrote for the majority of the Court, held that the trial judge had the jurisdiction to order a judge-alone trial without Crown consent under the inherent jurisdiction of the superior courts. However, she declined to resolve the standard that should be applied in determining whether to exercise this jurisdiction because she held that s. 24(1) also provided the trial judge the jurisdiction to order a judge-alone trial without Crown consent. The trial judge had concluded that COVID-19 related delays to jury trials would likely have infringed the accused's right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b), and so had the jurisdiction to order a judge-alone trial without Crown consent as a remedy under s. 24(1).

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.

Looseleaf Updates – July 29, 2026

by Linda Fontaine | Jul 29, 2026 | Commentary, New Books

The following looseleaf texts have been updated:

CANADIAN DIVORCE LAW AND PRACTICE, SECOND EDITION

Release No. 6, June 2026

What's New in This Update

In this release case law on variation and review of spousal support has been updated for Wilton & Semple Spousal Support Commentary, Chapter 18.

Highlights

Notable cases include:

• A review order will be set aside where such an order was not warranted on the facts, and where the terms of the order are so restrictive as to effectively foreclose the payor from applying for a variation of spousal support if he or she retired before a pre-determined age, regardless of the circumstances of retirement. See F. (L.C.) v. B. (W.P.), 2023 CarswellPEI 71, 2023 PECA 9 (P.E.I. C.A.).
• Foreseeable contingencies that were not known or contemplated at the time of a spousal support order can still form the basis for a material change in circumstances on a future variation application. See Davidson v. Davidson, 2025 CarswellNB 171, 2025 NBKB 82 (N.B. K.B.).
• Where the husband's income had decreased and the wife's income had increased, the relative changes in the parties' incomes amounted to a material change in the circumstances, and there was no longer a sufficient disparity in the means of the parties to justify continued spousal support. See A.G. v. R.J.G., 2025 CarswellBC 972, 2025 BCSC 583 (B.C. S.C.).
• Prolonged, exceptional level of conflict between the parties that resulted in increased time, stress, and legal fees, may amount to a material change in circumstance that, if known by the parties at the time that the original orders was sought, would likely have resulted in the parties seeking different orders than were originally sought. See S.L.D. v. W.A.D., 2024 CarswellBC 1408, 2024 BCSC 548 (B.C. S.C.).
• An intention to retire may not warrant a variation to a payor's spousal support obligations where, among other factors, the agreement between the parties required that the payor actually retire in order to be able to apply for a variation in spousal support. See Linklater v. Mardukhi, 2024 CarswellBC 3706, 2024 BCSC 2277 (B.C. S.C.).

CHILD PROTECTION LAW IN CANADA, SECOND EDITION

Release No. 5, June 2026

What's New in This Update

This release features updates to Chapter 3 (Commencing the Protection Application), Chapter 4 (Motions), Chapter 5 (Protection Application--The Threshold Finding), Chapter 6 (Protection Application--Dispositions), Chapter 8 (Evidence at Trial), Chapter 9 (Summary Proceedings and Agreements), Chapter 11 (Appeals).

Highlights

Commencing the Protection Application -- Identification - Children's Aid Society of Ottawa v. K.L.C., 2026 ONSC 839, 2026 CarswellOnt 1856 (Ont. S.C.J.) - A finding of Indigenous identity under the CYFSA will not automatically result in a finding under the Federal Act. The CYFSA ties the definition to self-identification and relative/sibling connection. A finding under the Federal Act rests on self-identification, ancestral connections and community acceptance. A finding under both Acts must rest on a reliable and credible evidentiary foundation.

Protection Application--Dispositions -- Timelines - Minister of Opportunities and Social Development v. C.L., 2025 NSSC 427, 2025 CarswellNS 1266 (N.S. S.C.) - While s. 45 of the CFSA limits the total duration of all disposition orders for children under the age of 14, to 12 months, the current case was one of those rare and unusual ones where the best interests of the child demanded a short extension to the statutory timeline. The court found that the Federal Act was about more than providing notice to a ban. It was about the history of Indigenous scoops and ensuring that First Nations children are not removed from their communities unless there is absolutely no alternative. While the Nova Scotia legislation does not provide for an extension of the timelines, the Court of Appeal has found that the timelines can be extended in rare circumstances and where the best interests of the child so demand. In this case, where extending the timelines would facilitate the making of a Customary Care Agreement, avoiding a permanent care order, such an extension is in the best interests of the child.

REGULATION OF PROFESSIONS IN CANADA

Release No. 5, June 2026

What's New in This Update

This release features updates to Chapter 8--Appendices, Appendix A--Recent Regulatory Developments and Appendix SLL--Selected Legal Literature.

Highlights

Appendix A. Recent Regulatory Developments:

• § A:8. Health Professions
• § A:9. Lawyers and Other Legal Professionals
• § A:15. Physicians and Surgeons

Appendix SLL. Selected Legal Literature:

§ SLL:10.50. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

• Guidelines for the use of artificial intelligence in Canadian courts, prep. by Martin Felsky and Karen Letis. (Summer 2025) 48 Prov. Judges J. No. 1, 37 (4).

