The Litigation and Dispute Resolution Group delivers a full range of advocacy services to our clients with expertise in a wide variety of commercial and corporate related matters. We are fully equipped to represent our clients in the resolution of complex substantive disputes and problems.

Specialized groups within the department provide advice and advocacy in civil, criminal and administrative proceedings. We are committed to a client centered approach to address litigation needs. Our lawyers prepare and outline strategies offering imaginative, creative and practical advice with a view to achieving an early and favourable resolution of disputes. If settlement is not possible, our experienced lawyers and sophisticated support facilities allow us to forcibly advocate on our clients' behalf throughout the litigation process.

We work with our clients to develop commercially reasonable solutions to problem transactions and situations, including the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

Notable Litigation and Dispute Resolution Cases

• Counsel for Respondent, 2003, Szczerba v. St. Stanislaus-St. Casimir's Polish Parishes Credit Union Ltd. Successfully persuaded applications judge to confirm decision of Credit Union’s board of directors to declare vacant seat of rogue director for breach of director’s duty of confidentiality and failure to act in the best interests of the Credit Union. Reported at (2003) 31 B.L.R. (3d) 252 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice). 
• Counsel for Plaintiff, 2002 - United Laboratories, Inc. v. Abraham. Successfully enforced in Ontario, after trial, a judgment of the United States District Court, which awarded compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney’s fees as a consequence of the defendants’ breach of a United States federal statute. The statute prohibited the interception of electronically stored communications without authorization for commercial advantage and private commercial gain. Reported at 62 O.R. (3d) 26 (2002) (Ontario Superior Court of Justice). 
• Counsel for Defendant, 2000 - Gibson v. Open Text Corp. Assisted in successfully persuading Ontario Court of Appeal to reverse trial judge’s finding that termination provisions in an internet software company’s stock option plan that required that a person be employed by the company in order to exercise stock options did not apply to an external consultant. As a result, the consultant was prevented from exercising the company’s stock options after he had terminated his relationship with the company. Reported at [2000] O.J. No. 1697 (Ontario Court of Appeal). 
• Counsel for Defendant, 2000 - Felker v. Cunningham. Successfully persuaded the Ontario Court of Appeal to overturn a trial decision involving issues of breach of fiduciary duty by executive of manufacturer’s sales representative company. The employee had attempted to operate his own business in competition with his employer without first obtaining his employer’s fully informed consent. Reported at 191 D.L.R. (4th) 734 (Ontario Court of Appeal – leave to appeal to Supreme Court of Canada denied).  
• Counsel for Defendant, 2000 - Matrix Photocatalytic Inc. v. Purifics Environmental Technologies Inc. Successfully defended departing senior executives of environmental technology company who were successful in developing their own technology in multi-million dollar action brought by their former employer. The claims dismissed included patent infringement, breach of confidence and breach of fiduciary duty. Successfully overturned interlocutory injunction that had prevented employees from soliciting potential customers. Reported at (2000) 10 B.L.R. (3d) 296 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice). 
• Counsel for Plaintiff, 1998 - Sidaplex-Plastic Suppliers Inc. v. Elta Group Inc. Successfully persuaded the Ontario Court of Appeal to overturn an application judge’s ruling under Ontario’s Bulk Sales Act held in a corporate oppression case that a creditor had status as a complainant and could obtain payment of its debt from the corporation’s sole shareholder, officer and director. The court has no discretion to refuse to set aside a sale in bulk for non-compliance with the Act. However the buyer could avoid liability if the creditor waived compliance with the Act. The waiver did not have to be in writing but could be oral. Reported at 40 O.R. (3d) 563 (1998) and at 162 D.L.R. (4th) 367 (Ontario Court of Appeal).