Ontario Solicitor Licensing Examination

# Ontario Solicitor Licensing Examination — Grounded Study Notes


## BUSINESS LAW & CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

### Shareholder and Fiduciary Duties

**Pettkus v Becker, [1980] 2 SCR 834** (Supreme Court of Canada)
- Test for unjust enrichment: (1) enrichment of defendant; (2) corresponding deprivation of plaintiff; (3) absence of juristic reason.
- Constructive trust available where plaintiff's labour/capital contribution is linked to specific assets.
- Held: Unmarried cohabitant granted half-interest in farm/beekeeping business via constructive trust.
- Significance: Foundational restitution doctrine applied to property disputes; governs trusts arising from relationship breakdown.

**Canada (Procureur général) c Monette, 2024 CAF 120** (Federal Court of Appeal)
- Director liability under s. 251.18 of the Canada Labour Code: unpaid wages claims against corporate directors.
- Federal tribunal cannot import provincial corporate-law preconditions (e.g., proof-of-claim filing) without statutory-interpretation analysis.
- Held: Quebec corporate-law provision did not impose valid limitation on director wage liability.
- Significance: Clarifies federalism boundaries in labour-standards director liability; no provincial override of federal wage protections.

---

## REAL ESTATE LAW & PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS

### Land Title, Interests, and Purchase Agreements

**Pettkus v Becker, [1980] 2 SCR 834** (Supreme Court of Canada)
- Constructive trust remedy applies when plaintiff establishes contribution to acquisition or improvement of real property.
- Title held in one party's name does not bar remedy where enrichment and deprivation elements are proven.
- Ratio: Link between contribution and specific asset required to justify proprietary (not merely monetary) remedy.
- Application: Governs unmarried-partner claims to real property; used in matrimonial and cohabitation disputes.

---

## ESTATES LAW & TRUSTS

### Wills, Testamentary Trusts, Intestacy

**Pettkus v Becker, [1980] 2 SCR 834** (Supreme Court of Canada)
- Testamentary trusts and inter vivos trusts both triggered by the three-element unjust-enrichment test.
- Constructive trust is proprietary remedy distinguishable from monetary compensation.
- Judicial discretion to grant constructive trust where contribution sufficient; not granted as arbitrary relief.
- Leading case for estate and trust disputes involving non-registered claims to deceased's assets.

---

## PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, ETHICS & SOLICITOR-CLIENT PRIVILEGE

### Confidentiality and Legal Professional Privilege

**Google LLC v Canada (Commissaire à la protection de la vie privée), 2023 CAF 200** (Federal Court of Appeal)
- PIPEDA Part 1 applies to commercial activity in Canada; private-sector entities are subject to privacy law.
- Journalistic-purpose exemption (s. 4(2)(c)) requires active news gathering/editorial judgment, not mere linking to journalistic content.
- Held: Google Search must comply with Canadian privacy law; exemption unavailable.
- Significance: Establishes privacy obligations for digital service providers; confirms confidentiality duties extend to commercial platforms.

**Beniey c Canada (Sécurité publique et Protection civile), 2024 CAF 11** (Federal Court of Appeal)
- Surveillance images of identifiable individuals (including federal employees) are personal information under privacy law.
- Section 3(j) Privacy Act exception (position-or-functions information) narrowly construed; does not cover incidental workplace images.
- Held: Workplace camera footage exempt from disclosure under Access to Information Act s. 19(1).
- Application: Protects privacy in lawyer-client workplace records and confidential business files.

---

## ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & COURT PROCEDURE

### Judicial Review and Standards of Review

**Canada (Sécurité publique et Protection civile) c Weldemariam, 2024 CAF 69** (Federal Court of Appeal)
- Immigration security inadmissibility (IRPA s. 34) requires nexus to Canadian national security, not mere breach of values.
- International refugee law (non-refoulement principle) constrains administrative decision-makers' interpretation.
- Held: Espionage targeting foreign dissidents in allied countries insufficient for Canadian security-related removal.
- Application: Defines scope of discretionary immigration decisions; constrains how legislation is interpreted.

**Compagnie des chemins de fer nationaux du Canada c Halton (Municipalité régionale), 2024 CAF 84** (Federal Court of Appeal)
- RJR-MacDonald test for stay pending appeal: (1) serious question, (2) irreparable harm, (3) balance of convenience.
- Prior public-interest regulatory approvals weigh heavily in balance-of-convenience analysis.
- Held: CN Rail's construction stay granted; prior approvals tip balance toward resuming project pending appeal.
- Application: Procedural principles applicable to commercial transaction disputes; shows how courts balance competing interests.

