Looseleaf Updates – July 29, 2026

by Melissa Ritz | 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 Melissa Ritz | 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.