The recent Alberta case of Bard v. Canadian Natural Resources provides a road map for compelling the production of native electronic documents in “usable” form.
In Canada, the issue of whether an NDA may be an unenforceable restraint of trade has been explored in the employment law context, however, there has been very little discussion as to whether an NDA could be considered a restraint of trade in transactions between two or more businesses. There has also been little discussion in Canada as to the distinction between trade secrets and ordinary confidential information. As such, US case law may provide some guidance.
A risk register makes you feel good. It makes you feel you have accomplished something, a list of risks that might cause harm to the organization. It makes the executive team and the board feel that they can check the box: “do you have a risk management program? Yes.” But, does that risk register help people formulate and then execute the right strategies for the organization to deliver optimal value?
The word, a magic word with amazing power, is “why”. Let’s think of the power of this word when it comes to risk and risk management.
The decision in Quilichini v Wilson provides affirmation to business owners (especially those in the recreational industry) that a well–drafted electronic waiver and release that is properly presented in an understandable format will likely be held to be enforceable.
The Federal Court granted an interlocutory injunction restraining Sears from using the slogan “There is no reason to buy a mattress anywhere else”. Sleep Country owns two Canadian trademark registrations for the slogan “Why buy a mattress anywhere else?”. The slogan, and its accompanying musical jingle, have been used by Sleep Country in television, print, radio, and online advertising and promotional campaigns since 1994.
On March 22, 2017, Canada’s Finance Minister Bill Morneau tabled the Liberal Government’s Federal Budget 2017, Building a Strong Middle Class, which includes various measures affecting businesses. The federal budget 2017 is modest and is focused on skills training, innovation and how Canada will promote sustainable growth. The government is forecasting a deficit of $28.5-billion, […]
When an organization is focused on avoiding failure, it is very hard to be successful. Operational risk is basically about the things that can go wrong in day–to–day processes that can trip you up. It is impossible to eliminate such risk. The best you can hope for is to take a level of risk that is appropriate given the business and what it takes to be successful.
With the highly anticipated release of its Guidelines on the National Security Review of Investments, the Canadian government has finally shed some light on circumstances which may draw investors and parties involved in the investment into the realm of a national security review.
In two recent decisions, the Supreme Court of Canada held (by a 7–2 majority) that rectification of a written instrument requires the existence of a prior agreement amongst the parties, with definite and ascertainable terms. Courts may rectify an instrument if it fails to accurately record the agreement and the rectification of the instrument would record the parties’ prior agreement.
I did a video with Joe McCafferty of MISTI last month. I am interested in whether you share my views. I also have some questions for you—after you watch the video.
In Apotex Inc. v Astrazeneca Canada Inc., 2017 FCA 9, the Court of Appeal had to interpret section 39 of the Federal Courts Act in order to determine the appropriate limitation period for those patents that issued before a six–year limitation period was established by section 55.01 of the Patent Act in 1993.
If a volunteer falls off a ladder, and there is no one around to see how or why they fell, who is liable? The Court in the following matter addresses this.