**Bell Canada c Beanfield Technologies Inc., 2024 CAF 28** (Federal Court of Appeal)
- Irreparable harm standard requires sufficiently probative evidence, not conjecture or generalised assertions.
- Financial loss alone (revenue decline, market share) insufficient without proof of permanence and non-quantifiability.
- Held: Bell's stay motion dismissed; conjectural evidence of customer loss failed irreparable-harm threshold.
- Application: Sets high bar for emergency relief in regulatory disputes; applicable to any litigation seeking interlocutory relief.

---

## TAX LAW & ESTATE TAX PLANNING

### Income Tax Act — Capital Dividends, Loss Carry-Backs

**Magren Holdings Ltd v Canada, 2024 CAF 202** (Federal Court of Appeal)
- Capital dividend account (CDA): tracks tax-free surpluses; private corporation can pay tax-free capital dividends only to CDA balance.
- Paragraph (f) CDA additions require strict compliance with statutory conditions; trust distributions must satisfy all requirements.
- Held: Trust distributions in Foremost reorganisation did not qualify for CDA credit; all dividends paid became excess capital dividends subject to Part III tax.
- Application: Governs estate and corporate tax planning; shows strict compliance required for tax-deferred strategies.

**Banque de Nouvelle-Écosse c Canada, 2024 CAF 192** (Federal Court of Appeal)
- Section 161(7)(b)(iv) Interest Tax Act: arrears interest runs until 30 days after loss carry-back written request, not loss-year filing date.
- Interest calculated without regard to carry-back until request triggers reassessment, even if audit prompted reassessment.
- Held: Bank owed $7.9M arrears interest on 2006 tax (only ~$1M net increase) because interest ran on full pre-carry-back amount.
- Application: Timing of carry-back requests critical in tax planning; affects interest exposure in audit settlements.

---

## CONTRACT LAW & COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS

### Patent Law & Intellectual Property

**Pharmascience Inc v Janssen Inc., 2024 CAF 23** (Federal Court of Appeal)
- Patent claims for pharmaceutical dosing regimens are patentable unless implementing them requires health professional to exercise skill/judgment.
- Fixed-versus-variable dosage dichotomy is starting point, not determinative rule; inquiry focuses on whether professional discretion is required.
- Held: INVEGA SUSTENNA dosing regimen (fixed doses on specified days with no clinical discretion) is patentable.
- Application: Shows how patent scope is defined in regulated industries; applies to purchase/licensing of patented products.

**Agracity Crop & Nutrition Ltd v UPL NA Inc., 2024 CAF 133** (Federal Court of Appeal)
- Prior patent anticipates later claim only if it discloses every element so clearly that skilled artisan would inevitably produce claimed invention.
- General disclosure of compound class does not anticipate specific member of class with specific properties.
- Held: Prior patents disclosing flucarbazone-sodium as one of 327 herbicides did not anticipate claim to selective herbicidal properties.
- Application: Protects product innovations from invalidation by broad prior disclosures; applicable to acquisition/licensing due diligence.

**Munchkin, Inc. v Angelcare Canada Inc., 2024 CAF 156** (Federal Court of Appeal)
- Pre-filing disclosure to prototype manufacturer is confidential if manufacturer's business model implicitly obliges confidentiality.
- Person skilled in the art knows commercially available products in market addressed by patent.
- Held: Disclosure to prototype manufacturer was confidential (not prior art); parent company liable for Canadian infringement.
- Application: Governs product development partnerships; shows foreign parent can be liable for subsidiary infringement in Canada.

**Voltage Holdings, LLC v Untel No 1, 2023 CAF 194** (Federal Court of Appeal)
- Internet subscriber's IP-address association with infringing content insufficient for direct copyright infringement without further evidence.
- Authorisation of infringement requires that alleged authoriser sanction/approve infringement with actual or apparent control over direct infringer.
- Held: Subscriber's mere receipt of notice-and-notice warnings and control of IP address insufficient; default judgment dismissed.
- Application: Shows evidentiary burden on copyright claimants; illustrates intersection of online commerce and IP enforcement.

---

## CONSTITUTIONAL LAW & CHARTER RIGHTS

### Criminal Law Procedure & Self-Defence

**R v Khill, 2021 SCC 37** (Supreme Court of Canada)
- Self-defence under s. 34 CCC (post-2013): accused's role in incident — escalation, opportunities to retreat/de-escalate — is relevant factor.
- Reasonableness assessment must account for whether accused contributed to confrontation; self-defence not licence to escalate.
- Held: New trial ordered; trial judge erred by not directing jury on accused's role in incident.
- Application: Modern Canadian law on self-defence; applies to incidents involving property defence or confrontation.

