Purchase This Domain

This domain is a Michael A. Wills domain holdings property and is available for purchase. Contact us or submit your confidential offer to domains at willslaw.ca for consideration and response. Discover more domain properties for sale on our domains for sale listing page.

Quick-check the ahrefs domain rating and link profile: click here.

Minimum offer: $780.00 (USD)

Active Sites Not for Sale

Terminated.Law

Employment lawyer for: termination without cause

Weclose.Law

Residential real estate lawyer for: real estate lawyer

Employer.Law

Management-side employment lawyer for: employment agreements

More Top Domains for Sale

Latest Posts from Terminated.Law

Latest Posts from Weclose.Law

  • Closing Costs for Ontario Homebuyers
    by Michael Wills on October 31, 2024

    Learn about closing costs for Ontario homebuyers with Weclose. From legal fees to title insurance, we guide you through all the expenses for a smooth closing. The post Closing Costs for Ontario Homebuyers first appeared on Weclose.

  • First-Time Homebuyer Rebates and Incentives
    by Michael Wills on October 31, 2024

    Explore first-time homebuyer rebates and incentives in Ontario. From tax rebates to shared-equity loans, Weclose guides you through savings opportunities. The post First-Time Homebuyer Rebates and Incentives first appeared on Weclose.

  • Buyer and Seller Rights Ontario Real Estate
    by Michael Wills on October 31, 2024

    Understand buyer and seller rights Ontario real estate. From disclosures to fair compensation, Weclose guides you through a fair and protected transaction. The post Buyer and Seller Rights Ontario Real Estate first appeared on Weclose.

Recent Decisions from Ontario Court of Appeal

  • Dalpha Technologies Inc. v. Farrage, 2025 ONCA 235 (CanLII)
    on March 24, 2025

    Property — Mortgages — Mortgagee in possession — Accounting — Appellant mortgagee collected rents and sold properties under power of sale — Respondent sought accounting, alleging recovery exceeded amounts owed under mortgage and default judgment — Was the application judge’s determination inconsistent with the default judgment, amounting to an impermissible collateral attack? — No inconsistency shown — Appellate court upheld application judge’s findingsEvidence — Expert evidence — Forensic accounting — Application judge accepted respondent’s expert’s calculations, subject to adjustments — Appellant alleged errors in interest calculations under mortgage and default judgment — Did the application judge err in accepting the expert’s calculations? — No palpable and overriding error shown — Deference owed to trial judge’s findingsCivil procedure — Appeals — Deference to trial judge’s findings — Assessment of damages — Appellate court will not interfere absent error of principle, misapprehension of evidence, or palpable and overriding error — Did the application judge err in assessing damages? — No errors justifying appellate intervention shown — Judgment upheld

  • R. v. Ahmadi, 2025 ONCA 219 (CanLII)
    on March 21, 2025

    Criminal infractions — Second-degree murder — Intoxication — Sentencing — Parole ineligibility — Appellant convicted of second-degree murder after assaulting an elderly woman while under the influence of drugs — Did the trial judge err in treating the appellant’s statements to police as an aggravating factor in sentencing? — Sentencing principles and proportionality in parole ineligibility determinations under s. 745.4 of the Criminal CodeCriminal procedure — Out-of-court statements — Fabrication — Intoxication defense — Appellant’s statements to police rejected as self-serving and fabricated — Did the trial judge err in using the appellant’s statements as circumstantial evidence of guilt without independent evidence of fabrication? — Governing principles for assessing fabricated statements in criminal trialsEvidence — Intent — Intoxication — Key witness testimony — Appellant’s behavior before the attack described as “changed” by a key witness — Did the trial judge fail to consider critical evidence on the appellant’s intent? — Trial judge’s discretion in weighing evidence and expert testimony on intoxication effectsCriminal procedure — After-the-fact conduct — Intoxication — Surveillance footage showing appellant’s deliberate actions after the attack — Did the trial judge err in relying on after-the-fact conduct to assess the appellant’s state of mind and level of intoxication? — Relevance of post-offense conduct to intent and intoxication defenses

  • Lochan v. Binance Holdings Limited, 2025 ONCA 221 (CanLII)
    on March 21, 2025

    Securities — Class actions — Certification — Ontario Securities Act — Cryptocurrency derivatives — Failure to file prospectus — Did the motion judge err in finding that the Claim pled a reasonable cause of action under the OSA and at common law? — Standard for determining whether a claim is “plain and obvious” to fail — Class Proceedings Act, 1992, s. 5(1)(a) — Ontario Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S-5, ss. 53(1), 71(1), 133(1)Statutory interpretation — Securities law — Prospectus requirements — Civil remedies — Whether s. 133 of the Ontario Securities Act provides a remedy where no prospectus was filed — Interpretation of “filed” in s. 71(1) — Remedial purpose of the OSA — Presumption against abrogation of common law rights — Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re) principles appliedEvidence — Class actions — Common issues — Rescission as a remedy — Whether the motion judge erred in finding “some basis in fact” for common issues — Standard form contracts between class members and Binance — Conflicts in evidence to be resolved at trial, not certification — Class Proceedings Act, 1992, s. 5(1)(c)Civil procedure — Class actions — Certification criteria — Identifiable class — Preferable procedure — Representative plaintiffs — Whether the motion judge erred in his analysis of ss. 5(1)(b), (d), and (e) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 — Access to justice for small investors — Standard of review for certification decisions