Lawyer Profile Detail



Christine Lonsdale

OFFICE

Toronto

DIRECT LINE

416-601-8019

E-MAIL

[email protected]

V-CARD

LAW SCHOOL

McGill University

BAR ADMISSION

Ontario, 2001




Biography

Christine Lonsdale is a partner in our Toronto Litigation Group in Toronto. Ms. Lonsdale is an experienced commercial litigator who also acts in defamation, privacy, professional negligence and discipline. Ms. Lonsdale has appeared as counsel at all levels of court, including the Supreme Court of Canada in major cases in both Ontario and British Columbia.

Ms. Lonsdale is listed in the current edition of the Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory as a leading lawyer in the area of Medical Negligence (Represents Defendants).

Ms. Lonsdale is also a member of McCarthy Tétrault’s National Pro Bono Committee. She leads the firm’s Unaccompanied Minors Project which provides minors with a McCarthy Tétrault lawyer to act as kind of legal guardian in immigration proceedings.

Recent Representative Cases

  • CPSO v. D. (2016). Acted for physician accused of improper sexual touching of patient. CPSO found allegations not made out and dismissed allegations against the physician at discipline.
  • Chandra v. CBC (2016). Ontario Court of Appeal rejected motion before the Ontario Court of Appeal to extend time to appeal finding no reasonable prospect of success on appeal.
  • OCT v. Abi-Mansour (2016) Ontario Court of Appeal rejected motion before the Ontario Court of Apepal to extend time for leave to appeal from judicial review application.
  • Chandra v. CBC (2015). Acted for CBC in thirteen week defamation and breach of privacy trial. Justice Mew presided, and the case was heard by a jury. CBC successful on all issues.
  • Watson v. Bank of America et al (2015) Acted for TD Bank in defence of certification in case related to credit card fees. Action partially certified by CJ Bauman in 2014. Plainitiff’s appeal successful on Wakelam issue. Defendants’ appeal successful on new section 45.
  • OCT v. Abi-Mansour (2014). Acted for Ontario College of Teachers before the OCT and in an appeal of discipline proceedings before the Divisional Court. Mr. Abi-Mansour’s appeal dismissed and costs ordered in favour of OCT.
  • Holley v. Northern Trust and Royal Trust. (2014) Acted for Royal Trust in Superior Court and before the Ontario Court of Appeal in proposed class action. Case dismissed prior to certification on a Rule 21 motion because of an expired limitation period.
  • The Commissioner of Competition v. Visa Canada Corporation et al. (2013)Acted for the Toronto-Dominion Bank in the successful defence of a prosecution before the Competition Tribunal by the Commissioner of Competition against Visa Inc and MasterCard Ltd.
  • OCT v Charbonneau (2012). Counsel to the Ontario College of Teachers in Divisional Court regarding circumstances in which a penalty hearing can be re-opened. OCT’s appeal granted.
  • National Bank v. Globe and Mail (2011). Obtained Norwich Order for National Bank.
  • Asper v. Lysko (2011). Counsel to David Asper in defamation case. Successfully brought motion to seek access to settlement information in other defamation cases brought by Mr. Lysko.
  • OCT v. Perron (2013). Counsel to the Ontario College of Teachers at discipline hearing proceeding in French. Mr. Perron found guilty of professional misconduct.
  • Liu et al. v. Silver (2010). Counsel in the Court of Appeal to Dr. Silver on summary judgment motion enforcing limitation period. This was is one of the first cases regarding the new summary judgment rule.
  • OCT v. Guibord (2009). Co-counsel for the Ontario College of Teachers and hearing proceeding largely in French. Mr. Guibord was found guilty of professional misconduct for having improperly restrained a number of male students in his social adaptation class whose ages ranged from 7 to 10 years old.
