- Contact Details
- Areas of Practice
- Osgoode Hall Law SchoolLL.B.1991
- University of ManitobaBComm.1986
- Recognized by the Law Society of Upper Canada
- Designation of Certified Specialist (Civil Litigation)
- Member of Advisory Committee - Cross-Over Youth Project (Ryerson University) 2015 - Present
- Casa Loma Residents' AssociationVice President2015 - Present
- Ontario Bar Association and Advocates' Society
- Law Society of Upper Canada v. Groia Round five: OttawaThe Advocates' JournalSummer, 2017
- Judicial Review of Coroners and Modern Administrative LawCanadian Journal of Administrative Law & Practice
- Condominium Projects and Limitation PeriodsAugust, 2007
- Making The Choice Between Merger and Concurrency Rules in TortCanadian Bar Review2006
- Priority Disputes Amongst Insurers in Ontario: Reasonableness in an Imperfect WorldCanadian Journal of Insurance LawMarch, 2006
Richard was called to the Bar in 1993 and has extensive experience in a broad range of litigation cases including; contract, shareholders, real estate, condominium, employment, construction and other disputes. Richard has also developed considerable experience in government litigation including: coroner’s inquests, licencing, general administrative and constitutional law. In addition to extensive trial experience, Richard appears regularly in appeal courts and has acted on numerous landmark cases at the Supreme Court of Canada and Court of Appeal for Ontario. Richard graduated from Osgoode Hall Law School.
His wide-ranging experience has been recognized by the Law Society of Ontario who, in September 2009, granted Richard the designation of Certified Specialist (Civil Litigation). Richard was recently appointed to act as a “Friend of the Court” to the Ontario Divisional Court, on an administrative law appeal.
Richard has acted in an adjudicative role for over 10 years as a Vice-Chair of a Provincial Appeal Tribunal and has acted as Independent Legal Counsel to various professional regulatory clients. Richard is also a frequent writer and presenter on legal issues.
Richard’s current clients include “blue chip” real estate companies, publically traded corporations, a Provincial Law Society and its insurer, and an Indigenous Police Services Board.
Richard believes that experience is only part of the equation and that the most important part of his practice is his unflinching dedication to client service.
- Struthmann v. Struthmann, 2020 ONSC 759
Stevenson Whelton partner Richard Macklin, and articling student Adam Varro, acted for a client who successfully obtained an order allowing him to buy out his estranged wife and daughter and have their employment, officer positions and directorships terminated. Each side alleged oppressive conduct against the other, and the business was in a deadlock position. Each side sought a buy-out order, on oppression grounds, under the Ontario Business Corporations Act (the Act). Our client also sought a buy-out order under section 207 of the Act. The Court declined to weigh in on the oppression allegations but did grant the order our client sought under s. 207 of the Act. The order was granted based on our client having been the more important contributor to the business. Thus, the case is an important authority in regard to an applicant’s right to obtain a buy-out order, in a case of corporate deadlock, in the absence of establishing oppression, based solely on their having made a more significant contribution to the business.
- 7868073 Canada Ltd. et al. v. 1841978 Ontario Inc. et al., 2019 ONSC 1708
In this case, argued by Stevenson Whelton partner Richard Macklin and associate Lucinda Bendu, the main issue was: what nature and quality of assets will be sufficient to defeat the other side’s assertion that the plaintiff corporation has insufficient assets and therefore security for costs should be ordered. Many cases, including this case, involve small business plaintiffs with imperfect financial statements and earnings histories. However, Security for Costs Orders, especially in the $1,000,000 range, have dramatic tactical implications on the proceedings as a whole, in the defendant’s favour. Therefore, such orders should only be granted in circumstances where careful consideration of the available assets and other issues has been given. Justice Hainey of the Commercial List wrestled with these issues in 7868073 Canada Ltd. et al. v. 1841978 Ontario Inc. et al., 2019 ONSC 1708. His Honour dismissed the motion for $1.0 million in security for costs and also ordered $43,000 in costs, in our client’s favour, in a later unreported endorsement.
- Ali Zenaid Trading Company LLC v. Heys International Limited, 2019 ONSC 674
This ruling by Master Jolley, in a case argued by Stevenson Whelton partner Richard Macklin and associate Lucinda Bendu, took a close look at the merits of Stevenson Whelton's client's claim. Her Honour found that the merits were sufficiently strong to defeat the motion for a six-figure Security for Costs Order – brought by an Ontario defendant. Defeating a Security for Costs motion on the “merits” ground is exceptionally rare in the case of a foreign plaintiff, that has no assets in Ontario. Her Honour addressed this unique practice issue, dismissed the motion and further ordered $15,000 in costs against the defendant.
- 2303757 Ontario Inc. v. 2149589 Ontario Ltd., 2018 ONSC 5714
Stevenson Whelton partner, Richard Macklin, successfully argued for a developer to obtain forfeiture of deposit on a failed real estate transaction. This case was a pre-cursor to the many forfeiture cases that have arisen since the fall of 2018. In this case, the developer (our client), obtained forfeiture of the deposit despite the argument by the purchaser that it had been defrauded by third parties (its lawyer and realtor).
- Kohen v. Warner, 2018 ONSC 3865
Stevenson Whelton partner, Richard Macklin, was appointed as a "friend of the [Divisional Court]" in this landlord appeal. The case deals with the test for a landlord evicting a tenant on grounds that the landlord intends to have a family member live in the premises. Here, the proposed occupation was too seasonal and the landlord's appeal was dismissed