|
Highlights
ANTON PILLER ORDERS
An Extraordinary Remedy for Extraordinary Circumstances
Steven Mason, Jacob Glick
Over the lifetime of a corporation, employees with
access to the company's confidential information will come and go.
Managing this turnover – and in particular preventing departing
employees from misusing confidential business information – can be
a vexing task. The proliferation of electronic data and the use of the
Internet has increased the risk that confidential information may be
disseminated and evidence may be destroyed prior to trial. Of particular
concern are situations in which it is subsequently uncovered that,
before leaving, the departing employee copied his or her company's
proprietary computer source code, its customer lists and other
confidential business documents. The Anton Pillar Order is a powerful
civil remedy, granted without notice, which allows for the search and
seizure of documents and goods in order to preserve them as evidence for
trial. Steven Mason and Jacob Glick examine the extraordinary nature of
Anton Pillar Orders and the rigorous standards which must be followed in
obtaining and executing these orders.
LIMITATION PERIODS
Agreements to Vary Limitation Periods
H. Martin Kay, QC, Brenda Johnson
The introduction of new limitations statutes in
Alberta and Ontario has been both welcomed and criticized in both
jurisdictions. In particular, the statutes have been criticized for the
effect they purport to have on the ability of parties to contract out of
the limitations proscribed by the statutes. Limitations statutes have
not historically prohibited agreements to vary statutory limitation
periods. Martin Kay and Brenda Johnson examine the two statutes and
canvass several arguments regarding the intention and likely
interpretation of the new legislation and its effect on freedom of
contract.
CLASS PROCEEDINGS
The Case for a Uniform Policy of Multiple Defendant Class
Actions
James A. Woods
The recent proclamation of Alberta's Class
Proceedings Act serves as a reminder of how inconsistently class
proceedings are legislated in Canada. In particular, there is
considerable divergence amongst the provinces about the appropriate way
to deal with multiple defendant class proceedings; that is, disputes in
which one or more plaintiffs bring an action against multiple defendants
and a class of defendants is certified in order to further judicial
economy by reducing the number of claims the defendants would otherwise
be required to defend. James Woods examines the various approaches taken
by the courts in jurisdictions across Canada and argues for the
desirability of a uniform multiple defendant class proceeding framework.
| |
Board
Larry P. Lowenstein
Editor-in-Chief
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
Larry A. Banack
Koskie Minsky
Lyndon A.J. Barnes
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
H. Martin Kay, QC
Bennett Jones LLP
Paul H. Le Vay
Stockwoods LLP
F. Paul Morrison
McCarthy Tétrault LLP
Robert S. Russell
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
William V. Sasso
Sutts, Strosberg LLP
James C. Tory
Torys LLP
John Williams
KPMG LLP
James A. Woods
Woods & Partners |
