LEGAL PULSE FALL / WINTER 2025
NEWS
I’ve been practicing commercial litigation for almost ten years - ten years of my professional life measured in one-tenth of an hour fractions. Six-minute increments. For almost two years now, I’ve been steadily integrating AI into my practice. Today, I use enterprise-grade AI tools daily. They have augmented my capacity and changed how I plan and execute the workflow involved in managing files. THE EFFICIENCY IMPERATIVE Non-lawyers (and many lawyers) are incredulous that we still bill in 0.1-hour increments. There are constant calls for reform. But for professions dealing in complex, non-routine tasks, no better model has emerged. Clients are paying for access to our cognitive bandwidth and the expertise that comes with it. Tracking time so closely can be grueling. It creates constant pressure to be efficient and accountable for every 0.1. The reality of a growing practice - multiple complex files, each with their own deadlines, deliverables, and personalities - makes these increments feel necessary, but no less relentless. Not every task carries the same value, but every minute is billed the same. That has always made me uncomfortable. The true measure of value lies not in each unit, but in the cumulative outcome for the client. Which is why AI has been such a game-changer: it helps me shift more of my limited time toward the tasks that add the most value. AUGMENTED CAPABILITIES I often tell new lawyers that developing capacity means filling “buckets of competency” - research, drafting, advocacy, communication, strategy, and judgment. Practicing law is like playing a multi-dimensional board game with half a dozen rule books: statutes, contracts, common law, procedure, evidence, and professional obligations. Each decision means weighing competing considerations. AI Has Fundamentally Changed My Litigation Practice BY PHILIP HOLDSWORTH
What ties these buckets together is one skill: knowing what is relevant. That was the first lesson of law school, and it remains the most important. Anyone can collect facts or cite cases. The lawyer’s value lies in spotting what matters, framing it clearly, and guiding the client forward. Technology has always helped us process information more efficiently. But generative language models are different. They don’t just store or retrieve; they augment the lawyer’s own ability to synthesize, summarize, and test ideas. I think back to one of the first lawyers I trained under, who dictated all his materials. With documents spread out in front of him, he’d pause, think, press record, and dictate entire drafts out loud. He could do in an hour what took me six. I was in awe of the efficiency. A decade later, I can do something similar. I dictate the outline of my thoughts, and AI synthesizes, refines, and clarifies them instantly. It gives me that same speed and precision, while enhancing the depth of my analysis. PRACTICE MANAGEMENT I draft thousands of pages of material every year. One of the hardest skills to learn is estimating how long it will take to prepare written work. For years, I thought of drafting in two stages. Getting to an 80% draft - assembling facts, evidence, and documents into a coherent first pass - took half the time. Closing the gap from 80 to 100% - editing, refining, and perfecting - took the other half.
1 ROBINS APPLEBY LLP | LEGAL PULSE FALL / WINTER 2025
NEWS
Like any prediction system, AI has blind spots. It can overfit, clinging too tightly to patterns it has seen before, or underfit, missing nuance. That’s why outputs can look convincing but still be wrong. Garbage in, garbage out. The quality of the prompt determines the quality of the result. Sometimes prompting feels like shaking a Magic 8 Ball. As a kid, I thought I could trick mine into giving me the answer I wanted. Sometimes it worked, often it didn’t. AI can feel the same. You can chase the perfect prompt and hit a dead end. But over time, you build intuition. The more you use it, even for small, low-stakes tasks, the better you get at driving it safely from point A to point B. On security and confidentiality, I see the same concerns many do. But the rules aren’t fundamentally different from cloud computing. The platforms we use don’t train their models on client data, and the information is secured to the same standard already applied to sensitive legal work. The bigger risk is us. Lawyers are busy. Deadlines loom. The temptation to take outputs at face value without checking them is real. But the safeguard is the same as it always was: verify the source information for everything. LOOKING FORWARD That is how I’ve come to see AI in my practice. It doesn’t replace the buckets of competency I’ve spent ten years developing. It augments them. It multiplies my capacity but doesn’t change the underlying obligation to exercise judgment, know the file, and stay rooted in the evidence. This technology has made me more of the lawyer I wanted to be: spending more time on judgment, strategy, and advocacy, and less on the grind of moving a mountain of documents six minutes at a time.
