Intermeddling

Ever feel like your burger looked better in the picture? A U.S. judge says it might be worth suing over.

Burger King has to face a trial over claims its Whoppers look beefier in ads than in real life. Plaintiffs say they’ve never been served a burger that spilled out of its bun (unlike the perfectly crafted creations BK uses for marketing). The company says everyone knows food stylists plump up food for advertisements, but judge Roy Altman said it’s plausible consumers might not see BK’s dreamy-looking burgers as “mere exaggeration or puffery.”

— Dylan Gibbs

• Protecting privacy beyond personal proceedings

• Family discord

• Late pleadings

• New leaders

• Cannabis marketing

• Wonderland’s fall from grace?

STAYING CURRENT 🗞️

Recent and notable

1. Protecting privacy far and wide
   Mount Pearl v. Power, 2025 NLCA 16

Can you get involved in someone else’s lawsuit to protect your privacy interests? Maybe. But there’s certainly a limit — at least according to the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal.

The City of Mount Peal placed its Chief Administrative Officer, Steve Kent, on paid leave pending a harassment investigation. City staff then saw Facebook messages popping up on Kent’s work-issued iPad. After a bit of snooping, the City used the messages as justification to fire two city council members. The fired councilors sued the City.

Kent didn’t want the Facebook messages ending up in the public record. So he intervened in the lawsuit, asking the Court to protect his privacy. The application judge sided with Kent, barring the City from using the messages as evidence.

• Even though Kent wasn’t a party to the lawsuit, the trial judge made a firm ruling that the municipality violated his privacy. The Court even went as far as to recognize the common law tort of intrusion upon seclusion (a provincial first).

But according to the Court of Appeal, the application judge’s decision was a step too far. The Court of Appeal said he should have considered less drastic options, like sealing the messages or imposing a publication ban. And he definitely shouldn’t have made a firm conclusion about Kent’s privacy interests in a lawsuit that Kent wasn’t personally involved in.

PS: Apologies to anyone who was excited about another province recognizing the common law privacy tort of intrusion upon seclusion. The Court of Appeal wasn’t happy with that aspect of the application judge’s decision either.

2. The cost of breaking family bonds
   Chung v. Chung, 2025 BCCA 136

The BC Court of Appeal said you’re more likely to get hit with punitive damages if you rip off a business partner who also happens to be your family member.

The court awarded $100,000 in punitive damages against a Vancouver man who secretly withdrew over $1.6 million from jointly owned investment properties and used the money to buy himself a house — all while concealing the transfers from his brother and co-investor, who lived overseas.

The trial judge found a breach of fiduciary duty but stopped short of awarding punitive damages, in part because the conduct had to be “understood in the family context in which it took place“.

The Court of Appeal didn’t see it the same way. The Court said the concealment went on for years, that the brother’s interest in the property had been deliberately hidden, and that family trust made the betrayal worse, not better.

3. Hold your horses, that’s a new cause of action

   Total Meter Services v. GVM Integration, 2025 ONCA 321

Here’s a case that highlights the importance of thorough drafting. The Court found that a technology company’s late-stage pleading amendment introduced a new cause of action that was out of time.

The original claim alleged that a former employee stole confidential information and, after leaving the company, used it to build competing products and solicit clients. The company later amended the claim to allege that the employee also approached one of its clients before he left the company, siphoning away a lucrative opportunity.

The company argued that it was all pretty much the same thing — using confidential information to steal clients. But the Court of Appeal said the new claim was different enough to amount to a new cause of action.

PRESENTED BY NEARME MARKETING

Show up where it matters

When someone Googles “family lawyer near me,” you don’t just compete with other firms in your city — you compete block by block.

NearMe Marketing, the legal SEO agency behind some of Canada’s top-ranking firms, built a free tool to help you see exactly where your firm stands.

Just enter your firm name and location. The map shows where you’re visible — and where you’re not.

Your next client is searching. Use NearMe’s map to make sure they find you.

BY THE NUMBERS 📊

200: The number of charges laid against a Quebec company for allegedly dumping harmful substances into fish-bearing waterways.

$9.5 million: The size of a sexual misconduct settlement negotiated between plaintiffs and the City of Leduc. The settlement resolves a class action lawsuit that alleged systemic issues in Leduc Fire Services. The lawyers involved say it’s the first Canadian class-action settlement for sexual misconduct at a municipality or fire department. And with payments ranging from $10,000 to $285,000 per plaintiff, it helps raise the damages bar for this kind of lawsuit.

30: The minimum number of days Pierre Poilievre has to wait before he’ll have a shot at returning to Parliament. According to the Parliament of Canada Act, MPs can't resign their seat until 30 days after their election result is published in the Canada Gazette (which typically takes about a month). That means Alberta MP Damien Kurek can’t step aside for Poilievre just yet. In the meantime, the Conservatives picked former party leader Andrew Scheer to hold things down as the official leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons.

$64 million: the damages Claude Paquin is claiming against Montreal and Quebec after being wrongly convicted of murder. The claim includes $6,000 for every day Paquin spent in prison and $2,400 for each day he spent on supervised release.

MAKING HEADLINES 🗞️

⚡️ Alberta is officially challenging the federal government’s proposed clean electricity regulations, calling them unconstitutional and economically damaging. The province argues the rules won’t significantly cut emissions but will drive up costs, create supply risks, and intrude on provincial jurisdiction over power generation. The case will head to the courts through a reference to the Alberta Court of Appeal.

📝 Ontario’s proposed civil justice reforms — which include scrapping oral discoveries and requiring early sworn witness statements — are drawing sharp criticism from several legal groups. The Federation of Ontario Law Societies, Ontario Trial Lawyers Association, and Canadian Defence Lawyers have all asked the province for more time to give feedback, commenting that the reforms risk access to justice, especially in the context of personal injury and insurance claims.

• Criticism aside, if you want to hear more about the rationale behind the reform push, Chief Justice Morawetz recently spoke on the CBA’s Verdicts and Voices podcast.

🤝 Trump response or power grab? Ontario and BC are each facing blowback over proposed legislation to speed up development. Ontario’s Unleashing our Economy Act and BC’s Infrastructure Projects Act both give the respective provincial governments the ability to immunize certain projects from existing regulations. Critics say they sidestep environmental protections and threaten Indigenous consultation rights, raising concerns that the provinces are prioritizing development at the expense of accountability.

💧 No one is safe from the Competition Bureau’s crackdown on drip pricing — not even Canada’s Wonderland. The Bureau filed an application with the Competition Tribunal alleging that Wonderland applies hidden fees to online purchases ranging from $0.99 to $9.99.

👨‍🏫 The Law Society of Ontario hired York University governance professor Dr. Richard LeBlanc to help reform the organization in response to its recent CEO compensation controversy.

🥬 Toronto-based cannabis brand Ghost Drops filed a Charter challenge against federal restrictions on cannabis advertising, calling them a violation of free expression. Without more expansive advertising, how can the company show off its “bold, street-inspired identity, edgy, urban aesthetics and unmistakably loud, rebellious, culture-driven branding”?