
Alex Payne
Presenter at Sky Sports
Co-Host at The Good, The Bad & The Rugby
https://t.co/PAfj1v482z Sports Presenter - host of @goodbadrugby Founder Of https://t.co/U1uFVu5xMr @theroomunlocked
Articles
-
1 month ago |
bennettjones.com | Alex Payne |Josephine Bulat
The Divisional Court’s recent decision in Gay Co. Ltd. v Sayers Foods Ltd., 2024 ONSC 6123 addressed two noteworthy issues for stakeholders in the Ontario construction industry, particularly industry participants who use the interim adjudication regime under the Construction Act as administered by the Ontario Dispute Adjudication for Construction Contracts (ODACC).
-
1 month ago |
lexology.com | Alex Payne |Josephine Bulat
The Divisional Court’s recent decision in Gay Co. Ltd. v Sayers Foods Ltd., 2024 ONSC 6123 addressed two noteworthy issues for stakeholders in the Ontario construction industry, particularly industry participants who use the interim adjudication regime under the Construction Act as administered by the Ontario Dispute Adjudication for Construction Contracts (ODACC).
-
Jan 23, 2025 |
bennettjones.com | Alex Payne
Alex Payne comments on one of the cases included in Law360 Canada’s annual coverage of its Top 10 business decisions in Canada. He offers his insights on Barbiero v Pollack, 2024 ONCA 904—where the Ontario Court of Appeal reversed a 13-year-old precedent from the court finding that the passage of time established only a rebuttable presumption of prejudice in favour of a finding that the passage of time could, on its own, constitute sufficient prejudice to dismiss an action for delay.
Ontario Court of Appeal Endorses a Flexible and Contextual Approach to Dismissal for Delay Under the
Jan 17, 2025 |
bennettjones.com | Alex Payne |Adam Walji
Stay Up-To-DateRead the most recent Class Action Quick Takes and stay informed with the latest key developments, trends and strategies in the class action arena by subscribing to receive future insights. In Tataryn v. Diamond & Diamond Lawyers LLP, 2025 ONCA 5 (Tataryn), the Ontario Court of Appeal clarified the test for determining whether a proposed class action should be dismissed for delay under section 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, SO 1992, c 6.
-
Nov 21, 2024 |
law360.ca | Alex Payne |Adam Walji
ADVERTISEMENT Don't want ads? Subscribe or login now. By Alex Payne and Adam Walji ( November 21, 2024, 10:55 AM EST) -- The Ontario Superior Court of Justice in McRae-Yu v. Profitly Incorporated et. al., 2024 ONSC 5615 (McRae-Yu), continued the recent trend of refusing to dismiss a proposed class action for delay under section. 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.
Try JournoFinder For Free
Search and contact over 1M+ journalist profiles, browse 100M+ articles, and unlock powerful PR tools.
Start Your 7-Day Free Trial →X (formerly Twitter)
- Followers
- 30K
- Tweets
- 4K
- DMs Open
- No

Please, please, please - can we update this photo with a Johnno grin. Thanks, all of England. https://t.co/AqovRnkLPR

Say what you want about the man, he knows how to hit a post

Hask is up to his usual antics at the Principality Stadium ahead of Wales vs England 🤭 That’s right, Hask and Mo are in Cardiff to take on Dewi Lake, Bethan Lewis, Adam Beard & Lisa Neumann in a high stakes match of Penny Rugby! https://t.co/jEHhSLmzzE

RT @GoodBadRugby: 🔎Search GOOD BAD RUGBY to watch the full special now! Fancy converting your pennies into pounds? Try saving with @Princi…