**R v Jordan, 2016 SCC 27** (Supreme Court of Canada)
- Section 11(b) trial-delay ceilings: 18 months from charge to trial in provincial court; 30 months in superior court.
- Delay above ceiling presumptively unreasonable; below ceiling presumptively reasonable (unless defence shows markedly longer than usual).
- Held: Stay granted where net delay exceeded ceiling; Morin framework replaced.
- Application: Governs all criminal trials; forces adherence to timing standards relevant to commercial crimes.

**Carter v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5** (Supreme Court of Canada)
- Section 7 Charter protects life, liberty, security of person including personal autonomy over fundamental life choices.
- Blanket criminal prohibition not minimally impairing where carefully designed regulated system can address state's objective.
- Held: Prohibition on physician-assisted dying violates s. 7; not saved by s. 1.
- Application: Shows how Charter constrains criminal law; demonstrates when stare decisis can be revisited.

**Mounted Police Association of Ontario v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 1** (Supreme Court of Canada)
- Section 2(d) Charter protects freedom to engage in meaningful collective bargaining.
- Includes collective representation, independence from management, processes promoting meaningful employee influence.
- Held: Legislation excluding RCMP from labour-relations protections struck (with one-year suspension).
- Application: Governs employment relationships; shows constitutional protection for employment rights.

---

## REGULATORY & ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

### Access to Information & Privacy

**Beniey c Canada (Sécurité publique et Protection civile), 2024 CAF 11** (Federal Court of Appeal)
- Access to Information Act s. 19(1) exemption for personal information applied to workplace surveillance footage.
- Section 3(j) Privacy Act exception for "position or functions" information narrowly construed.
- Held: Surveillance images of employees on duty are personal information exempt from disclosure.
- Application: Protects confidential legal advice and internal communications in client matters.

---

## SECURITIES & CAPITAL MARKETS

### Interlocutory Stays and Regulatory Appeals

**Bell Canada c Beanfield Technologies Inc., 2024 CAF 28** (Federal Court of Appeal)
- Motion for stay of CRTC decision: RJR-MacDonald three-part test applies.
- Irreparable harm requires detailed, probative evidence; generalised financial loss insufficient.
- Held: Bell's stay motion dismissed; conjectural revenue-loss evidence failed.
- Application: Governs stays in regulatory disputes affecting capital-market transactions and infrastructure projects.

**Compagnie des chemins de fer nationaux du Canada c Halton (Municipalité régionale), 2024 CAF 84** (Federal Court of Appeal)
- Stay of judicial-review orders pending appeal: prior public-interest regulatory approvals weigh heavily.
- Balance of convenience analysis considers whether delay works against public interest.
- Held: CN's construction stay granted; prior approvals and unrecoverable shutdown costs favour resumption.
- Application: Shows how courts balance public interest against private party's disruption in major projects.

---

## KEY AUTHORITIES BY TOPIC

### Corporate Law
- Pettkus v Becker (constructive trust, fiduciary duties)
- Canada (Procureur général) c Monette (director liability, federalism)

### Real Estate
- Pettkus v Becker (constructive trust in property claims)

### Estates & Trusts
- Pettkus v Becker (testamentary and inter vivos trusts)

### Professional Responsibility
- Google LLC v Canada (Privacy Commissioner) (PIPEDA, confidentiality)
- Beniey c Canada (workplace privacy, access to information)

### Administrative Law
- Weldemariam (judicial review standards, security inadmissibility)
- Bell Canada c Beanfield (irreparable harm threshold)
- Compagnie des chemins de fer nationaux c Halton (stay test, public interest)

### Tax Law
- Magren Holdings (capital dividend accounts)
- Banque de Nouvelle-Écosse (interest calculations, loss carry-backs)

### Patents & IP
- Pharmascience v Janssen (pharmaceutical patent scope)
- Agracity v UPL (anticipation standard)
- Munchkin v Angelcare (pre-filing disclosure, parent liability)
- Voltage v Untel (copyright infringement, evidentiary burden)

### Criminal/Charter
- Khill (self-defence, accused's role)
- Jordan (trial-delay ceilings)
- Carter (Charter s. 7, physician-assisted dying)
- MPAO (Charter s. 2(d), collective bargaining)

---

**End of Grounded Study Notes**