• Education Law
• Human Rights Litigation
• Civil Litigation
• Inquests
• Corporate/Commercial
  Law
• Criminal Law
• Landlord/Tenant
• Refugee Law Cases
• Community Development
• Police Law
• Reported Cases

Civil Litigation / Corporate Commercial Law

Employment Litigation; Defamation; False Arrest/False Detention; Breach of Contract; Breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; Lawsuits against public authorities (Experience include: drafting legal documents; attending on motions, mediations, discoveries, trials and appeals). Cases include:

• Toronto Community Housing Corp. v. Daniels 2006 CarswellOnt 6415
• Loftman v. Cara Operations Ltd. 2006 CarswellOnt 7400
• Bazodee Connection v. Toronto Mas Band Association (06-CV-313127PD1, Sachs J., June 27, 2006).
• Appeared in Freeman-Maloy v. Marsden (Ontario Court of Appeal, March 31, 2006), overturning Hoy J. decision in Freeman-Maloy v. Marsden [2005] O.J. No. 1730 (S.C.J.).
• Appeared as co-counsel with Peter Rosenthal in the Federal Court of Appeal (October 12, 2005) in The Honourable Sinclair Stevens v. The Conservative Party of Canada, 2005 FCA 383, 2005 F.C.J. No. 1890 (Fed. C.A.) (2005-11-17): "This is the first time this Court will be asked to interpret sections 400 to 403 of the Canada Elections Act (S.C. 2000, c. 9), which came into force on September 1, 2000 (Can. Gaz. Part I, Spec. Ed. Vol. 134, No. 6)." Justice Decary. Also, worked on motions in this case: The Honourable Sinclair Stevens v. The Conservative Party of Canada et al. (A-642-04, February 25, 2005, Rothstein J.A.); The Honourable Sinclair Stevens v. The Conservative Party of Canada et al. (A-642-04, March 03, 2005, Decary J.A.).
• Featherstone v. Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board  [2005] O.J. No. 4431, a stay of a suspension of a grade 11 student.
• Appeared in the Ontario Court of Appeal (co-counsel) in Bangoura v. Washington Post,  Bangoura v Washington Post, 258 D.L.R. (4th) 341, 2005 CarswellOnt 4343, [2005] O.J. No. 3849, 17 C.P.C. (6th) 30, 2005 CanLII 32906 (Ont. C.A. Sep 16, 2005), an important libel and Slander matter on the issue of jurisdiction. See also Bangoura v. Washington Post, (2005-12-19) (decision on costs): "This case represented the first time that this court has had the opportunity to consider the application of the real and substantial connection test in respect of jurisdiction in a libel case.  The case attracted the attention of the Media Coalition who intervened in the appeal.  The members of the Media Coalition publish newspapers, magazines and books worldwide.  They also broadcast radio and television programming in North America and elsewhere.  They publish Internet websites that have been accessed by millions of viewers in more than 200 countries." Chief Justice McMurtry. 
• Successfully represented a 11 year old boy, in Rudder (Litigation guardian of) v. Ontario Amateur Softball Assn. [2005] O.J. No. 3358, who was seeking a release from the Ontario Amateur Softball Association to play for another team on the basis of a racial slur from his coach.
• Appeared in the Ontario Court of Appeal (co-counsel) in Bangoura v. Washington Post ,  2005 CanLII 32906 (ON C.A.) (2005-09-16) , an important libel and Slander matter on the issue of jurisdiction.
• Appeared in the complex Education Law matter of K. B. and T. M. v. Toronto District School Board et al. (May 03, 2006, Chapnick J., Div. Ct). For other decision in this case see, K. B. and T. M. v. Toronto District School Board et al. [2006] O.J. No. 1380; K. B. and T. M. v. Toronto District School Board et al. [2006] O.J. No. 362 (sealing order); K. B. and T. M. v. Toronto District School Board et al. [2006] O.J. No. 746 (striking part of affidavit and sealing order); K.B. v. Toronto District School Board [2006] O.J. No. 1026 (intervention of JFCY).
• Cespedes v. University of Toronto 2004 CarswellOnt 575, (2004) 182 O.A.C. 390 (Ont. Div. Ct.)
• Adamidis v. Canada (Treasury Board) [2005] F.C.J. 1747 (Fed. Ct.)(administrative law — The hearing — Conduct of — Procedure — Applicants were served with notice of status review that required them to show why proceedings should not be dismissed for delay — Applicants filed submissions — Proceeding was to continue as specially managed proceeding — Applicants were to serve and file requisition for hearing within 15 days of date of this order)