That framework has changed. AI compresses the first stage dramatically. It can pull facts from evidence and correspondence, organize them coherently, and provide references in a fraction of the time. The second stage has sped up too. I can query the file, check for inconsistencies, and generate alternative framings in minutes. AI hasn’t replaced my judgment. It multiplies my capacity to exercise it. The result: more time on the part of my work that matters most - analyzing, advising, advocating. It has also changed the rhythm of drafting. Like most lawyers, I’ve agonized over phrasing, spending hours trying to distill complex points into a single sentence. Now, once I know the components, I can generate variations instantly. The focus has shifted from how do I say this? to what do I need to say? Day to day, the way I use AI looks mundane, but it matters:
Summarize an affidavit with para references Extract dates and build a timeline Compare two clauses and flag differences List key issues from correspondence Check a draft against the file for accuracy Research & Analysis
Drafting & Communication
Rewrite a section concisely Turn rough notes into a client-ready email Draft a first-pass notice of motion Reorganize arguments into a factum outline Generate a neutral case summary for reporting
These are the building blocks of practice: identifying, synthesizing, packaging information. They also strain a lawyer’s capacity. Having a tool to accelerate them, while still leaving me responsible for verification, has fundamentally changed how I work. UNDERSTANDING THE RISKS Adopting new technology isn’t without risk. Overreliance on AI has already been well publicized. Long before I used it in practice, I was reading about algorithmic systems. In The Master Algorithm , the author draws a simple analogy: you don’t need to know how to build an engine to drive a car, but you do need to understand the steering wheel, accelerator, and brakes. AI is the same. At their core, these tools are advanced prediction machines. Trained on vast amounts of text, they generate language by predicting the next word. They use neural networks - layers of algorithms that recognize patterns - and a mechanism called “attention,” which lets the model weigh which parts of a prompt are most relevant. That’s why the way you frame a question matters so much. The attention mechanism is the steering wheel.
2 ROBINS APPLEBY LLP | LEGAL PULSE FALL / WINTER 2025
NEWS
THE LAW: TEST ESTABLISHED BY SCC IN FAIRMONT HOTELS The ONCA reaffirmed the test set out by the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) in Canada (Attorney General) v Fairmont Hotels Inc., 2016 SCC 56, which narrowed the ability for Courts to award the remedy of rectification. The SCC outlined that rectification is only available where an error results from a mistake common to all parties to the agreement, and the following is satisfied: 1. There was a prior agreement whose terms are definite and ascertainable; 2. The agreement was still in effect at the time the instrument was executed; 3. The instrument fails to accurately record the agreement; and 4. The instrument, if rectified, would carry out the parties’ prior agreement. The ONCA confirmed that rectification is not available to correct an “improvident bargain” or to “fill a gap in the parties’ true agreement”, even when the omission defeats what one of the parties was seeking to achieve ( 2484234 Ontario Inc. v. Hanley Park Developments Inc., 2020 ONCA 273). Rectification is for remedying the agreement to place the parties in the position of what they agreed to do, not what they should have agreed to do. Ultimately, it requires that the executed documents fail to accurately record the parties’ agreement. Moreover, a Court will not rectify a document on the basis that it failed to achieve the grantor’s fiscal or tax objective alone. In other words, it will not be awarded to achieve the objective of avoiding an unintended tax liability. APPLYING THE TEST The ONCA ruled that since the documents accurately reflected the agreement to pay a $1.4 million tax-free capital dividend, rectification was not warranted. The flaw was in the reorganization structuring, but not in the accuracy of the written documents. The parties’ intention to effect the transactions on a tax-free basis was not sufficient grounds for rectification. The Court emphasized that rectification must be used with “great caution” and as such, it was not applicable in the circumstances. KEY TAKEAWAYS What should have been an efficient, tax-free distribution for the taxpayer resulted in a significant tax penalty that could have been avoided. The case serves as an important reminder for tax practitioners and taxpayers about the importance of due diligence when engaging in tax planning. Careful consideration must be given in every transaction. Good communication between advisors as to what steps have been taken can help ensure that the appropriate review has been made. This decision also reminds us that a Court will only award rectification in the tax context in very limited scenarios where the written documents do not reflect the parties’ agreement. There is no benefit of hindsight for parties whose documents reflect their agreement but who later find out that their tax objectives were not met.
