Eli Lilly and Co. v. Apotex Inc., [2018] F.C.J. No. 1199

In determining the interest that Lilly was entitled to as damages, the Federal Court erred by relying on a presumption that relieved Lilly from proving its loss regarding compound interest per se. A loss of interest must be proved in the same way as any other form of loss or damage. The basis on which the Federal Court arrived at this rate, applicable to all damages on the basis of the annual rate of profit on sales of the Canadian plaintiff, was also not readily apparent.

Commentary: Hughes & Woodley on Patents, 2nd Edition (§53 Remedies for Infringement — Pre October 1, 1989, Applications)

Ovchinnikova v. Stevens, [2018] B.C.J. No. 1110

Section 3(d) of the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act only confers jurisdiction if the defendant (or respondent) is ordinarily resident in British Columbia. In Ovchinnikova v. Stevens, [2018] B.C.J. No. 1110, 2018 BCSC 951 at para. 40, the court relied on Thompson v. Minister of National Revenue, [1946] S.C.R. 209 at 231 to define ordinary residence, stating “A person is ordinarily resident where ‘… in the settled routine of his life he regularly, normally or customarily lives’.” In Ovchinnikova, even if the “broadest and most liberal interpretation possible” were given to “ordinarily resident,” the respondent could not be considered ordinarily resident in British Columbia at the time the proceedings were commenced since he lived and worked in Dubai, occasionally travelled to Kazakhstan to see his wife and children, and did not travel to Canada on a regular basis (paras. 41-42).

Subtopic: Limits on Jurisdiction
Commentary: British Columbia Practice, 3rd Edition (within Discretion – (1) Disputed Jurisdiction)

Isacov v. Schwartzberg, [2018] O.J. No. 5281, 2018 ONSC 5933

The Rules of Civil Procedure impose an obligation on a party's counsel to certify that he has explained to the deponent of an affidavit of documents "what kinds of documents are likely to be relevant to the allegations in the pleadings": Rule 30.03(4). Given the pervasive use of Facebook and the large volume of photographs typically posted on Facebook sites, it is now incumbent on a party's counsel to explain to the client, in appropriate cases, that documents posted on the party's Facebook profile may be relevant to allegations made in the pleadings.

Subtopic: Rules of Civil Procedure 
Commentary: Williston & Rolls Court Forms (see paragraphs 26)

Colistro v. Tbaytel, [2019] O.J. No. 1265

Most of the time, litigation produces a victor. But the victor isn’t always a winner. And sometimes there are no winners. So it is with Colistro v. Tbaytel 2019 ONCA 197, a recent decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal arising from a wrongful dismissal case.

Subtopic: Wrongful dismissal  
Commentary: No winners in wrongful dismissal appeal decision (The Lawyer’s Daily)