Google reviews – you either love ’em or hate ’em. Negative reviews can do unimaginable harm to your reputation and there is often little you can do to remove them. One company in Ontario, however, is trying to do just that. This Pre-Claim Injunction explains the interaction between Rules 37.17 and 16.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure in determining whether email notification is acceptable as personal service.
 In most cases, I would not be satisfied that when Myers J. sent the motion back to Obsidian’s counsel to be brought “on notice”, he meant notice by something other than the personal service required for an originating process. This was, after all, the first missive in this action (or proposed action) that Google, as defendant, would have received. However, Google is an unusual respondent in certain respects, and its uniqueness may impact on the way in which the ambiguity between Rule 16.01 and Rule 37.17 is interpreted.
Since Google has three dedicated email addresses dealing with litigation, Morgan, J. accepted that notice had been given. The interim injunction and Norwich Order sought was granted.
Take a look at some of the texts the library has to offer to help with any legal nightmares
· Legal responsibilities of real estate agents — 3rd ed. By Rosemary Bocska and Martin K.I. Rumack
· Caveat emptor and the pros and cons of greater sellers’ disclosure CPD
· 2019 hot topics in real estate (Stigmatized property) CPD
· The law of libel in Canada — 4th ed. Peter A. Downard
· Brown on Defamation
Also be sure to check out this article on HeinOnline about a case where a house was legally declared haunted.
Keep reading for some tips on finding related resources for titles like; AIDS, Ghosts, Murder: Must Real Estate Brokers and Sellers Disclose, or Caveat Spiritus: A Jurisdictional Reflection upon the Law of Haunted Houses and Ghosts
This decision by Lanchbery, J. concerns the right of Manitoba Public Insurance to cancel a personalized licence plate (PLP) after allowing the respondent to display it for almost two years. The slogan on the licence plate was based on characters from Star Trek.
 The question before me, is the limit of s. 2(b) rights on PLPs for the purpose to “eliminate the inappropriate/possibly offensive slogans”, reasonable. Troller v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, 2019 MBQB 157
The parties agreed that the decision to revoke the PLP is a discretionary administrative act of the Registrar (para. 81). Lanchbery, J. found that Charter protections are engaged, but further analysis showed that the actions of MPIC were reasonable.
One interesting fact that came out of this was that MPIC uses the Urban Dictionary as one of its sources to determine whether a potential PLP is offensive.
This week’s decision concerns an application for an oppression remedy: Caughlin v. Canadian Payroll Systems Inc., 2019 MBQB 6.
Caughlin … alleges that the conduct of Lyle and CPS has been oppressive and unfairly prejudicial and that there has been an unfair disregard for his interests. Caughlin seeks a remedy to address the inequitable conduct and activities of Lyle and CPS.
As noted by Harris, J., s. 234(2) of The Corporations Act, C.C.S.M. c. C225 explains the grounds for seeking an oppression remedy, and the leading case is BCE Inc. v. 1976 Debentureholders, 2008 SCC 69.
Effective immediately, the Civil Motion Coordinator (Cheryl Laniuk) is to be contacted (phone number – 204-945-3043) regarding the scheduling of all civil motions, including those returnable on the civil uncontested list, contested motions and seized motions.
Coming into effect
This Practice Direction comes into effect immediately.
The Manitoba Law Library would like to acknowledge with gratitude that we are situated on Treaty One Territory, the traditional lands of the Anishinaabe, Cree and Dakota peoples, and the homeland of the Métis Nation.
Printing and Photocopying
If you need to use the library’s printing and photocopying services you will need to create an account. Email us at email@example.com to get started.