Rectification is an equitable remedy that corrects mistakes in written agreements. The recent case from the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”), Pyxis Real Estate Equities Inc. v Canada (Attorney General), 2025 ONCA 65, provides an important reminder of how rectification operates in the tax context and the importance of obtaining good tax advice. The case highlights the strict legal framework that must be satisfied for rectification to be granted, even where the parties intended to achieve a specific fiscal outcome. THE FACTS David Jubb (“Jubb”) was the sole shareholder of the vertical chain of corporations involved in the planning that was the subject of the rectification application. Jubb sought to pay off a shareholder loan that he owed to one of the corporations through a tax-free remuneration strategy. His accountants created a plan involving a tax-free capital dividend payment of $1.4 million initiated by the corporation at the bottom of the corporate chain, which would be paid up the corporate chain with successive capital dividends and ultimately paid to Jubb. To make this payment, each corporation required a capital dividend account (“CDA”) balance of at least $1.4 million. The accountants prepared a memorandum outlining that four dividends would be paid up the corporate chain, each in the amount of $1.4 million. While the accountants were instructed to verify the historical tax and accounting records of each corporation, they failed to do so and were not aware that one of the corporations (“Edgecombe”) had a CDA deficit of approximately $300,000. As such, to achieve the goal of each corporation paying a $1.4 million capital dividend, an initiating capital dividend of $1.7 million was needed, which was possible given that the initial payer corporation at the bottom of the chain had a CDA balance of approximately $45 million and was able to pay this larger dividend amount. The CRA assessed Edgecombe and determined that it paid a capital dividend in excess of its CDA balance. As a result, it levied the punitive 60% tax on the excess capital dividend under Part III of the Income Tax Act (Canada). Jubb sought to rectify the corporate resolutions to reflect a capital dividend of $1.7 million on the basis that this was his true intention. The lower Court granted rectification as the application judge found that the objective of the transactions was to pay a tax-free capital dividend and that a business efficacy interpretation to the agreements should be preferred. No Benefit of Hindsight: The ONCA Clarifies the Framework for Rectification BY: AMANDA LAREN FEIGEN AND SEBASTIEN TULI
3 ROBINS APPLEBY LLP | LEGAL PULSE FALL / WINTER 2025
INTRODUCTION In an effort to incentivize and retain key employees, employers often reward them with an option to acquire shares in the corporation. As a condition to exercising the option, the employees are typically required to enter into a unanimous shareholders’ agreement (“USA”). The 2021 Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”) case of Mikelsteins v Morrison Hershfield Limited (“Mikelsteins”) shed light on the interplay between an employer’s obligations to employees upon termination and the rights afforded to the employee-shareholder under the USA. The ONCA held that the employee-shareholder was not entitled to his share rights (including “bonus” payments) as part of his pay in lieu of notice following his termination. In light of Mikelsteins, employers should both consider the factors that could influence a Court’s ruling and ensure that the obligations of each party arising from termination are clearly set out in the USA. MIKELSTEINS V MORRISON HERSHFIELD LIMITED Factual Background Mr. Mikelsteins received written notice that he was being terminated without cause after working for Morrison Hershfield Limited (“MHL”) for over 30 years. While employed, he was granted the option to purchase shares in MHL’s parent corporation subject to Mr. Mikelsteins entering into an existing shareholders’ agreement (the “Shareholders’ Agreement”) with the corporation and its shareholders. Mr. Mikelsteins subsequently exercised this right and purchased the shares. Under the Shareholders’ Agreement, shareholders were entitled to receive a yearly share “bonus” for each share they owned. It also required terminated employee-shareholders to transfer all of their shares back to the corporation within 30 days of receiving notice of termination. The initial trial decision, later overturned by the ONCA, concluded that Mr. Mikelsteins’ “termination date” was the date following his 26-month reasonable notice period. Therefore, he was entitled to his share “bonus” for 26-months after his termination as part of his pay in lieu of such notice. ONCA DECISION The ONCA overturned the trial decision. The Court found that Mr. Mikelsteins’ capacity as an employee was entirely distinct from his capacity as a shareholder of MHL’s parent corporation. Therefore, the rights that were attached to his shares were to be analyzed from his capacity as a shareholder. The Court emphasized two key factors in making this finding: (i.) Mr. Mikelsteins purchased the shares with his own funds as opposed to