One Great Case

How much privacy is too much? The Court of Appeal recently granted a motion, in part, that will be the standard for sexual assault cases, using the Sherman Estate framework. The implications are especially critical in sexual violence cases, where litigation itself can be re-traumatizing for the victim. The case is B.E. v. O.R., 2026 ONCA 501 and to dive into this decision, I reached out to Anna Matas, the lawyer who brought the motion on behalf of her client, B.E.The issue is, what factors go to the core of ‘individual dignity’, and how the result affects the litigation process for victims. As Anna pointed out, “ I don't think we ever actually succeed in making litigation easy for survivors of sexual assault.”What You’ll Discover In This Episode The information breach that triggered the first motion for anonymizationThe sequence of pretrial orders that sealed B.E.'s medical recordsHow the Court’s experience with criminal appeals informed Justice Dawe's decision The appeal that may make it safer to report sexual violence and abuseWhy Anna moved away from big ‘crusader’ type casesA disturbing new trend of abusers using litigation to re-traumatize victimsHow Anna prevents burnout in sexual violence casesFor more case details, visit CanLIIOther cases mentioned:Sherman Estate v Donovan Law Society of Ontario v AAAbout the GuestAnna Matas is the founder and principal lawyer of Matas Legal, and a passionate advocate for survivors of sexual violence. She is a Director of the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) and previously served as Chair of the Board of Directors of the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic, which supports survivors of gender-based violence. In 2024, she received the Women's Law Association of Ontario President's Award. Matas holds an LL.B./B.C.L. (2006) and was an editor of the McGill Law Journal.About Your HostAreta Lloyd practices estate and trusts litigation, with a particular focus on capacity litigation. She participates in public speaking, mentoring junior lawyers, and presenting courses on the topics of estates law, health law, and law practice management. Areta has written for several publications and wrote a column for the Alzheimer caregiver website ALZlive.com.ResourcesHave a suggestion for a great case to feature on the show? Email me at [email protected] for support in your legal career? The Toronto Lawyers Association offers resources, networking, and legal research at no cost. Visit https://www.tlaonline.ca/Follow One Great Case on Apple Podcasts, YouTube, or your preferred app to stay up to date with the latest cases and conversations. If you’ve found the show valuable, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts or share it with a colleague. Each time you do, you help another professional discover insights that can shape their practice.

Can historic family law obligations continue to have consequences after death through Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act?A recent case touched on that question, causing a stir in the estates litigation community. The lawyer at the center of the issue is fielding calls from fellow lawyers, who themselves are fielding calls from people seeking to use this decision.But did this decision create new law?To find out more, I reached out to Jenny Bogod, who shared the unique circumstances of the case, as well as her perspective on losing a motion for summary dismissal under Rule 2.1.01.What You’ll Discover In This Episode The strategy behind filing the motionWhy a summary dismissal in this case was ‘ deceptively difficult’How a previously-unknown child support order came to lightThe related threshold motion still awaiting decisionHow Jenny recovers from lossesThe implications of an influx of similar cases in the next few yearsAbout the GuestJenny Bogod is a partner at Rosen Sack LLP, and a passionate litigator whose practice focuses on estate, trusts and capacity litigation as well as professional negligence. Jenny represents dependants, estates, beneficiaries and persons whose capacity is being questioned by others in matters related to will challenges, will interpretation applications, power of attorney disputes, dependant support claims and guardianship applications. For more information or to connect directly with Jenny, visit https://www.rosensack.com/jenny-bogodAbout Your HostAreta Lloyd practices estate and trusts litigation, with a particular focus on capacity litigation. She participates in public speaking, mentoring junior lawyers, and presenting courses on the topics of estates law, health law, and law practice management. Areta has written for several publications and wrote a column for the Alzheimer caregiver website ALZlive.com.ResourcesHave a suggestion for a great case to feature on the show? Email me at [email protected] for support in your legal career? The Toronto Lawyers Association offers resources, networking, and legal research at no cost. Visit https://www.tlaonline.ca/

