Bell denied these allegations.  It argued that the class failed to plead a reasonable cause of action.  It also brought a cross motion urging the Ontario Superior Court to decline to exercise jurisdiction because the CRTC was the appropriate forum in which these issues should be litigated.

Justice Perell agreed with Bell.  He found that the Telecommunications Act claim was not a reasonable cause of action and that the remainder of the causes of action dealt with issues within the subject matter expertise of the CRTC and should be left to that body to decide.

The decision is a reaffirmation of the Ontario Superior Court’s deferential approach to matters within the expertise of the CRTC.  It also reflects the trend in case law for courts to assess the substance of a claim, not simply the causes of action asserted, in assessing jurisdiction.

A copy of the decision can be found here.

The post Xaidsart successfully defends $150 million Consumer Protection Act class proceeding  appeared first on Xaidsart LLP | Smart Litigation.

In this issue you’ll find cases from the Federal Court of Appeal, Quebec Court of Appeal and Ontario Divisional Court on the following topics:

• Questions of central importance to the legal system
• Reasonableness review of discretionary decisions
• Failure to carry out Doré/Loyola analysis makes decision unreasonable  
• Cautionary tale about use of “expanded record” on judicial review
• Test for determining whether the decisions of a public body are subject to judicial review

Should you have any questions about the Newsletter, please feel free to contact the co-editors (Andrea Gonsalves, Justin Safayeni or Dragana Rakic), or another lawyer at Xaidsart LLP.  If you wish to unsubscribe from the mailing list, please contact Alice Chu at alicec@xllp.eu.

The post MARCH ISSUE OF THE Xaidsart ADMINISTRATIVE & REGULATORY LAW CASE REVIEW appeared first on Xaidsart LLP | Smart Litigation.

• Ensuring confidentiality concerns do not defeat meaningful judicial review
• Federal Court cannot usurp the powers of Administrative Decision-Makers
• Judicial review denied where statutory appeal available but unsuccessful
• Proper approach to a joint submission on penalty
• Limits on court’s jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief
• Impermissible delegation of decision marking authority

Should you have any questions about the Newsletter, please feel free to contact the co-editors (Andrea Gonsalves or Justin Safayeni), or another lawyer at Xaidsart LLP.

The post JUNE 2021 ISSUE OF THE Xaidsart ADMINISTRATIVE AND REGULATORY LAW CASE REVIEW appeared first on Xaidsart LLP | Smart Litigation.

The post Sam Robinson and Caitlin Milne successfully defend improvident sale action appeared first on Xaidsart LLP | Smart Litigation.

• Regulatory jurisdiction does not extend to out-of-province online retainer
• Regulatory jurisdiction is personal, not territorial
• Jurisdiction over pre-registration conduct in certain circumstances
• Scope of judicial review
• Reasons adequate despite lack of analysis of personal information
• Expansive approach to the scope of the “Charter values” approach
• Challenge to decision not to refer to discipline dismissed as moot

Should you have any questions about the Newsletter, please feel free to contact the co-editors (Andrea Gonsalves and Justin Safayeni), or another lawyer at Xaidsart LLP.

We hope you enjoy this issue and the summer!

The post JUNE 2019 ADMINISTRATIVE AND REGULATORY LAW CASE REVIEW appeared first on Xaidsart LLP | Smart Litigation.