Michael Ilg

By: Michael Ilg

Matter Commented On: Bill 21– 2024, Legal Professions Act, 5th Session, 42nd Parliament (2024)

PDF Version: You Shall Not Pass Go: The End of Monopoly (and Self-Governance) for BC Lawyers

What is the difference between a dairy farmer and a lawyer? The most obvious answer might be that one produces a good that has social value, while the other one is a lawyer. A more nuanced answer might be that while Canadian dairy farmers have been extraordinarily successful (or rather notorious) in maintaining their regulation protected monopoly, lawyers, at least in British Columbia, are on the precipice of losing theirs. The object of this short post is to offer some preliminary observations on the BC government’s Bill 21, the proposed new Legal Professions Act, which will do away with the Law Society of BC.

It’s Not Easy Being Mean

By Michael Ilg

On September 6, 2023

In Administrative Law

By: Michael Ilg

Decision Commented On: Peterson v College of Psychologists of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 4685 (CanLII)

PDF Version: It’s Not Easy Being Mean

If there is anything worse than being seen as mean – as in saying words that others find harsh, hurtful, or distasteful – it is being mean and unpopular. The popular, by definition, collect social benefits from being mean, while the unpopular do not. Although this may read like the social code of a typical high-school, it also reflects the regulation of expression by professional societies in Canada, or at least Ontario, according to a recent decision of that Province’s Divisional Court in Peterson v College of Psychologists of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 4685 (CanLII).

Thumbs Up, Bruh – Informality and the New Art of Contract Formation

By Michael Ilg

On July 17, 2023

In Contracts

By: Michael Ilg

Case Commented on: South West Terminal Ltd v Achter Land, 2023 SKKB 116 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Thumbs Up, Bruh – Informality and the New Art of Contract Formation

Saskatchewan grain contracts rarely attract international media attention, but an exception occurred recently after a judge held a farmer liable for damages under a contract entered into by emoji. It was not even a particularly cute or imaginative emoji, simply a humdrum ‘thumbs up’ . Nevertheless, this solitary little did quite a lot of work in the court’s eyes; not only did it signify acceptance of a contract offer, it also constituted the signed endorsement of a written document, thus satisfying the requirements of The Sale of Goods Act, RSS 1978, c S-1. This short post examines the decision of the King’s Bench for Saskatchewan in South West Terminal Ltd v Achter Land (2023 SKKB 116) and suggests some potential implications, with a particular emphasis on the formality requirements of contract formation.

An Equity Rationale for the Enforcement of the Corporate Veil?: The Alberta Court of Appeal Considers a Joint Venture Agreement in the Shadow of Corporate Reorganization

By Michael Ilg

On April 28, 2008

In Corporate / Commercial

Cases Considered: Apex Corporation v Ceco Developments Ltd., 2008 ABCA 125

PDF Version: An Equity Rationale for the Enforcement of the Corporate Veil?: The Alberta Court of Appeal Considers a Joint Venture Agreement in the Shadow of Corporate Reorganization

Common law courts have demonstrated a willingness to ‘pierce the corporate veil’ in circumstances when upholding the assumption of separate corporate legal identity would, for example: endorse an instrument that appears simply a sham; would permit for behaviour “akin to fraud”(Gilford Motor Company Ltd. v. Horne, [1933] Ch. 935 (C.A.)); or lead to a result “too flagrantly opposed to justice”(Kosmopolous v. Constitution Insurance Co. of Canada [1987] 1 S.C.R. 2). This latter language of justice, authored by Madame Justice Bertha Wilson, in particular signals a potential equitable limit to the invocation of separate corporate legal identity. And so while there are rare, if established, instances for piercing the corporate veil based upon justice concerns, the instances of an equitable enforcement of corporate personality are rarer still, and indeed may be difficult to conceive of. Involved would be a court enforcement of separate legal entity despite the claims of a corporation’s ownership. Yet, just such a curious result occurred in the Alberta Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Apex Corporation v. Ceco Developments Ltd. (per Justice Jean Côté, Justices Ellen Picard and Peter Martin concurring).

Author: Michael Ilg

You Shall Not Pass Go: The End of Monopoly (and Self-Governance) for BC Lawyers

It’s Not Easy Being Mean

Thumbs Up, Bruh – Informality and the New Art of Contract Formation

An Equity Rationale for the Enforcement of the Corporate Veil?: The Alberta Court of Appeal Considers a Joint Venture Agreement in the Shadow of Corporate Reorganization