Margaret L. Waddell

Margaret L. Waddell

Margaret L. Waddell is a senior partner at Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP in Toronto.  She has a varied advocacy practice including a broad range of complex commercial and shareholder litigation, professional liability cases, class actions and appellate advocacy.  She can be reached at marg.waddell@paliareroland.com.

Column: Trials & Tribulations
We are very fortunate in Canada that the class action bar — both plaintiff and defence — is relatively small and most of the major participants are well known to each other. In typical Canadian fashion, we adhere to a code of the highest integrity both in our representations to the court and in our dealings with opposing counsel. The instances where the court has reprimanded counsel for shoddy work or inappropriate conduct are exceptional. b_150_0_16777215_00___images_stories_01-CANADIANLawyer_Columnists_Margaret_L_Waddell.jpg
b_150_0_16777215_00___images_stories_01-CANADIANLawyer_Columnists_Margaret_L_Waddell.jpgThe particular challenges inherent in misclassification class actions were highlighted in the recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal upholding the denial of certification in Brown v. CIBC.

b_150_0_16777215_00___images_stories_01-CANADIANLawyer_Columnists_Margaret_L_Waddell.jpgFollowing the 2010 Supreme Court of the United States decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, there was significant speculation in many quarters that Canada would become the class action haven for internationally scoped securities class actions.
b_150_0_16777215_00___images_stories_01-CANADIANLawyer_Columnists_margaret-waddell.jpgThe standard of appellate review for contract interpretation has been redefined by the Supreme Court of Canada. Buried in the depths of summer and delivered in the context of an appeal from an arbitral award, Justice Marshall Rothstein’s decision in Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp. may have gone unnoticed by many, so I am taking this opportunity to focus the spotlight on it. The decision is of seminal importance, not just for appeals in the arbitration context, but also for all common law proceedings where the interpretation of a contract is under appeal.
Monday, 14 July 2014 08:00

The latest on limitations

b_150_0_16777215_00___images_stories_01-CANADIANLawyer_Columnists_margaret-waddell.jpgFrom time to time through this space, I have brought readers up to speed on the latest rulings from the Ontario courts on limitation periods. Remarkably, while the Limitations Act, 2002 was supposed to achieve clarity and predictability in the determination of limitation periods, the act has continued to spawn litigation requiring adjudication and interpretation at the appellate level.
b_150_0_16777215_00___images_stories_01-CANADIANLawyer_Columnists_margaret-waddell.jpgThe Alberta Court of Appeal released a surprising decision in Andriuk v. Merrill Lynch Canada Inc., in which it has imported the obligation of establishing evidence of class-wide loss from the specialized field of price-fixing actions to a claim grounded in breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty causing a depreciation in share price.
b_150_0_16777215_00___images_stories_01-CANADIANLawyer_Columnists_margaret-waddell.jpgThe Ontario Court of Appeal’s 2012 trilogy of overtime class action decisions Fresco v. CIBC, Fulawka v. Bank of Nova Scotia, and McCracken v. v. Canadian National Railway Co. confirmed the viability a relatively new form of class action previously unexplored and highly uncertain in Ontario.
b_150_0_16777215_00___images_stories_01-CANADIANLawyer_Columnists_margaret-waddell.jpgDetermining how to meet or defeat the test for “preferable procedure” on a certification motion has been an enigmatic problem. Until the Supreme Court of Canada last month clearly articulated that access to justice involves a two-part analysis in Fischer v. AIC Ltd., there was no consistent measure by which this part of the preferability test would be analyzed.
Monday, 09 December 2013 08:00

Lessons to be learned from LSUC v. Groia

b_150_0_16777215_00___images_stories_01-CANADIANLawyer_Columnists_margaret-waddell.jpgWhen does zealous courtroom advocacy cross the line into incivility? And when does that incivility cross over to professional misconduct? The Law Society of Upper Canada has been grappling with these issues in a case that has held the attention of Ontario lawyers for nigh on a decade.
b_150_0_16777215_00___images_stories_01-CANADIANLawyer_Columnists_margaret-waddell.jpgThe viability of price-fixing class actions brought on behalf of indirect purchasers was in legal limbo for a decade, particularly after the Ontario Court of Appeal denied certification in Chadha v. Bayer Inc.. But the long-awaited decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada in a trilogy of price-fixing class actions, Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., Sun‑Rype Products Ltd. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., and Infineon Technologies AG v. Option consommateurs, have finally put to rest the uncertainty over whether such actions are tenable.  
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 Next > End >>
Page 1 of 4

Latest Videos

  • Making Rain episode 55 - Value your time In this month’s episode, executive coach Debra Forman discusses focusing your efforts on how you bill and value your time. Time should be your biggest…
  • Worlds apart Jessica Salomon spent five years as a war crimes prosecutor but left law to pursue a career in stand-up. Here’s a taste of her wry…
More Canadian Lawyer TV...

Digital Editions