What happens when the law defines a dog owner more broadly than most people realize?Under Ontario’s Dog Owners’ Liability Act, a person may be treated as a dog’s owner simply because they have temporary possession or control of the animal. That can include a professional dog walker, a friend taking someone else’s dog for a walk, or a neighbour asked to care for it while the actual owner is away.But the surprising definition is only part of the legal problem.In this episode, I’m joined by Toronto personal injury lawyer Shane Katz, who represented a dog walker severely injured while following the owners’ instructions inside their home.The result? A law intended to hold dog owners accountable may now prevent injured caregivers from recovering against the people who actually own the animal, while also exposing those caregivers to liability themselves.Things You’ll Learn in This Episode;Why Ontario’s Dog Owners’ Liability Act ordinarily allows an injured person to establish liability without proving that the owner knew the dog was dangerous.How temporary possession and control of a dog can cause a dog walker or caregiver to be treated as an “owner” under the current interpretation of the law.Why being classified as an owner may prevent an injured person from suing the dog’s actual owner under the statute.How the precedent discussed in the episode shaped both the summary judgment decision and the unsuccessful appeal.Why Shane believes legislative reform may now be the only practical way to restore accountability and protect people temporarily caring for someone else’s dog.About the GuestShane Katz is a personal injury lawyer at Singer Kwinter, where he has been a member of the legal team since 2001. His practice is dedicated exclusively to representing plaintiffs in personal injury, insurance claims, and medical malpractice matters.Shane has advocated for clients before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court, and Court of Appeal. He has been involved in several significant cases, including Bonaiuto v. Pilot Insurance Company and Hazan v. ING Insurance Company. He has successfully resolved many matters in which defendants had previously been unwilling to compensate his clients.Known for his honest, approachable, and compassionate manner, Shane is committed to achieving the strongest possible outcomes while treating every client with dignity and respect.He is a member of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association, the Ontario Bar Association, and The Advocates’ Society. His peers have recognized Shane as a leading personal injury litigation lawyer in Best Lawyers in Canada. He also regularly contributes to the profession through continuing legal education, mentorship of articling students and junior lawyers, and involvement with organizations supporting injured and disabled people. Connect with Shane on LinkedIn. About Your HostAreta Lloyd practices estate and trusts litigation, with a particular focus on capacity litigation. She participates in public speaking, mentoring junior lawyers, and presenting courses on the topics of estates law, health law, and law practice management. Areta has written for several publications and wrote a column for the Alzheimer caregiver website ALZlive.com.ResourcesHave a suggestion for a great case to feature on the show? Email me at [email protected] for support in your legal career? The Toronto Lawyers Association offers resources, networking, and legal research at no cost. Visit https://www.tlaonline.ca/

For decades, family lawyers have represented clients whose abuse was not defined by one isolated incident, but by a pattern of control: financial abuse, isolation, humiliation, threats, physical violence, and the slow erosion of autonomy inside the home.The problem was that tort law did not always know how to capture that kind of harm.Claims like assault, battery, and intentional infliction of mental distress could address pieces of the abuse, but they often miss the cumulative reality of intimate partner violence: the breach of trust, the coercive control, and the loss of dignity, equality, safety, and freedom within what should have been a safe relationship.That is what makes Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia so significant.In recognizing the new tort of intimate partner violence, the Supreme Court of Canada gave family lawyers a framework for harm many clients had been describing for years, but the law had not fully named. The case confirms that intimate partner violence is not merely a series of discrete acts. It can be a pattern of coercive and controlling conduct that causes its own compensable harm.In this episode, Areta is joined by Joanna Radbord, a partner at McCarthy Hansen & Company, who worked on Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia as co-counsel for the appellant before the Supreme Court of Canada. Joanna brings both direct involvement in the case and deep experience in novel family law litigation, constitutional challenges, and research on intimate partner violence. She unpacks why the existing torts were not enough, what this new tort changes for family lawyers and their clients, and why Ahluwalia marks a major shift in how the law recognizes intimate partner violence.What you’ll discover in this episode:How Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia created a new tort of intimate partner violence and why that recognition is significant for family law.Why existing torts like assault, battery, and intentional infliction of mental distress often failed to capture the cumulative harm of coercive control.The three-part test family lawyers now need to understand when assessing intimate partner violence claims.What the new tort changes in practice, from screening and pleadings to damages, settlement strategy, and client safety.Why this case matters for survivors whose harm has often been minimized, fragmented, or treated as incidental to the “real” family law issues.Access your complimentary copy of the exclusive resource guide provided by Joanna Radbord. Click the link below for an instant download.A Primer on the Tort of Intimate Partner ViolenceAbout the GuestJoanna Radbord is a partner at McCarthy Hansen & Company LLP. Joanna has practiced for over a quarter-century, seeking to advance access to family justice through litigation, intervention, law reform, and education. Joanna was awarded the Law Society Medal for exceptional career achievements and contributions to her community in the areas of LGBTQ2+ rights, family law, constitutional, and human rights. She received the Lexpert Zenith Award: Celebrating Women in Law and the Canadian Bar Association Sexual Orientation and CBA Gender Identity Conference Hero Award. Joanna has done ground-breaking work on substantive equality and access to justice, including litigation to achieve spousal status for same-sex couples (M v H), equal marriage (Halpern), trans parenting (Forrester), birth registration (Rutherford), three-parent recognition (AA v BB), and defining parentage (Grand). In relation to Indigenous families, Joanna’s work has addressed jurisdiction over Haudenosaunee family law disputes (Beaver v Hill) and the best interests of Indigenous children in parenting cases (E.Y. v B.A.). She is currently co-counsel in litigation seeking recognition of the tort of family violence before the Supreme Court of Canada (Ahluwalia). Connect with Joanna on LinkedIn.About Your HostAreta Lloyd practices estate and trusts litigation, with a particular focus on capacity litigation. She participates in public speaking, mentors junior lawyers, and presents courses on estates law, health law, and law practice management. Areta has written for several publications and wrote a column for the Alzheimer caregiver website ALZlive.com.ResourcesHave a suggestion for a great case to feature on the show? Email me at [email protected] for support in your legal career? The Toronto Lawyers Association offers resources, networking, and legal research at no cost. Visit https://www.tlaonline.ca/Access your complimentary copy of the exclusive resource guide provided by Joanna Radbord. Click the link below for an instant download.A Primer on the Tort of Intimate Partner Violence

