About

Hi, I'm Gabriel.

This blog started life as a series of LinkedIn articles, before I moved it here to take advantage of more flexible formatting and a wider reach.

The initial idea was to write a post a week about an interesting appellate decision. That's still part of the plan, but I'll also be writing about appellate theory and practice, and commenting more generally on the work of appellate courts (and lawyers).

At my day job, I'm a partner and litigator at Advocan Law LLP.


Popular posts from this blog

BCCA: Reverse Vesting Orders can be Granted under the BIA

British Columbia v. Peakhill Capital Inc., 2024 BCCA 246 In a decision likely to be welcomed by insolvency lawyers across Canada, the BCCA became the first appellate court in Canada to explicitly hold that courts have the jurisdiction to make reverse vesting orders ("RVOs") under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act . RVOs are used when a debtor corporation has some valuable assets, but also lots of debt (or other, undesirable assets). The RVO strips the debt and bad assets into a new shell corporation, and then the shares of the 'original' corporation are sold to a buyer for the benefit of the creditors. RVO's allow the buyer a fresh start: they get the benefit of any licenses, permits, contracts (like leases, or franchise agreements), or intangibles like consumer good will, without having to take on any debt or unprofitable contracts.  There are also losers. Notably, where the debtor corporation owns real estate, RVOs are sometimes used to remove everything but  th...
Read more

ONCA: Corporations aren't people

 R. v. 1222149 Ontario Ltd. 2024 ONCA 543 (CanLII) In a sentencing appeal under the Provincial Offences Act , the ONCA made two holdings of interest to corporate defendants and their counsel: Parity:  It will generally be an error in principle for the sentencing court to compare corporate and individual defendants when coming up with a sentence; and, Size: Where the size of a corporate defendant is a factor that must be considered on sentencing, what matters is the total  size of the defendant, not just the location where the infraction occurred. The appeal arose out of an OHSA  prosecution, with typically disturbing facts: a 16-year-old high school student suffered a spinal injury while working at a summer job at a Dairy Queen restaurant owned by the respondent. The injury occurred when the employee’s hair became entangled in the rotating spindle of the restaurant’s Blizzard machine. The employee was in the process of blending using the machine and had a question ab...
Read more

The Danger of Mid-Motion Appeals

  Athanassiades v. Rogers Communications Canada Inc., 2024 ONCA 497 Appellants often make the mistake of focusing on a judge's factual findings, instead of legal or procedural decisions. That is not a mistake this appellant made. The plaintiff-appellant claimed against Rogers for: Spoliation; Intentional infliction of mental suffering (IIMS); Breach of contract; and Defamation. Rogers moved for summary judgement. The motion judge dismissed the claims for spoliation and IIMS, and directed a mini-trial of the contract and defamation claims. Before the mini-trial was held, the plaintiff appealed to the ONCA. As previously discussed , final order goes to the Court of Appeal, interlocutory orders go to the Divisional Court. Orders granting summary judgement are final. Orders denying summary judgement, or setting a procedure to be followed, are interlocutory. As put by the Court: This appeal raises unusual jurisdictional and procedural concerns. There is no doubt that the aspects of th...
Read more