Air Canada et al. v. Westjet Airlines Ltd. et al. is evidently “the largest case of corporate espionage ever seen in Canada”. It will undoubtedly spawn many rulings as it proceeds through the courts and today’s is an interesting one.
Air Canada has sued Westjet for damages of more than $200 million. As one might expect in a case of that size, documentary production is a significant issue. Three weeks of discoveries are scheduled for June, 2006, but the parties are still fighting over what documents have to be produced and, more importantly, the method by which the parties have assembled their productions. This decision of Mr. Justice Ian Nordheimer addresses some of the issues of electronic production of documents that will probably arise more and more often in future.
For the second consecutive year, Steve Cavanagh was one of a small group of eastern Ontario lawyers who were rated by 
The law firm of Kramer Henderson had a very good day today. It had appealed an assessment officer’s refusal to allow a $60,000 fee premium from their former client. Superior Court Justice John Belleghem allowed the firm’s appeal and found that Kramer Henderson was entitled to its premium. In his reasons, he lavishly praised the “wisdom”, “exceptionality in negotiating skills” and “exceptional skill and ability” of the law firm, in achieving a “result…beyond the client’s wildest expectation”.
In 
In an important decision released this afternoon, the Court of Appeal held that the “your work” exclusion in a CGL policy (often referred to as a “business risk” exclusion) did not apply where the complained-of work had been performed by the insured’s subcontractor. In the course of its reasons, the C.A. made some interesting observations about CGL policies whose effects are likely to be felt beyond this case. The court made it clear that coverage is to be decided in accordance with the wording of the policy, not on the basis of “general principles” of insurance law.
In a decision that will be of great interest to the insurance industry, the Court of Appeal ordered a new trial in a personal injury action. The defence won on all three grounds of appeal: (a) the trial judge’s refusal to admit surveillance videotape; (b) inflammatory comments made in the course of the closing address to the jury by plaintiff’s counsel; and (c) the trial judge’s failure to provide the jury with a balanced view of the defence medical evidence.