  • Milne v. Lackman [2009] O.J. No. 1587. Counsel for physician bringing motion to seek court’s permission to interview other treating physicians on terms. Case clarifying law regarding when and how such interviews can be allowed.
  • Adbusters v. CanWest, [2008] B.C.J. No. 246 (B.C.S.C.); [2009] 92 B.C.L.R. (4th) 9 (B.C.C.A.). Co-counsel for CanWest on motion to strike on the basis that Charter does not apply before B.C. Superior Court. Counsel before B.C. Court of Appeal, appeal granted. Leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada pending.
  • Southern Manitoba Potato Company v. Frito Lay, [2008] O.J. No. 2795. Counsel for Frito Lay before the Superior Court of Justice on motion for summary judgment regarding contract limitation period.
  • Thomson v. Zeldin, [2008] O.J. No. 3591; 169 A.C.W.S. (3d) 657. Counsel for Dr. Zeldin successfully resisting pleadings amendment on basis of expired limitation period.
  • Manson v. Moffet (2008) CarswellOnt 2479; [2008] O.J. No. 1697. Acted for Plaintiff in internet defamation case. Judgment in favour of the Plaintiff granted.
  • Lewis v. CBC (2007) Defended CBC against defamation allegations brought by former Tory Cabinet Minister Doug Lewis. Case dropped by Plaintiff in middle of motion for a directed verdict.
  • Chandra v. CBC (2007) Counsel for CBC in defamation case where successfully obtained security for costs against Plaintiff on basis that he appeared to be residing outside of Canada. Order subsequently vacated based on change of circumstances.
  • Matthews v. Schnittker, [2008] O.J. No. 3972; 170 A.C.W.S. (3d) 540 (Ont. S.C.J.). Co-counsel in a medical negligence case involving the removal of a brain tumour. Case against Dr. Schnittker dismissed.
  • R. v. Stucky (2006), 216 C.C.C. (3d) 148 (Ont. S.C.J.); (2009) 303 D.L.R. (4th) 1 (Ont. C.A.). Co-counsel for Mr. Stucky in a six month prosecution for misleading advertising. The case against Mr. Stucky dismissed at trial. On appeal, Mr. Stucky’s acquittal was overturned and a new trial ordered.
  • Goodis v. Ministry of Correctional Services, [2006] S.C.J. No. 31 Co-counsel before the Supreme Court of Canada for Jane Doe in access to information matter. Requester’s counsel sought access to the sealed record where solicitor-client privilege claimed by the Ministry.
  • R. v. Attuah, [2005] O.J. No. 3339. Co-counsel for physician regarding fraud and conspiracy to defraud OHIP. On certiorari successfully quashed committal for trial on basis that not a scintilla of evidence supporting committal for trial on all counts.
  • Children’s Lawyer for Ontario v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), (2005) 75 O.R. (3d) 309 (Ont. C.A.). Co-counsel acting as amicus regarding role of Information and Privacy Commissioner on judicial review application and submissions regarding merits.
  • Remtulla v. Zeldin, [2005] O.J. No. 3424 Counsel for Dr. Zeldin involving informed consent. Case against Dr. Zeldin dismissed.
  • W.D. v. White, (2004) 189 O.A.C. 256. Co-counsel for lawyer regarding whether a new trial lies based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel barred by settlement and release in solicitor’s negligence claim. Argument that an appeal on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel was precluded accepted by the Court of Appeal.
  • OCT v. Gaumont (2003). Counsel for the Ontario College of Teachers, hearing proceeding in French. Mr. Gaumont found guilty of professional misconduct regarding improper sexual contact with student.
  • Leenen v. CBC, (2001) 54 O.R. (3d) 612 Co-counsel for CBC regarding defamation matter involving scope of defence of fair comment, findings of malice and quantum of damages.

Articles

Blog Posts


Publications


News


Transactions & Cases


Our Firm


 
McCarthy Tétrault delivers integrated business law, tax, real property, labour and employment, and litigation services nationally and globally through offices in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Montréal, Québec City, as well as in New York City and London, UK.
Read