receiving the shares as a form of employment compensation; and (ii.) the share “bonus” payments were actually dividends rather than an employment compensation payment, as the share “bonus” was not tied to Mr. Mikelsteins’ job performance, but rather, was paid to each shareholder and was tied completely to the corporation’s financial performance. In reviewing the Shareholders’ Agreement, the Court reasoned that on its plain wording, the transfer date had passed and therefore, Mr. Mikelsteins was no longer entitled to his rights arising from his ownership of the shares. Therefore, the ONCA held that Mr. Mikelsteins was not entitled to payment of his share “bonus” in lieu of notice of termination. Wearing Different Hats: Takeaways from Mikelsteins v Morrison Hershfield Limited BY: CHARLIE KIM, MATTHEW MCGUIGAN AND SARAH HOOPER NEWS
KEY TAKEAWAYS The Court’s decision in Mikelsteins highlights two important takeaways for employers intending to offer their key employees shares in the employer corporation: (1) Two key considerations for employers who provide share options to their employees are as follows: a. employees should purchase the shares with their own funds rather than receiving the shares as a form of employment compensation; and b. any “bonuses” paid on the shares should not be tied to the employee’s individual job performance, but rather, should be tied solely to the corporation’s financial performance so that they may be viewed as dividends rather than employment compensation. (2) Employers should ensure that the applicable USA is well- drafted and particularly, that each party’s obligations upon termination are clearly set out. A well-drafted USA will alleviate uncertainty and clearly establish the expectations of the parties involved.
4 ROBINS APPLEBY LLP | LEGAL PULSE FALL / WINTER 2025
NEWS
To clarify, claims from the purchaser who did not register their purchase agreement within 45 days will be aggregated at the end of each calendar year. If the total is less than the sublimit, their deposit coverage limit will not be impacted, and their claim would be subject to the current limits. However, if the aggregate claims are more than the sublimit in a calendar year, their compensation limit will be based on a proportional share derived from the difference between the aggregate claims and the sublimit. For example, if 110 purchasers submit claims for $100,000 in a year, then the total deposit claims under the sub- limit for that year are $11 million. Therefore, these purchasers, who did not provide proper notice, would then receive up to $90,909 in coverage each. WHY THE CHANGE? Illegal building and selling isn’t just a regulatory issue — it’s a serious threat to homebuyers. Purchasers who unknowingly invest in unauthorized projects risk losing their entire deposit, with little to no recourse. Until now, many of these illegal transactions have remained hidden for years, only coming to light far too late for regulators to intervene effectively. Tarion’s new requirement aims to change that. By requiring purchasers of newly constructed freehold homes to register their agreements within 45 days, Tarion will be able to verify in real-time whether a builder is properly licensed. If not, they can work swiftly with the Home Construction Regulatory Authority (“HCRA”) to stop illegal sales before buyers are harmed — not years after the damage is done. Unlike condominium buyers, purchasers of new freehold homes have had far fewer protections. The Condominium Act requires all deposits to be held in trust by an accredited trustee, ensuring funds are secure. On top of that, Tarion insures the first $20,000 of condo deposits. Builders must also secure insurance for any amount beyond $20,000, which can only be released under strict conditions. In contrast, freehold home deposits are paid directly to the builder or vendor — with no trust account and no guaranteed third-party oversight. If the builder goes bankrupt or breaches the agreement, the buyer’s deposits are at risk. By introducing this notice requirement, Tarion hopes to strengthen consumer protection. Early registration will help identify and track transactions sooner, allowing authorities to detect illegal activity and act before buyers are left in a financial nightmare. It’s important to note that these changes apply only to purchasers of new freehold homes. There is no change to deposit protection for condo buyers or post-possession coverage for either type of purchase. FINAL THOUGHTS Buying a home is likely one of the biggest financial decisions a purchaser will ever make — and knowing their deposit is protected offers peace of mind. While Tarion’s new notice requirement is a positive step forward, it’s not a silver bullet. Illegal builders often skip including Tarion documentation altogether, leaving unsuspecting buyers in the dark about their rights. That’s why it’s critical for the entire housing industry — from builders and realtors to lawyers and mortgage agents — to understand these changes and clearly communicate these changes to clients. If you’re buying a new freehold home after July 1, 2025, don’t wait. Register your agreement within 45 days — and protect your investment.
