Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays (2008), 66 C.C.E.L. (3d) 159 (S.C.C.)

Lerners successfully overturned the lower courts’ decisions in this seminal case. The Supreme Court of Canada redefined the approach to aggravated and punitive damages in wrongful dismissal cases. It also explored the boundaries of accommodation of disabled employees and considered how much medical information an employer may require.

King v. Drabinsky and Gottlieb (2008), 91 O.R. (3d) 616 (Ont. C.A.)

This appeal considered whether a New York judgment should be enforced in Ontario where the defendants alleged they could not properly defend the New York action because they had invoked their 5th Amendment right not to incriminate themselves.

Kerr v. Danier Leather (2007) 286 D.L.R. (4th) 601 (S.C.C.)

This was the first class action for prospectus misrepresentation in Canada. Lerners took this case through trial and two levels of appeal. The Supreme Court of Canada was called on to determine the scope of the statutory cause of action for misrepresentation in a prospectus, and whether courts should defer to management’s judgment when assessing whether management has met its regulatory obligations under the Securities Act (Ontario).

Walker v. Ritchie, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 428 (2006), 273 D.L.R. (4th) 240 (2006), 217 O.A.C. 374

This Supreme Court of Canada decision holds that “premiums” to reward successful plaintiffs’ counsel in cases where recovery of their fees (and in many cases, recovery of disbursements) is contingent on success should remain payable by the plaintiff and should not be shifted to the defendant.

Maple Valley Acres Ltd. v. CIBC, [2003] O.J. No. 4387 (C.A.), affirming (2001), 46 R.P.R. (3d) 32.

This successful appeal expanded the law of unjust enrichment in Ontario and the application of agency principles to the lawyer relationship.

This is the leading case in Canada on punitive damages awards against insurers for "bad faith". After a jury made a record breaking award of $1 million in punitive damages against an insurer that raised an arson defence to a house fire claim, Lerners was retained and managed to persuade a majority of the Court of Appeal to reduce the award to $100,000. By a 7-1 majority, the Supreme Court of Canada restored the verdict, but set out guidelines that should keep such awards from becoming irrationally high.

Hodgkinson v. Simms & Waldman, 97 B.C.L.R. (2d) 1 (S.C.C.), [1994] 9 W.W.R. 609, 22 C.C.L.T. (2d) 1, 117 D.L.R. (4th) 161, 171 N.R. 245, 57 C.P.R. (3d) 1, 16 B.L.R. (2d) 1, 5 E.T.R. (2d) 1, 49 B.C.A.C. 1, 80 W.A.C. 1, [1994] S.C.R. 377, 95 D.T.C. 5135, 6 C.C.L.S. 1

Lerners represented the successful appellant in the Supreme Court of Canada in this seminal case that decides that even sophisticated parties may be owed a fiduciary duty in an investment advisor situation.

Wonsch Construction Ltd. v. Danzig Enterprises Ltd. (1990), 1 O.R. (3d) 382 (C.A.)

Do former joint venture partners continue to owe each other fiduciary duties after the joint venture ends? Yes, said the Court of Appeal in a case in which Lerners was largely successful on appeal.

LAC Minerals Ltd. v. International Corona Resources Ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 574 (S.C.C.), 26 C.P.R. (3d) 97, 69 O.R. (2d) 287, 61 D.L.R. (4th) 14, 6 R.P.R. (2d) 139, 44 B.L.R. 1, 33 E.T.R. 1, 101 N.R. 239, 36 O.A.C. 57

In this seminal case, the Supreme Court of Canada set out the test for breach of confidence and considered the law of fiduciary duty in the context of a dispute over property on which a mine could be developed.