Published by the Litigation Group
McCarthy Tétrault FRANÇAIS VOL.4,
ISSUE 3
2011
May
20
Litigation Co-Counsel


Letter from the Editors

Letter from the Editors
by: Geoff R. Hall, Martin B. Halpern

Welcome to Volume 4, Issue 3 of McCarthy Tétrault Co-Counsel: Litigation. In this issue, as in all our publications, we aim to provide you with a deeper level of analysis to current legal developments.

We begin with the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Canada (A.G.) v. Telezone, with a look at how Telezone widens the net of federal government liability by providing litigants with a choice of procedure to challenge the decision making of federal boards, commissions and tribunals.

We analyze another Supreme Court of Canada case, the landmark insolvency decision, Century Services Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General). Not only did the Supreme Court overrule the Ontario Court of Appeal decision on the issue of Crown priorities but also, for the first time, it considered and explained the approach courts should employ when applying the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) and the interaction among Canada’s multiple insolvency related statutes.

This issue contains "need-to-know info" for our readers in all the courts across our country and internationally.

For example, must harm be "common" in order to justify the certification of a class action? The Québec Court of Appeal recently tackled this issue, and we cover it in these pages.

And, what should be done if the Competition Bureau, with its substantial investigative powers, comes knocking at the door with a search warrant? We offer 13 practical guidelines in this issue.

Our firm has a highly advanced litigation support services group. We highlight using litigation support in this edition as a way to control e-discovery costs.

Turning outward, this issue also reviews Kuwait Airways Corp. v. Iraq, the Supreme Court of Canada decision dealing with recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment against a foreign state.

On pensions, the Alberta Court of Appeal decision in Halliburton Group Canada Inc. v. Alberta will be of interest to pension plan sponsors.

We round out our analysis of leading developments with an overview of the Ontario Securities Commission guidance on the use of rights plans in the Baffinland case.

And, we complete our investigations with our regular "Reflections" column by the Honourable James M. Farley, QC. In this one, he starts off like Charles Dickens with an unfortunate "tale of two decisions" about unclear and confusing conclusions regarding the tort of unlawful interference with economic relations, then adds a dash of Sgt. Joe Friday (of Dragnet fame), with that character’s "Just give me the facts" line that sums up what some wish was the higher courts’ approach to these issues.

We hope you enjoy "all the facts" in this issue, as well as our own authors’ "reality checks" on what these developments mean to you.

If you have any questions, please contact Geoff R. Hall (Editor-in-Chief) or Martin Halpern (Knowledge Management Lawyer).