Levelling the Playing Field: New Tarion Rule Helps Curb Illegal Home Sales BY: KAVITA PANDYA
Imagine saving for years to finally invest in your dream home, only to discover that the builder wasn’t licensed to sell or construct in Ontario — and you’ve lost your entire deposit. Unfortunately, this is not a rare occurrence. It’s a growing issue that’s shaking buyer confidence in Ontario’s pre-construction housing market. Purchasers, often already stretched financially, are growing wary due to rising costs, delays, and cancelled projects. To address these concerns and curb illegal building activity, Tarion, Ontario’s new home warranty authority, has introduced a new notice requirement for buyers of newly built freehold homes. Starting July 1, 2025, buyers are encouraged to notify Tarion of their purchase within 45 days of signing a purchase agreement. This step increases transparency and helps protect buyers by ensuring their investment qualifies for full deposit coverage. This change is a win for both buyers and legitimate builders. For buyers, early registration ensures your deposit is fully protected. For licensed builders, it levels the playing field by helping regulators detect and stop unauthorized operators. With buyers now required to disclose their home transactions, it will be much easier to flag unlicensed activity early. For too long, honest builders have unfairly faced scrutiny and reputational harm due to the actions of a few rogue or inexperienced players. By increasing transparency, this initiative helps safeguard the hard-earned trust and standing of professionals who follow the rules. CURRENT DEPOSIT PROTECTION PROGRAM FOR FREEHOLD HOMES Factual Background Currently, if you buy a newly constructed freehold home, Tarion protects your deposit under the following limits: • Agreements signed before Jan 1, 2018: Up to $40,000 • Agreements signed on or after Jan 1, 2018: ○ Up to $60,000 for homes priced at $600,000 or less ○ 10% of the purchase price, up to a maximum of $100,000, for homes over $600,000 WHAT’S CHANGED? Under Ontario Regulation 17/25, starting July 1, 2025, purchasers of new freehold homes (including homes on parcels of tied land) are encouraged to register their agreement with Tarion within 45 days of signing. The purchaser can register their agreement in just a few clicks using this link. As of January 1, 2026, purchasers who provide such notice within 45 days, will qualify for the maximum amount of deposit coverage currently available under the warranty program. Those who don’t register in time will still qualify for the deposit protection, but will be subject to $10 million annual sub-limit shared among all late-registered purchasers.
5 ROBINS APPLEBY LLP | LEGAL PULSE FALL / WINTER 2025
BIG DEALS AND CASES
Major Infrastructure Funding Completed for BMO – High-Speed Internet Program
In May 2025, our Real Estate Commercial Lending team - led by partners Leor Margulies and Ladislav Kovac, with senior law clerk Cindy Applegath - assisted BMO in completing a $70 million financing with North Frontenac Telephone Ridgetown Corp. for the construction of broadband services under the Province of Ontario’s Accelerated High-Speed Internet Program. This was the second financing by BMO under this Program with North Frontenac. Our team at Robins Appleby is proud to have assisted in this important venture, which will accelerate the rollout of high-speed internet across underserved regions of Ontario.