On paper, defamation law looks simple: a false statement is published, a reputation is harmed, and the courts step in to address the damage.The internet has changed that equation.Today, some of the most damaging allegations spread through social media, where accusations can move faster than facts, especially when misinformation about LGBTQ+ people and organizations begins circulating online.Two Ontario defamation cases, Rainbow Alliance Dryden et al. v. Webster and Canadian AIDS Treatment Information Exchange et al. v. Blackwell, exemplify how quickly online accusations can escalate into serious legal battles. Both cases arose after social media posts accused LGBTQ+ organizations and individuals of “grooming” children.What makes these cases especially interesting is how the litigation unfolded. It’s the limits of online speech, the risks of turning cultural narratives into accusations of crime, and how courts determine the real meaning behind words posted on the internet.The result was significant damage awards and an important reminder that anti-SLAPP protections and “public interest” defenses are not a license to publish harmful falsehoods online.To unpack how these cases developed and what they mean for defamation law in the digital age, I sat down with Doug Judson, a lawyer in Northwestern Ontario who represented the plaintiffs and has been involved in a growing number of online defamation cases.Doug shares how a case that started with a single social media post ended up producing one of the largest defamation awards of its kind in Canada.Things you’ll learn;How online accusations of “grooming” against LGBTQ+ organizations turned into major defamation lawsuitsWhy the court rejected the argument that these posts were protected “public interest” commentaryHow anti-SLAPP motions work and why the defendant’s motion failedThe role of expert evidence in explaining the social meaning of defamatory languageWhy summary judgment was the right strategy in these casesHow courts assess malice in online defamation disputesThe challenges of identifying and serving anonymous online defendantsWhy large defamation awards may matter, even when collecting the money is uncertainGuest BioDoug Judson practices law with Judson Howie LLP, a firm based in Northwestern Ontario that works with clients across the province. Doug began his practice with a leading Canadian law firm. He has worked with the in-house legal teams of two financial institutions, has held posts in the federal public service in Ottawa, has served as a contract Crown Attorney, and has worked in economic development, health, and justice programming for Treaty #3 First Nations. Doug started his professional career on Parliament Hill as an aide to two former MPs, and has since been involved with federal, provincial, and municipal election campaigns. From 2018-2022, he served on the council of the Town of Fort Frances. Doug maintains a busy volunteer presence in the community. He currently serves on the boards of the Northwest Community Legal Clinic and Borderland Pride. Doug is also currently the President of the Rainy River District Law Association and Past Chair of the Federation of Ontario Law Associations. He has previously served on the executive of the Ontario Bar Association's sexual orientation and gender identity section, on the Law Society of Ontario’s Equity Advisory Group, as President of the Law Students’ Society of Ontario, and on the boards of the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre and Start Proud, a non-profit serving 2SLGBTQIA+ students and young professionals. https://www.douglasjudson.ca/. About Your HostAreta Lloyd practices estate and trusts litigation, with a particular focus on capacity litigation. She participates in public speaking, mentoring junior lawyers, and presenting courses on the topics of estates law, health law, and law practice management. Areta has written for several publications and wrote a column for the Alzheimer caregiver website ALZlive.com.