07/11/2008 — Supreme Court of Canada restricts the type of damages that can be recovered by wrongfully dismissed employees

Recent Supreme Court of Canada decision will have chilling effects on wrongful dismissal lawsuits

Over the past few decades, employment law has seen a number of significant shifts in the power struggle between employers and employees. For the most part, those shifts favoured employees as courts expanded their ability to seek additional damages in wrongful dismissal cases. But in the recent decision of Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays, 2008 SCC 39, it can be strongly argued that Supreme Court of Canada has put employers back in the driver’s seat in the employment relationship.

For the full article please click here.

07/07/2008 — Wage Earner Protection Program comes into force.

For more see here.

08/29/2007 — Healthcare IT procurement: Key factors for success

Reprint from Canadian Healthcare Technology, June/July 2007 issue.

08/29/2007 — Disaster Planning Risk Assessment and Management: Legal Risks and Solutions

Highlighting some of the legal issues that may be faced by various actors involved in the repsonse to emergencies.

10/11/2007 — No Negligence if there was No Retainer

Will O'Hara and Anna Husa were successful in defending a professional negligence claim against a lawyer on the basis that the lawyer was not retained to do the thing that the plaintiff alleged was done negligently.

The plaintiff had a fire at his farmhouse and suffered some damage to his house and contents. The question was how much damage. The plaintiff claimed against his insurer alleging that virtually everything he owned had to be replaced and his house had to be rebuilt. The insurance company offered him a small amount to cover his actual losses. The defendant lawyer was retained by the plaintiff to start an action against the insurer simply to preserve the limitation period but following that the plaintiff declined to do anything more. The insurer invoked an appraisal process to settle the claim and the value of the loss was determined to be very modest. The plaintiff then sued the lawyer for somehow failing to ensure that the appraisal resulted in a higher amount. The lawyer defended on the basis that his retainer in the matter was over before the appraisal process began. He had no duty to the plaintiff to make sure the appraisal was favourable to the plaintiff. Justice Paisley agreed. After hearing evidence for fourteen days, Justice Paisley gave an oral decision dismissing the plaintiff's claim. Justice Paisley also awarded costs to the lawyer in the amount of $160,000.

The case sets a precedent in that it establishes that a lawyer's liability is limited to the actual retainer of the lawyer. For a copy of the decision, please contact Will O'Hara or Anna Husa.