Robins Appleby Secures Property Recovery, Defeats $4.6M Trust Indemnity Claim
no construction occurred, Kimkor demanded the return of its shares in 2022. The trustees refused, asserting that Kimkor first had to indemnify them for millions in alleged costs and claiming that the fee credit had been exhausted. The dispute culminated in a trial involving extensive fact evidence and competing forensic accounting reports. The Court sided fully with Kimkor, ruling that the indemnity clause did not entitle the trustees to withhold the shares or recover development expenses. The Court found the indemnity was narrow — covering only costs tied to the trustees’ limited shareholder role — and that the developers were entitled to recover only $1.76 million. The Court dismissed claims for equitable mortgage, subrogation, and constructive trust. The trustees were ordered to immediately transfer the shares to Kimkor. This outcome reinforces the strict limits of trust indemnity clauses and showcases Robins Appleby’s strength in resolving intricate disputes at the intersection of corporate, trust, and real estate law.
In August, Litigation partners David Taub and Philip Holdsworth achieved a major victory for Kimkor Holdings Inc. in a complex trust and real estate development dispute stemming from a failed $20 million commercial plaza project in Peterborough, Ontario. The case centered on three issues: whether the trustees could withhold Kimkor’s ownership interest under an indemnity clause, how a $2.2 million development fee credit should be applied, and the legitimacy of nearly $4.6 million in claimed project costs. Back in 2015, Kimkor had converted $2.2 million of secured debt owed by the developer, Stonebridge LAC Inc., into a credit toward construction costs for the project. The development lands were purchased through SBLAC Peterborough Inc., a company whose shares were held in trust for Kimkor by Stonebridge’s principals. After the project stalled indefinitely in 2017 and
6 ROBINS APPLEBY LLP | LEGAL PULSE FALL / WINTER 2025
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Welcome to the Firm!
Welcome Back, Darya Maltseva, to the Commercial Real Estate and Development Group! After articling with us, Darya has joined us as an associate in our Commercial Real Estate and Development Group where she is building a broad commercial real estate practice and partners in advising clients on all key aspects of commercial real estate law, including acquisitions, dispositions, development, and financing.
Welcome, Ananata Sriram, to the Litigation and Dispute Resolution Group! Ananta is an associate in our Litigation and Dispute Resolution Group where she is building a broad litigation practice that includes commercial disputes, real estate litigation, fraud matters, and bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings.
We’re proud to celebrate our lawyers who have been honoured in the 2026 Best Lawyers Canada Awards for their excellence and client service across multiple practice areas. Robins Appleby Lawyers Recognized in the 2026 Best Lawyers Canada Awards
Tax Law / Trusts & Estates
Leor Margulies Real Estate Law
A. Lorne Greenspoon Trusts & Estates
David R. Schlesinger
Heela Donsky Walker Trusts & Estates
Barbara Green Labour & Employment Law / Corporate & Commercial Litigation
Errol Tenenbaum Trusts & Estates
Congratulations to our colleagues on this recognition of their leadership and contributions to our clients and the legal profession.
