LEXPERT MAGAZINE
|
JANUARY 2013 57
COMBINED AIR MECHANICAL SERVICES INC., DRAVO MANUFACTURING INC. AND COMBINED AIR MECHANICAL SERVICES
>
Hodder Barristers > J. Gardner Hodder and Guillermo Schible
WILLIAM FLESCH, WJF INVESTMENTS INC., SERVICE SHEET METAL INC. AND JAMES SEARLE >
Chitiz Pathak LLP
> Daniel F. Chitiz and Tamara Ramsey
FRED MAULDIN, DAN MYERS, ROBERT BLOMBERG, THEODORE LANDKAMMER, LLOYD CHELLI, STEPHEN YEE,
MARVIN CLEAIR, CAROLYN CLEAIR, RICHARD HANNA, DOUGLAS LAIRD, CHARLES IVANS, LYN WHITE, ATHENA SMITH
AND BRUNO APPLIANCE AND FURNITURE, INC. > McCarthy Tétrault LLP > Sarit E. Batner and Moya J. Graham
CASSELS BROCK & BLACKWELL LLP, GREGORY JACK PEEBLES AND ROBERT HRYNIAK >
Heydary Hamilton PC;
McCague Borlack LLP > Javad Heydary and David K. Alderson; Ruzbeh Hosseini
394 LAKESHORE OAKVILLE HOLDINGS INC. >
Robins Appleby & Taub LLP > David A. Taub and Dominique Michaud
CAROL ANNE MISEK AND JANET PURVIS >
Aird & Berlis LLP > William A. Chalmers
MARIE PARKER, KATHERINE STILES AND SIAMAK KHALAJABADI >
Wagner Sidlofsky LLP; WeirFoulds LLP
>
Gregory M. Sidlofsky; Faren H. Bogach
ERIC CASALESE, GERARDA DINA BIANCO CASALESE, ANTONIETTA DI LAURO AND MAURO DI LAURO
>
Wagman, Sherkin > Charles Wagman
PINO SCARFO > Klaiman, Edmonds > Mark A. Klaiman
ALBERT JOHN GAY, KIMBERLEY ANN DOYLE AND JAMES BLISS WILSON > Wagners; Crosbie, Ches,
Barristers > Raymond F. Wagner; Chesley F. Crosbie, Q.C.
REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY 7 >
Cox & Palmer > Catherine Bowlen
DR. RAJGOPAL S. MENON >
Gilbert McGloan Gillis > Rodney J. Gillis, Q.C.
9
10
COMBINED AIR MECHANICAL SERVICES INC. V. FLESCH;
MAULDIN V HRYNIAK; BRUNO APPLIANCE AND FURNITURE V. HRYNIAK;
LAKESHORE V MISEK; PARKER V. CASALESE
CLIENTS FIRMS LAWYERS
GAY V. MENON
CLIENTS FIRMS LAWYERS
TOP 10 CASES 2012
LOOKING AHEAD
The vagaries of publication deadlines means that we have an October 31 deadline for Top 10 candidates.
By the time our January issue goes to press, however, we've usually accumulated the beginnings of our long list
for next year. Indeed, at press time, two important SCC cases were already under consideration.
In the first, Teva v. Pfizer, the Supreme Court clarified the law on sufficient disclosure and the relationship
between the patent, the invention, and the claims that define the patent.
The second decision, Moore v. BC, clarified the duty to accommodate by confirming that individuals with disabilities
are entitled to "meaningful" access to services customarily available to the public, just like any member of the
general public, even where providing that access may create significantly increased burdens on the service provider.
We can't guarantee, of course, that these cases will make the final list. But we are constantly on the lookout,
and to that end, encourage appropriate submissions during the course of the entire year. Please send them
to the writer by e-mailing melnitzer@sympatico.ca.
