WWW.LEXPERT.CA
|
2016
|
LEXPERT 33
Pliszka, Peter J. Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
(416) 868-3336 ppliszka@fasken.com
Mr. Pliszka, Chair of Fasken's Product Liability Group, acts as national
counsel on product liability, class action and insurance matters. Described
as "one of the top people in the country for product liability cases" and "the
lawyer of choice" for companies in need of defence counsel, he specializes
in cross-border litigation and is regularly retained by foreign companies
sued in Canada.
Pape, Paul J. Pape Barristers Professional Corporation
(416) 364-8765 pjp@papebarristers.com
Mr. Pape focuses on commercial, securities, class action, medical malprac-
tice and administrative matters, with a special emphasis on appeals. He
is a Fellow of the IATL and the ACTL. He has acted in a number of cases of
significance. He is an honourary member of The Commercial Bar of England
(COMBAR). Mr. Pape was called to the Bar in 1971.
Paliare, OO, LSM, Chris G. Paliare Roland Rosenberg
Rothstein LLP (416) 646-4318 chris.paliare@paliareroland.com
Mr. Paliare's practice embraces trials, hearings and appeals. His cases en-
gage commercial, administrative, class action, employment and professional
discipline matters. He is a Fellow of the IATL, ACTL, ISB and is an Hon. Fellow
of COMBAR.
Ouellet, Patrick Woods LLP
(514) 982-2551 pouellet@woods.qc.ca
Partner since 2006, is known as a hands-on trial lawyer and an astute cross-
examiner. Practises in commercial, corporate and civil litigation and arbitra-
tion in securities, telecommunications, class actions, construction
and shareholder disputes.
Osborne, Peter Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith
Griffin LLP (416) 865-3094 posborne@litigate.com
One of Canada's leading litigators, Mr. Osborne has a broad civil litigation
and administrative law practice encompassing governance and board mat-
ters, commercial disputes, complex insolvency, class actions, securities
matters and professional regulation and discipline.
Orzy, S. Richard Bennett Jones LLP
(416) 777-5737 orzyr@bennettjones.com
Mr. Orzy is the co-leader of Bennett Jones's Restructuring & Insolvency
practice, one of the most active practices in Canada. Acts for debtors and
creditors in major domestic and cross-border restructuring and insolvency
matters. His clients include bondholders, major foreign creditors, debtors,
landlords, financial institutions and insurers.
LEXPERT-RANKED LAWYERS
issue," says Katherine Kay of Stikeman Elliott
LLP, who represented Air Canada in Air Cargo.
Although the issue will not be resolved to any
degree of certainty at least until the divisional
court rules on the substantive appeal in Lithium-
Ion, there's little doubt that the trend — including
the divisional court's decision to grant leave from
Perell's refusal and a recent ruling from the BC
Supreme Court in Godey v. Sony — favours the
inclusion of umbrella purchasers.
e other key issue arising from the August
cases is whether the Competition Act is a
"complete code" or whether plaintiffs may pursue
common-law civil conspiracy claims based on
breaches of the legislation in addition to or
instead of asserting their rights under s. 36 of the
Competition Act.
In LCD, the Ontario Court of Appeal, in
conformity with the British Columbia Court
of Appeal's 2015 decision in Watson v. Bank of
America, ruled that the Competition Act was
not a complete code and that the common-law
claims could proceed: "ere is nothing in the
language of s. 36 or in the debates surrounding
its enactment that suggests it was Parliament's
intention to eliminate the use of a breach of
Part VI of the Act as the unlawful means in a
civil conspiracy claim," the court stated. "To the
contrary, it would appear to be incongruous with
the purpose of the Act, being the elimination
of anti-competitive behaviour, that Parliament
would eliminate a common law cause of action
that serves to punish such behaviour."
But despite what appears to be a trend to
broadening the scope of price-fixing class action,
Kay believes that there's no need for defendants
to panic. "ese decisions are based on the
pleadings alone, and they do not determine
how the umbrella purchaser and other issues
will be dealt with at trial and how plaintiffs will
ultimately fare."
Besides, the Supreme Court of Canada hasn't
had its crack at the can yet.