7 ROBINS APPLEBY LLP | LEGAL PULSE FALL / WINTER 2025
ANNOUNCEMENTS
We’re proud to share that Robins Appleby LLP has been recognized in the Second Edition of Best Law Firms – Canada as a 2026 Best Law Firm across several practice areas, including Trusts and Estates, Real Estate Law, Corporate and Commercial Litigation, Labour and Employment Law, and Tax Law. This recognition reflects our commitment to excellence and trusted legal expertise, highlighting the strength of our teams and the confidence our peers continue to place in us. We extend our sincere gratitude to our clients for their continued support, and to our talented lawyers and staff whose dedication makes achievements like this possible. Robins Appleby Recognized Among Canada’s Best Law Firms 2026
After more than 40 years helping clients navigate and litigate complex disputes, Irving Marks, head of our Litigation and Dispute Resolution Group, is utilizing his depth of experience to expand his litigation practice to provide services as a mediator and arbitrator. Known for his practical mindset, calm approach, and fairness, Irving helps parties move past conflict toward constructive solutions. He works with disputes across a wide range of areas — including real estate and condominiums, commercial transactions, corporate, shareholder and partnership disputes, construction, taxation, estates and trusts, and professional negligence. Irving’s focus is simple: create space for resolution. Whether mediating negotiations or acting as a neutral arbitrator, he brings clarity, balance, and a pragmatic perspective to every engagement. If you’re looking for an experienced, impartial professional to help resolve a dispute, Irving Marks is an excellent choice. Finding Common Ground: Irving Marks Expands His Mediation & Arbitration Practice
8 ROBINS APPLEBY LLP | LEGAL PULSE FALL / WINTER 2025
LAWYER SPOTLIGHT: LEOR MARGULIES
Q) HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN WITH ROBINS APPLEBY LLP AND WHAT HAS YOUR CAREER PATH LOOKED LIKE HERE? I joined Robins Appleby LLP in January 1985 and became a partner in 1988. Previous to that, I practiced with a small real estate specialist law firm from 1981 – 1985 specializing in commercial transactions, commercial mortgages and enforcement. Great experience for a young lawyer. I have lived through five or six real estate downturns which included 1975-1976, 1981- 1984, 1990-1995, 2022-present and 2009-2010 when the financial world came to a grinding halt, including real estate transactions. I joined the BILD Board of Directors and Executive in 1999 and have been on their Board and Executive ever since. It is a great industry association and they recently inducted me into the Hall of Fame. I am very proud of the work that I have done for them and the residential construction industry over the years. Q) YOU’VE EXPERIENCED THE FIRM’S EVOLUTION FIRSTHAND — WHAT MIGHT SURPRISE PEOPLE MOST ABOUT HOW WE’VE CHANGED? AND IN YOUR VIEW, WHAT STANDS OUT AS OUR GREATEST STRENGTH? When I first joined the firm, we were 25 lawyers and we grew close to 90 lawyers. Unfortunately, we grew right into the 1989/1995 real estate recession that had a severe impact on the firm. We reconstituted ourselves into a 22-person firm, including a five person York Region firm. The York Region component of our firm separated in 1993 and since then, we have grown in size to over 30 lawyers. The surprise was that we were able to reconstitute our firm in the worst recession that this province has faced in many years and as a small firm, come out even stronger. I am very proud of my partners and our staff that worked tirelessly during that timeframe and since then. Our greatest strength is simply that we are an entrepreneurial law firm that provides valuable real legal/business advice to clients. All lawyers should be able to provide technical advice and analyze and provide their insight on problems. But the real lawyers can provide their recommendations and their advice on tough situations, that their clients will trust and rely upon. That is what we do here at Robins Appleby LLP. Q) COULD YOU TELL US MORE ABOUT YOUR PRACTICE? A) M y practice has a split personality. On the one hand, I head up the real estate lending group which has a primary focus on construction lending and land acquisitions. We also handle major commercial lending transactions. On the other hand, I head up the market driven real estate development section of our group. By market driven, I mean housing that is sold to the missing middle in our GTA community, to hard working people who just need to find homes and condominiums. We act for all kinds of developers, both large and small. However, I am really proud of the work and the advice that we give to newer developers to guide them through the business and the regulatory minefields that face them in low-rise and high-rise developments. Q) IT’S NO SECRET YOU’RE A BIG TENNIS FAN AND PLAYER, DO YOU HAVE ANY MEMORABLE STORIES YOU CAN SHARE? Everyone who knows me knows that I am a tennis nut. I love playing and I love watching. I have seen so many matches, it is hard to really pinpoint the ones that stand out. But the one match that got me going to Wimbledon in 2001 was the men’s final between Goran Ivanišević from Serbia and Patrick Rafter from Australia. The match was delayed to People’s Monday as a result of continuing rain for five straight days. Goran was a wildcard who was ranked 125th even though years before, he had a very high ranking. I had the opportunity to line up for tickets for 40 British pounds when I was visiting coincidentally but was convinced by a friend that I would never get tickets. Instead, it turned out to be one of the all-time classic matches and it wasn’t even sold out! It went to five sets and Goran won 3-2, being the first wildcard to win Wimbledon. After that, I swore that I would always come back to Wimbledon and have done so virtually every year since 2001. A) A) A)
Q) WHAT OTHER HOBBIES DO YOU HAVE?
