Appealing Briefs

Can a thumbs-up emoji create a binding contract? According to the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan, it can, but context matters. On this episode of Appealing Briefs, Adam speaks with McCarthy Tétrault litigator Jocelyn Turnbull-Wallace about Achter Land and Cattle v. South West Terminal Ltd. and the factors that businesses and individuals should bear in mind when using informal methods of communication to discuss business transactions.

Can internet users in Canada reasonably expect their IP addresses to remain private? Yes, says the Supreme Court of Canada, and law enforcement therefore requires a warrant to obtain IP addresses from third-party organizations. On this episode,  Adam Goldenberg speaks with litigator Natalie Kolos about the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Bykovets and its implications for businesses that collect Canadians' personal information.

When will a court decline to enforce an arbitration clauses in a standard form “click” contract? On this episode of Appealing Briefs, host Adam Goldenberg speaks with McCarthy Tétrault litigation partner Andrew Kalamut and litigation associate Meaza Damte about the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s decision in Lochan v. Binance and its implications for companies and consumers.

Are damages presumed once a court finds a breach of the duty of honest contractual performance? On this episode, Adam speaks with McCarthy Tétrault litigation partner Kosta Kalogiros about the Court of Appeal for Ontario's decision in Bhatnagar and its implications for parties to corporate transactions.

How can a party to an arbitration agreement lose the right to enforce that agreement in court? Adam Goldenberg speaks to McCarthy Tétrault litigation associate Omair Jafrani about the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s judgment in RH20 North America Inc. v. Bergmann, and about the perils of defending an action in court in the face of an agreement to arbitrate.

How should courts decide challenges to the legality of subordinate legislation, such as regulations, rules, and bylaws? This episode briefs you on the Supreme Court of Canada’s November 2024 judgments in Auer v. Auer and TransAlta Generation Partnership v. Alberta. Adam Goldenberg speaks to McCarthy Tétrault associate Emma Walsh about the implications of these decisions on the administrative law of judicial review and for those who may wish to challenge subordinate legislation.

Can legislatures prevent judges from reviewing government decisions? On this episode, Adam speaks to McCarthy Tétrault litigation partner Jamie Holtom about the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Democracy Watch, and about what it means for those who seek to challenge administrative decisions in court.

What does Dr. Jordan Peterson’s much-publicized – and unsuccessful – legal battle against the College of Psychologists of Ontario mean for professional regulation in Canada, and in particular for regulated professionals’ freedom to speak their minds online?

On this episode of Appealing Briefs, Adam Goldenberg speaks with Caroline Zayid, McCarthy Tétrault’s Regional Managing Partner for Ontario, who was lead counsel for the College in the Peterson case, about the implications of the Divisional Court’s decision.

Do customs agents need reasonable suspicion to conduct searches of digital devices at the border? In the R. v. Pike and R. v. Scott, the Court of Appeal for Ontario answered “yes”, and struck down a provision of the federal Customs Act that permits searches on a lesser standard.
On this episode, Adam discusses the implications of this judgment for cross-border travellers and constitutional litigations. His guest is  Aya Schechner, a member of McCarthy Tétrault’s National Appellate Litigation Group.

How do Canadian courts reconcile the need to conduct proceedings publicly with the protection of police informers?

In this episode of Appealing Briefs, host Adam Goldenberg speaks with McCarthy Tétrault litigator Simon Bouthillier about the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Named Person, addressing how and to what extent courts must protect the identity of police informers while remaining faithful to the principle that Canadian courts must do their work in the open.