§ SLL:11. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT

• The Ongoing history of [Ontario Substitute Decisions Act] section 3 counsel: the role and lawyers' professional obligations, by Alexander Procope. (Oct. 2025) 44 E.T.P.J. 321-365.

§ SLL:21 LAWYERS--General

• Changes to disclosure obligations of partial settlement agreements, by Dylan Fisher. (Sept. 2025) 26 Mun. Liab. Risk Man. 63-64.

§ SLL:28. NURSES

• Alberta Court of Appeal upholds arbitral ruling on health service's use of agency nurses, by Bernise Carolino. (June 2025) Can. Lawyer (Online).

§ SLL:30.50. POLICE OFFICERS

• Public order policing in Canada: filling legal gaps by court or Parliament? by Clemens Arzt. (Sept. 2025) 73 Crim. L.Q. 339-373.

The following looseleaf subscriptions have resumed. The most recent update is highlighted below:

DRUG OFFENCES IN CANADA, 4TH EDITION

Release No. 3, June 2026

What's New in this Update

This release features updates to Chapter 27 (Entrapment), Chapter 15 (Proceeds of Crime Money Laundering), Chapter 30 (Mistake of Fact), Chapter 32 (Attacking the Indictment), Chapter 34 (Inadequate Investigation and Third Party Suspect), Chapter 35 (Sentencing Under the CDSA and the Cannabis Act), Chapter 36 (General Sentencing Principles and Pardons) and Chapter 37 (Ministerial Exemptions).

Highlights

• The Crown frequently relies on the testimony of police agents in drug cases. Should such witnesses be treated with the same degree of caution as Vetrovec witnesses? The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed this issue in R. v. Budlakoti, 2025 ONCA 490, and we look at that case in Chapter 27, "Entrapment".
• The Supreme Court has considered many s. 12 Charter challenges to mandatory minimum penalties and did so again in Quebec (Attorney General) v. Senneville, 2025 SCC 33. Notably the Court split 5:4 on the use of so-called "reasonable hypotheticals", in the context of a challenge to sentencing provision for a child pornography offence. We consider the case in Chapter 35, "Sentencing under the CDSA and the Cannabis Act".
• The Supreme Court has also tried to constrain appellate intervention in sentencing appeals in a number of cases. Appellate intervention is permissible where a sentence is "demonstrably unfit." But how do appellate courts avoid intervening in cases where they would have imposed a different sentence? The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal tried to flesh out the "demonstrable unfit standard in R v. Bull, 2025 SKCA 87. We discuss that case in Chapter 35, "Sentencing under the CDSA and the Cannabis Act".
• The role an offender played in a drug trafficking operation is a significant factor in drug sentencing. The Manitoba Court of Appeal considered the description of an individual as a "mid-level dealer" in R. v. Isaac, 2025 MBCA 94. We examine the case in Chapter 35, "Sentencing under the CDSA and the Cannabis Act".
• When can a trial court reject a joint submission, and when should an appellate court intervene when the submission was rejected? These issues have attracted a large body of law. The Alberta Court of Appeal took a thorough look at the issues in R. v. R.P.A., 2025 ABCA 300. We look at that decision in Chapter 36, "General Sentencing Principles and Pardons".

REGISTRATION OF TITLE TO LAND

Release No. 6, June 2026

What's New in this Update

This release updates the commentary and caselaw in Appendix B (Manitoba Forms Under the Real Property Act), Appendix C (British Columbia Forms for Manual Filing), Appendix D (Alberta Forms Under the Land Titles Act (Regulation 480/81--Forms Regulation)) and Appendix WP (Words and Phrases).

Highlights

WORDS AND PHRASES - BRITISH COLUMBIA - RENTAL UNIT - The definition of "rental unit" makes it clear that the factual determination of whether living accommodation is "rented or intended to be rented" is key, hence the arbitrator's thorough review of the facts and circumstances relevant to the relationship between the parties and their intentions. Habitat for Humanity v. Booth (2026), 2026 BCCA 8, 2026 CarswellBC 52 (B.C. C.A.) at para. 52 Justice Grauer.

WORDS AND PHRASES - BRITISH COLUMBIA - SHADOW OF EXPROPRIATION - Expropriation of a property is an ongoing process. This may include the "shadow" of the taking where steps that precede the formal acquisition causes damage to an owner ... S&R Sawmills Ltd. v. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (2025), 2025 CarswellBC 3881, 2025 BCSC 2453 (B.C. S.C.) at para. 162 Gibb-Carsley J.

WORDS AND PHRASES - MANITOBA - CONSOLIDATE - ...to take two or more parcels of land and to create one larger parcel. The City of Winnipeg v. The Government of Manitoba et al. (2025), 2025 MBKB 62, 2025 CarswellMan 198 (Man. K.B.) at para 5 Lanchbery J.

WORDS AND PHRASES - MANITOBA - SUBDIVISION - ...to divide a larger parcel of land into smaller parcels of land. The City of Winnipeg v. The Government of Manitoba et al. (2025), 2025 MBKB 62, 2025 CarswellMan 198 (Man. K.B.) at para. 4 Lanchbery 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.

Looseleaf Updates – June 24, 2026

by Linda Fontaine | Jun 24, 2026 | Commentary, New Books

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.