I love horses. I have owned two horses in my lifetime (and two are enough!). I have done jumping and cross- country, but have over the years, stuck to dressage which is ballet on horseback. There is nothing like riding horses to clear your mind.
A)
I love live theatre. I acted in university and some people say I continue to do so in my professional life. I have been attending the Stratford Festival every year since 1976 when I was a student at McGill University. Q) IF YOU COULD HAVE DINNER WITH ANYONE (DEAD OR ALIVE) WHO WOULD IT BE AND WHY? I would love to have dinner with both Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer and quiz them on the all-time famous five set Wimbledon finals in 2007 when Rafael finally beat Roger in a seven and a half hour rain delayed marathon. I would love to get the play-by-play on that match from the two of them. Q) WHAT’S THE BEST ADVICE YOU RECEIVED AND WHAT IS THE BEST ADVICE YOU’VE GIVEN? Keep things in perspective. However bad the event seems to be, there is a lot worse that can happen and you can get through it. What I have learned to give as best advice is virtually everything that we face here in our lifetime, other than serious health issues or family issues, are top 1% first-world issues. Whether it is getting into the right school or getting that house or the job that you want or getting fired and looking for another job, we can always get through it. We are really so fortunate to be living in this country, even during these times. I wouldn’t be anywhere else. A) A)
9 ROBINS APPLEBY LLP | LEGAL PULSE FALL / WINTER 2025
DEPARTMENT HIGHLIGHT
DEPARTMENT HIGHLIGHT: EMPLOYMENT LAW: WORKPLACE INVESTIGATIONS Employees have a right to a harassment-free workplace and employers have specific duties to do their utmost to prevent workplace harassment and workplace violence as outlined in the policies under the Occupational Health and Safety Act . “Bad behaviour” in the workplace includes: bullying and intimidation; racist and culturally offensive remarks; unwelcome sexual remarks; jokes that cause ridicule or are offensive; offensive pictures, videos, or documents; staring, following, stalking; unwanted telephone calls, emails, text messages; and any other action or activity that belittles or embarrasses an employee. Harassment at work may fall under Ontario’s Human Rights Code. Sexual assault, threats, and behaviours such as stalking in the workplace fall under Canada’s Criminal Code and should be reported to police immediately. Our Employment Law Group is available to assist employers in addressing any such complaints made about the workplace, and can assist employees in pursuing any such claims or complaints.
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT & EVENTS
LAWYERS FEED THE HUNGRY
We’re proud to continue our tradition of giving back. Once again, members of our team rolled up their sleeves and joined the Law Society Foundation’s Lawyers Feed the Hungry initiative that provides year-round meal services to individuals and families experiencing food insecurity in Toronto, serving over 1,200 hot meals each week. This year’s effort reminded us that every plate served carries more than nourishment - it delivers dignity, connection and hope.
10 ROBINS APPLEBY LLP | LEGAL PULSE FALL / WINTER 2025
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT & EVENTS
MIX, MINGLE & MAKE SUSHI On October 16, we hosted our annual Women’s Event, and this year’s theme, “Spritz & Sushi (Making),” had everyone rolling with joy! Held at LANO at the Ritz-Carlton, we welcomed 50 guests for a night of laughter, connection, and creativity. With spritzes in hand, everyone learned how to roll sushi under the guidance of two amazing female chefs from The Culinary Studio. The atmosphere was lively and fun, filled with conversation, delicious bites, and new friendships — a perfect way to celebrate and support the incredible women in our community.
11 ROBINS APPLEBY LLP | LEGAL PULSE FALL / WINTER 2025
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker