Disputes Discovery 2018 National uncover some of the key trends, issues, challenges and...

2018 National Litigation Report

Disputes

Discovery

Resolutions

Trends, issues, challenges and opportunities in Canada’s litigation landscape

2 2018 National Litigation Report

Executive summaryLitigation issues can be, and often are, highly complex—and they change frequently. Recognizing this, the Forensics and Dispute Resolution team at Grant Thornton LLP sought to uncover some of the key trends, issues, challenges and opportunities in the Canadian litigation environment by surveying over 100 litigators across the country in 2017.

Lawyers were asked questions addressing a range of topics. As a result, we gained valuable insight into how litigation practices are changing across the country, including how the volume and type of litigation cases are shifting, how recent court decisions are impacting work and what constitutes successful litigation. The survey also looked closely at how lawyers use experts and the e-discovery process and how trends in this area affect litigation, legal work processes, and lawyer practices and behaviours.


Litigation trends in Canada 4Volume of legal disputes 5Litigation trends by claim type 6Insurance litigation 7Class action cases 8

Litigation support 9Alternative approaches

for using expert witnesses 10Impact of Moore v. Getahun 11Expert credibility 12Alternative approaches

for using expert witnesses 13Impact of technology 14E-discovery management

and governance 15Cybersecurity 16Artificial intelligence 17

Lawyer practices and behaviours 19Settling vs. winning 20Speed of litigation 21Successful litigation 22Key strategy decision makers 23Whistleblowing 25Profile of participants 26Methodology 27

Appendix—Bios 28

2018 National Litigation Report 3

Report highlights• Litigation volume: Canadian courts are expected to get a lot

busier—a high percentage of lawyers (54%) expect the volume of litigation disputes to increase over the next year.

• E-discovery and technology: With the advancement of technology comes new opportunities and challenges. Our survey showed that, while many (43%) don’t believe the costs of e-discovery are deterring clients and organizations from moving forward with cases, most respondents (57%) felt the true costs of e-discovery are still being revealed and are either already impacting the legal process or could in the future. Similarly, 66% believe forces such as artificial intelligence are disrupting—or may disrupt—the legal process while 68% believe we’ll soon see an influx in cybersecurity-related liability litigation.

• Expert witnesses: Two years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a framework for assessing the independence of expert witnesses. The aim was to ensure that consultants and experts possess appropriate expertise and have the ability to be fair, objective and non-partisan. Many respondents (49%) said the new framework hasn’t impacted the number of cases involving both a consulting and testifying expert, while 44% said it has.

• Whistleblower support: A large percentage of respondents revealed that most of their clients stumble across corporate misconduct by accident—with very few taking advantage of whistleblower programs. Fifty-two percent of respondents believed implementing whistleblower programs with legal privilege could help increase this number. Strengthening data management and governance practices can also reduce costs and delays related to litigation or regulatory inquiries.

We are pleased to present the 2018 Grant Thornton National Litigation Report and hope that it will be useful to you and your practice. In assisting litigation lawyers as expert witnesses, both in consulting and testifying roles, and in helping lawyers mine the data opportunities of e-discovery, the Grant Thornton Forensic and Dispute Resolution team has developed a deep understanding of the needs of Canada’s legal community. We acknowledge and appreciate the ongoing trust and confidence given to us by our clients and counsel.

Thank you to all the lawyers that took the time to participate in our survey, as well as to the many Grant Thornton professionals who supported the process. We appreciate your time and support.


Litigation trends in CanadaLitigation is changing dramatically in Canada. The country’s laws and shifting social, economic and regulatory factors influence who brings claims forward, why claims are pursued and how claims are litigated. This section of the National Litigation Survey Report examines how trends in volume, types of claims, industries, regulations and processes are affecting the litigation environment.



Volume of legal disputesMany lawyers (54%) expect the number of legal disputes in which they are involved to increase in the next year while 35% believe there will be little or no change in volume. Only 11% of lawyers predict a decline in litigation (Figure 1).While there are many reasons for an increase in the volume of legal disputes, potential drivers may include the following:

• A new focus on the C-suite—In today’s heightened regulatory environment, both organizations and the executives that run them are at risk of litigation if they fail to comply. As such, a growing number of C-suite executives are finding themselves the subjects of punitive and legal action resulting in costly investigations, criminal prosecutions and civil litigation.1

• Cybersecurity litigation—Over the past four years, Canada has seen a significant increase in litigation activity, class action certifications and staggering damage awards for privacy and information security incidents.2

• Litigation funding—Third-party litigation funding continues to mature in Canada. For this reason, many believe litigation funding trends that have unfolded in the United States over the past five years—such as corporate clients using it to reduce their litigation defence costs—are expected to cross the border and have an impact on the Canadian litigation space.3

• Legalization of marijuana—While we won’t know for certain until the legislation surrounding recreational marijuana takes effect—which, according to the federal government, should be before July 1, 2018—it’s quite possible legalization could lead to an uptick in litigation events.

One argument for a decrease in litigation could include its high cost, which drives in-house counsel at many corporations to push for early settlements or avoid litigation entirely. One could also argue that regulations and government oversight are reducing the number of legal disputes by defining issues more clearly and introducing more streamlined processes to help counsel address issues more efficiently.35.2%

25.4%

28.2%

5.6%

5.6%

Stay same

Slight increase

Slight decrease

Decrease

Increase

Figure 1: Expected litigation volume

Expected litigation volume

1 http://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/insurance/ growing-trend-toward-seeking-punitive-personal-legal-action-corporate-leaders-agcs-1004104604/

2 http://www.chamber.ca/media/blog/170403-cyber-security-in-canada-practical-solutions-to-a-grow-ing-problem/

3 http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/legalfeeds/3545/ is-third-party-litigation-funding-coming-to-a-court-near-you.html

http://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/insurance/growing-trend-toward-seeking-punitive-personal-legal-action-corporate-leaders-agcs-1004104604/

http://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/insurance/growing-trend-toward-seeking-punitive-personal-legal-action-corporate-leaders-agcs-1004104604/

http://www.chamber.ca/media/blog/170403-cyber-security-in-canada-practical-solutions-to-a-growing-problem/

http://www.chamber.ca/media/blog/170403-cyber-security-in-canada-practical-solutions-to-a-growing-problem/

http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/legalfeeds/author/jennifer-brown/is-third-party-litigation-funding-coming-to-a-court-near-you-7174/

http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/legalfeeds/author/jennifer-brown/is-third-party-litigation-funding-coming-to-a-court-near-you-7174/


In terms of the types of claims lawyers are expecting to see over the next year, most respondents (45%) said they don’t see much changing from year to year, and 14% indicated trends will remain the same. That said, 41% believe there will be a shift in the types of claims they see moving forward.Claim types that could be on the rise include• class-action lawsuits (as it becomes easier for groups to certify);• disputes involving high-net-worth individuals related to investments; • litigation related to a perceived decrease in accountability

by businesses, professionals and individuals;• cases involving common-law spouses and the division of property;• tax-related cases involving transfer pricing issues (e.g.,

general anti-avoidance rule assessments and mid-market T4A assessments);

• disputes involving the US Department of Justice (which has become more aggressive in pursuing the abuse of tax regulations across the globe); and

• insurance-related cases due to statutory changes.

50%of respondents indicated that they don’t expect much to change by way of industry-specific litigation trends.

33%said some industry- specific trends are beginning to emerge.

17%indicated that the “same old” trends will apply in the coming year.

Litigation trends by claim type

Litigation trends by industry

David Malamed, Forensic Accounting Partner, Forensic and Dispute Resolution

With extensive forensic accounting and data analysis experience, David Malamed serves both internal corporate legal teams and external litigators requiring support. He regularly assesses client impacts such as the extent of individuals’ involvement, financial loss and potential recovery sources.

To read David’s full bio, please click here.


Insurance litigationLawyers were specifically asked if there has been an increase in insurance litigation (Figure 2). The majority (60%) believe the level will stay the same while almost 28% percent believe it will trend upward; 12% cite a decrease.These results are interesting, given the growing trend of insurance litigation in the United States. Some experts have noted that an increasing number of insurance companies are opting to forgo the traditional claims process in favour of an abbreviated process, which ultimately leads to litigation.4 While there is no evidence of a similar trend emerging in Canada, there have been some isolated incidences. In May 2016, for example, an Ontario jury imposed $175,000 in punitive damages on insurance companies that denied compensation to a man who lost his home in a fire. This was a difficult win—and a rare one—due to the fact that, in Ontario,

to win punitive damages one must show that an insurer’s conduct was “highly reprehensible and egregious.”5

While most respondents felt an increase in insurance litigation is unlikely over the next year, some reasons in favour of an increase could include• more individuals bringing professional negligence claims

against lawyers;• more parties suing officers and directors of companies due to the

known fact of insurance coverage;• a greater number of insurance products; • higher volume of motor vehicle accidents due to more drivers on

the road;• increased employment creating more opportunities for

industrial accidents; • more people holding insured assets and thus more disagreements

over compensation;• extreme weather (e.g., floods) driving up claims in some areas of Canada; • insurance companies litigating more frequently in an attempt

to reduce or delay the pay-out on policies issued;• an increase in frauds such as real property frauds (e.g.,

fraudulent investment schemes);• more specialized businesses generating more specialized claims; and• an aging population resulting in more life insurance and

disability claims.

On the other hand, reasons for a decrease could include

• insurers placing more emphasis on resolving claims in-house,• more structure with the insurance claims process, and• “commoditization” of this area of legal service.

60%

13.8%

13.8%

2.9%

7.7%

Stay same

Slight increase

Slight decrease

Decrease

Increase

Figure 2: Insurance litigation

Expected changes in insurance litigation

4 https://www.law360.com/articles/824517/a-worrying-insurance-trend-litigation-no-cooperation

5 http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201605025380/headline-news/ruling-against-insurance-company- for-punitive-damages


Class action casesVolkswagen made headlines in 2016 when news surfaced that the automaker had been selling vehicles with higher-than-purported emissions levels. As a result, the company was hit with class actions worldwide and forced to pay a number of settlements globally, including $2.1 billion to Canadian Volkswagen drivers.While 42% of survey respondents believe this case to be a one-off event, 37% said it could impact the future of class action cases in Canada. Additionally, 52% said they expect the number of class action cases in Canada to increase in the coming year while 27% said the number might increase; 21% believed it wouldn’t (Figure 3).

Reasons for an increase may include• more lucrative settlements;• increased familiarity with class action suits on the part of both

counsel and the courts (i.e., as this experience creates legal precedents and efficiencies in the certification process, class actions will begin to make sense from an economic and efficiency standpoint);

• a trend toward no-cost class actions, where plaintiffs are only responsible for their own legal costs;6 and

• larger corporations with deeper pockets resulting from business consolidation.

Figure 3: Will there be more class action cases in Canada?

Maybe27%

Yes52%

No21%

6 “Class Actions in British Columbia,” The Canadian Bar Association, British Columbia Branch.


Litigation supportA common legal practice across Canada is the use of experts, both for testimony during trials and as consultants prior to and during trials. While common, however, it’s also a practice that’s frequently under scrutiny. It can often be challenging to ensure consultants and experts are fair, objective and non-partisan—which is why, in 2014, the Supreme Court issued a framework for assessing the independence of expert witnesses.

This section of the 2018 National Litigation Report examines practices associated with expert witnesses, and how the Supreme Court’s framework is impacting the use of them.



Alternative approaches for using expert witnessesA testifying expert is hired for trial and develops working papers and an expert report. Consulting experts are typically retained to provide advice regarding discovery and legal strategy and to assist with cross-examination. The key factor in the use of a consulting expert (perceived as non-independent) is privilege.Some lawyers use the consulting expert for mediation while reserving the testifying expert for trial. Others use a consulting expert to• provide advocacy advice,• identify issues with the testifying expert’s opinion,• assist in cross-examination, or• provide candid answers while maintaining privilege.

Jennifer Fiddian-Green, Partner, National Practice Leader, Forensic and Dispute Resolution

Jennifer Fiddian-Green provides client support for a range of legal situations, including fraud litigation. She is deeply versed on the latest legal developments, including regulatory updates and peer best practices related to dispute resolution.

To read Jennifer’s full bio, please click here.


Impact of Moore v. Getahun

Dennis Leung, Partner, Valuation and Dispute Resolution

Dennis Leung has deep experience providing valuations involving corporate and tax reorganizations, shareholder transactions and disputes, reporting and fairness opinions. He regularly provides support for litigation involving loss quantification and post-acquisition disputes.

To read Dennis’s full bio, please click here.

In 2015, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned a trial decision that ruled that counsel should not review draft reports of an expert witness.7 The reasoning behind the Court of Appeal’s position was that continued consultation between counsel and expert witnesses, in the preparation of the reports and within certain limits, is consistent with current practice and, in fact, necessary. The Court of Appeal said if it were to side with the judge, this would encourage the hiring of shadow experts (also known as “consulting experts”), which would only drive up costs and create delays.8 When asked if this decision had an impact on how they handle experts, 55% of respondents said no, while 45% said either yes or maybe (Figure 4). Respondents that indicated the ruling had changed the way in which they handle experts explained it was leading them to be more cautious when interacting with experts and, in some cases, influencing them to reduce interaction altogether. One respondent indicated they like to retain experts that have previous litigation experience and whose reports haven’t been heavily scrutinized by the court.

Figure 4: Effect of Moore v. Getahum on handling of experts

Has the Moore v. Getahun decision regarding lawyers’ review of draft reports changed the

way you handle experts that you retain?

Yes15%

No55%

Maybe30%

7 http://otlablog.com/top-five-highlights-from-moore-v-getahun/

8 http://www.advocatedaily.com/moore-v--getahun-has-huge-implications-for-the-litigation-bar.html


Expert credibilityIn Warde v. Slatter, an accounting expert’s report was excluded from evidence because it was determined that the analysis of the company’s documentation and the analytical charts presented in the report had been prepared by junior employees at the accounting firm, not the expert himself.9 The ruling could have an impact on the future use of experts as it suggests that if counsel is to submit a report generated by a firm, it must be prepared by the individual testifying—even if that expert is a senior partner.The use of junior employees in such situations is common, simply because it significantly lowers costs, so it’s understandable that, when asked whether this question of credibility of a testifying expert will have an impact on expert fees, 82% of survey respondents said either yes or maybe while 18% said it would not have an impact (Figure 5). Respondents that indicated it would have an impact said the decision will likely cause them to spend more time with experts in advance of court to ensure the expert has adequate knowledge of the material and the case, as well as affirm their level of involvement in the report.

9 http://www.cccl.org/LegalUpdate/LegalUpdate139.pdf

Figure 5: Will Warde v. Slatter impact expert fees?

No18%

Yes41%

Maybe41%

In the Warde v. Slatter decision, the judge questioned the credibility of the testifying expert

because it was clear from the review of the working papers that he did not do the detailed review work.

Do you believe this will impact expert fees?

Melanie Joseph, Principal, National Accounting Standards

Melanie Joseph’s extensive experience with private and public entities, not-for-profits and pension/benefit plans, along with her knowledge of multiple accounting standards, make her a sought-after resource for counsel in a range of litigation situations.

To read Melanie’s full bio, please click here.


Alternative approaches for using expert witnessesFor the most part, expert witnesses are examined separately during trials in Canada. This approach, while conventional, often results in a more adversarial process— one that reduces settlements, delays trials, wastes time and increases court backlogs and litigation costs. For this reason, many Commonwealth jurisdictions are adopting alternative approaches to streamline expert testimony—such as concurrent evidence, jointly appointed experts, expert conferences and “hot-tubbing” (when both experts testify at the same time). In Canada, only 31% of lawyers are seeing cases that involve such alternative approaches while 64% are not. Among those that are seeing alternative approaches adopted, there was an even split across the approaches being witnessed (33% each). When asked to rank which alternative approaches were most favourable, expert conferences were more frequently ranked number one, followed by concurrent evidence and jointly appointed experts. Expert conferences and joint expert statements

Pros:• reduction in litigation costs

and time that exceed any other option

• ability to focus on areas of disagreement between experts

• less adversarial process between experts

Cons:• may favour experts that are more

aggressive and assertive in nature• less structured format could

result in control over the presentation of expert evidence being ceded by counsel

Pros and cons of alternative approaches

Cons:• may favour experts that are more

aggressive and assertive in nature• less structured format could

result in control over the presentation of expert evidence being ceded by counsel

Concurrent evidence Pros:• reduction in litigation costs • ability to focus on areas

of disagreement between experts

• less adversarial process between experts

Jointly-approved expert(s) Pros:• elimination of the combative

nature of duelling experts• improved prospects for

settlement and trial decisions • reduction in costs

Cons: • limitations in the ability to present

further evidence• failure to reduce costs (if each

party opts to retain additional experts to assist counsel in cross-examination)

• difficulty in providing instructions to the jointly-retained expert

Trisha LeBlanc, Regional Quality Partner, Central Canada

Trisha LeBlanc specializes in providing expert opinions on auditing or accounting issues, including buyer-seller transaction disputes and contract disagreements. She has a particular focus on IFRS and US GAAP reporting issues and has conducted GAAP training seminars.

To read Trisha’s full bio, please click here.


Impact of technologyTechnology is rapidly changing how lawyers interact, the types of cases they see and the services they provide. Because of this monumental shift, we asked survey respondents to shed some light on how e-discovery, cybersecurity trends, whistleblower support and artificial intelligence are impacting their practices.E-discoveryThere is no doubt that the process of electronic discovery (e-discovery) is changing the face of the legal profession. It’s never been easier for pre-trial litigators to identify the information they want from opposing parties and swiftly receive it. That said, this technological advancement comes with its fair share of challenges.

For one thing, the technology required for e-discovery—such as technology-assisted review (TAR) and computer-assisted review (CAR)—is evolving rapidly and, in general, the legal profession is having a challenging time keeping pace. Many members of the industry have reservations regarding the effectiveness of these technologies—despite the fact numerous studies have demonstrated they are now surpassing the effectiveness of humans—while others are hesitant to accept the responsibility of a tool they don’t completely understand.

Second, because sophisticated digital techniques are often required to unearth desired findings from their voluminous digital form (Big Data), the process of collecting as well as sorting through these gigabytes can dramatically drive up the costs of trial—anywhere

from $5,000 to $30,000 per gigabyte.10 These increased costs are impacting the number of cases lawyers are seeing. Fifty-seven percent of respondents said costs of e-discovery either are or might be having a negative impact on the number of clients moving forward with cases while 43% said they were not (Figure 6). Reasons for reduced cases included the fact that many clients and organizations— and courts as well—are just starting to understand the true costs of e-discovery.

Figure 6: Impact of e-discovery costs

Do e-discovery costs impact whether or not clients move forward with cases?

10 Don Gonsowski, “E-discovery costs: Pay now or pay later,” Inside Counsel, May 23, 2012.

No43%

Yes25%

Maybe32%

Ryan Wildman, Partner, Assurance Services

With a deep domestic and international background in audit, assurance and compliance, Ryan Wildman specializes in assurance standards and regularly provides expert opinions on auditing issues, including claims against professional services firms.

To read Ryan’s full bio, please click here.


E-discovery management and governanceMost lawyers (55%) indicated e-discovery is not being handled well in general while 16% said it was. One of the leading issues identified relating to e-discovery handling and uptake is that the volume of data is burdensome, often irrelevant or unreliable, and not coded properly. As such, lawyers are seeing an increase in costs and resource pressures. Other issues identified included challenges in collecting the necessary data from clients and a lack of protocols for retaining electronic data. The threat of e-discovery forces organizations to re-evaluate what information and documentation they retain—or if they should retain any at all. A Rand study11 found that

• while companies are not tracking the costs of preservation, the expenses are reportedly significant;

• there is no consistent, trans-jurisdictional legal authority on the question of preservation scope, process and sanctionable behaviour; and

• the lack of standard guidance in this area may lead to costly over-preservation.

“ Too many cases still rely on manual review of every potentially relevant document. We (Canada) are behind the United States in use of (technology) to winnow down the review set of documents.”– Respondent

11 Nicholas M. Pace, Laura Zakaras, “Where the Money Goes”, Abstract, Rand Corp., 2012.

Perceived issues of e-discovery• costly • burdensome

• irrelevant• unreliable

Shane Troyer, Partner, Forensic and Dispute Resolution

Shane Troyer’s experience in forensic investigation, fraud and corruption risk management, and regulatory risk contribute strongly to his current focus on forensic accounting/technology, compliance program development, risk assessment and fraud interview techniques.

To read Shane’s full bio, please click here.


In addition to changes in legal processes, technology is also impacting the types of cases lawyers are seeing—particularly in the realm of privacy and information security, which are now two of the most pressing enterprise-wide risk management issues facing Canadian organizations. Advancements in privacy regulations across the globe and the rapid increase in the prevalence, severity and sophistication of cybercrime incidents are exposing businesses to new types of risk—and legal ramifications.Since 2013, Canadian organizations have been faced with an influx of privacy-related litigation activity, class action certifications and damage pay-outs while the introduction of Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL) has increased legal risks related to commercial electronic messages and computer programs. Most lawyers (93%) believe this is just the beginning—a large majority (68%) of respondents said they believe cybersecurity concerns will lead to an increase in liability litigation while 25% said it might.

Most lawyers

93%believe this is just the beginning…

A large majority

68%of respondents said they believe cybersecurity concerns will lead to an increase in liability litigation

while

25%said it might.

Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL)

Cybersecurity

Sandy Boucher, Senior Investigator, Forensic and Dispute Resolution

A senior investigator with 32 years’ experience supporting organizations in the development and support of their whistleblowing hotlines and dealing with information and tips from these sources, Sandy Boucher helps companies deal with a number of challenges, including anti-corruption compliance, fraud prevention and detection, and internal training.

To read Sandy’s full bio, please click here.


Artificial intelligence

12 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/10/23/artifically-intelligent-judge-developed- which-can-predict-court/

13 http://business.financialpost.com/executive/smart-shift/meet-ross-the-bankruptcy-robo-lawyer-employed-by-some-of-the-worlds-largest-law-firms

14 http://robotlawyerlisa.com

Advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning are also poised to disrupt the legal profession. Similarly, AI is already being used to automate basic legal service tasks in many firms13—conducting everything from document review to research work—while one AI legal tech tool, or “robot lawyer,” is creating legally-binding non-disclosure agreements in seven minutes.14

Computer scientists at University College London and the University of Sheffield recently developed an algorithm that can predict verdicts of the European Court of Human Rights with 79% accuracy.12

Eric Au, Leader, Analytics Innovations Group

As the business community continues to embrace the analytics revolution, data-driven litigation matters are becoming more prevalent. Eric Au specializes in this space, with expertise in auditor negligence, fraud, damage quantifications and valuations.

To read Eric’s full bio, please click here.


Many survey respondents said that such technology could simplify research, which would ultimately erode the level of junior work available, while 79% said it was possible that these technologies could help improve the quality of legal services offered.

More than 74% believed AI either would or could impact the hourly billing model—a possibility that is supported by a study15 conducted by the University of North Carolina’s law school and Frank S. Levy of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s department of urban studies and planning. According to the study, AI will have a “moderate” impact on case administration and management, document drafting, due diligence, legal research, and legal analysis and strategy (activities that total around 40% of invoiced hours). It is also expected to have a “light” impact on document management, fact investigation, legal writing, advising clients and other communications or interactions, court appearances and preparation, and negotiation (55% of invoiced hours). Additionally, technology is expected to have a “strong impact” on document review.16

When asked whether AI will

disrupt the legal process,

believed it either will or may.

15 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2701092

16 http://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/study-finds-ai-other-technology-less-of-a-threat-to- lawyers-jobs-than-believed

79%said it was possible that AI technologies could help improve the quality of legal services offered.

More than

74%believed AI either would or could impact the hourly billing model.

It is also expected to have a ‘light’ impact on document management

55%of invoiced hours.

66%


Lawyer practices and behavioursLitigation is seldom focused on just winning or losing. A wide range of factors influence legal strategy, including the size of the client, the costs of litigation, the severity of the case (injuries and claims), precedent and/or the defendant incurring a record of non-compliance.



Settling vs. winningWhen it comes to client preferences, nearly half of respondents (44%) said that whether a client is looking primarily for issues to be resolved quickly, or whether they’re looking to win their case, largely depends on the case—not the client. Only 13% of respondents said their clients are looking to tie up issues quickly, rather than hold out for the win (Figure 7). When asked whether they saw an increase in the number of cases being settled, respondents were generally split—with 51% saying yes and 49% saying no. Mandatory mediation has helped significantly in this regard as it ensures settlement decisions are based on the strength of the case and cost of litigation. Mandatory mediation exists in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Ontario and is intended to reduce costs and/or better serve litigants. The Saskatchewan mandatory mediation program resulted in 20% to 25% of cases being settled and another 25% to 35% with parties confident of a settlement without court action. The Saskatchewan Justice Department tracked the mandatory mediation program for speed and reports that it reduced time-to-settle by 44%.17

Figure 7 – Client preferences: quick resolution vs. winning the case

Quick resolve/

low priority for win

13%

Totally depends on case facts/less client attribute44%

Moderate resolve speed/

moderate priority for win

21%

Depends more on client/ less on case facts

22%

17 Nicholas M. Pace, Laura Zakaras, “Where the Money Goes”, Abstract, Rand Corp., 2012.

Paul Coleman, Partner, Tax, Succession and Estate Planning

As boomers look to transfer their wealth within often complex family situations, Paul Coleman’s experience in estate law is frequently sought out by family lawyers, particularly in the areas of litigation support and tax advice.

To read Paul’s full bio, please click here.


Speed of litigationMost lawyers think litigation takes longer than it did in the past. A full 63% of respondents said that yes, the length of litigation is increasing—at least slightly. Only 8.4% indicated that the length of litigation was decreasing. Meanwhile, 28% said they believe the length of litigation remains the same.Some factors that may be increasing the length of litigation include the following:• use of the e-discovery process• increase in the number and complexity of cases• involvement of more trial experts, leading to a discovery period

among experts and a rebuttal process for disagreements • fewer judicial resources• delays in obtaining trial dates• lax adjournment policies

A full 63% of respondents said that yes, the length of litigation is increasing—at least slightly.

Only 8.4% indicated that the length of litigation was decreasing.

Meanwhile, 28% said they believe the length of litigation remains the same.

Jim Smith, Litigation Support, Forensic and Dispute Resolution

Jim Smith provides expert family law opinions for either family lawyers or individual parties involved in a case. His years in the courtroom and experience with complex disputes well serve Jim’s focus on income assessments for support purposes.

To read Jim’s full bio, please click here..


Successful litigationSince many cases settle, most lawyers in the National Litigation Survey defined success based on the timing of when a settlement occurs. Early settlement was the most highly ranked outcome of successful litigation, followed by no litigation (i.e., use of another settlement or resolution process).Nearly a quarter of respondents (23%) said over two-thirds of their files were resolved through an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism in the last year—a route that many (60%) prefer over court. When asked why they prefer ADR, almost everyone agreed it was a faster, cheaper and more efficient option. Meanwhile, those respondents that preferred court said they generally believe there are additional complexities and costs that could be avoided by going this route.

23% said over two-thirds of their files were resolved through an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism in the last year…

a route that 60% prefer over court.

Brad Rolph, National Transfer Pricing Leader, Tax Services

One of the first Canadian economists to practice transfer pricing exclusively, Brad has spent the last 20 years helping multinational companies plan, implement and defend transfer pricing policies that strategically optimize tax-efficient supply chains.

To read Brad’s full bio, please click here.


Key strategy decision makersCritical choices regarding settlement versus moving forward with trial often come down to the opinion of a key decision maker. Over a quarter of the respondents (27%) indicated that, for the most part, the key decision makers in their litigation cases often depend on the case. When a specific decision maker was identified, however, the C-suite (or equivalent) was ranked number one by 23% of respondents, followed by external counsel (16%) and internal counsel (12%). Notably, the chair of the board wasn’t identified as a decision maker for litigation matters (see Figure 8, on next page).

Why do different cases require different key decision makers?

Company size and structure—large organizations may rely on senior personnel who practice in a specific area (e.g., director of tax for tax litigation matters, CFO for finance-related litigation) while small organizations may rely on the individual running the company, such as the owner or CEO.

Role and expertise of in-house counsel—sometimes in-house counsel doesn’t have the necessary experience to handle a specific litigation case.

Client sophistication—less sophisticated clients rely more on external counsel.

Kendall Kent, National Practice Leader, Assurance

For more than 20 years, Kendall Kent has provided assurance and business advisory services to large public and private companies, helping with complex accounting and regulatory matters, debt and equity offering documents, internal control assessments and acquisition structuring.

To read Kendall’s full bio, please click here.


Reasons to select external counsel as the key decision maker

Reasons to select internal counsel as the key decision maker

• It’s a paid, advisory role.• They can provide expert input.• It’s traditionally the default option.

• The business wants to ensure control from within.• Internal counsel is familiar with senior management. • Scope for the litigation (e.g., amount of settlement).• It’s closest to the issue to make the decision.

Internal counsel

External counsel

Board

Mix

Depends

C-suite

Figure 8: Key decision makers

Ranked 1 Ranked 2 Ranked 3

Who are the key decision makers on a litigation case?

Rinna Sak, Partner, National Leader, Accounting Services

With a focus on financial reporting and over 19 years working with public and private entities, Rinna Sak is often sought out to help interpret accounting rules respecting particular transactions, disagreements with auditors and transaction structuring issues.

To read Rinna’s full bio, please click here.


Whistleblowing

Whistleblowing is likely the most powerful tool in the fight against corporate fraud, corruption and other white-collar crime. Yet, in our survey, a large percentage of respondents revealed their clients most commonly stumble upon organizational issues by accident. When fraudulent acts were identified through intentional processes, it was typically by means of internal or external audit while whistleblower programs were seldom used by clients at all (Figure 9)—despite being proven the cheapest and most effective way to detect a wide range of wrongdoing.

This could partly be due to the fact that it can sometimes be challenging to entice whistleblowers to come forward. In the Canadian workplace—particularly the private sector—whistleblowers have little statutory protection. As a result, they’re often forced to rely on their employers’ policies, which can prove problematic if the employer is the subject of the whistleblowing. In addition, even well-managed whistleblowing programs can’t guarantee a whistleblower’s anonymity as, according to 45% of respondents, whistleblower identities often can’t be protected if the information provided is used in civil proceedings.

When asked whether a whistleblower program with legal privilege would increase the likelihood of maintaining the anonymity of the whistleblower, over half of the respondents (52%) said yes. Only 7% of respondents felt that such a program wouldn’t help maintain

18 2016 Annual Report to Congress on the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Program. Accessed at https://www.sec.gov/whistleblower/reportspubs/annual-reports/owb-annual-report-2016.pdf (page 33).

19 Whistleblowing systems – A guide (2016). Toronto, ON: CSA Group Canada. Accessed at http:// www.csagroup.org/.

20 2016 Annual Report to Congress on the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Program. Accessed at https://www.sec.gov/whistleblower/reportspubs/annual-reports/owb-annual-report-2016.pdf (page 18).

the anonymity of the whistleblower while 41% said maybe. The CSA Group also recommends organizations create a speak-up culture through effective communication, education and training. This involves setting the appropriate “tone from the top”; recognizing employees that help build a speak-up culture (either through awards, performance bonuses or acknowledgement at team meetings); and engaging and training middle managers (who are often the first to receive information about reportable ethical issues. In fact, 80% of the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Act’s award recipients raised their concerns internally before reporting their information to the Commission18).

By implementing the appropriate measures,19 it’s likely that Canadian organizations will see an influx of whistleblower activity if the Canadian response to the afore-mentioned Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Act is any indication. According to the Act’s 2016 Annual Report to Congress, the program received more individual whistleblower tips from Canada than any other foreign country.20

Figure 9: Common ways organizations identify issues and concerns

Ranked 1 Ranked 2 Ranked 3

Whistleblower/Ethics program

External audit

Internal audit

By accident

General counsel

Other

http://www.csagroup.org/

http://www.csagroup.org/


Profile of participants

Respondent practice characteristics

Other9%

Litigation30%

Fraud6%

Family 4%

Labour 5%

Intellectual property 4%

Personal injury 8%

Real estate 6%

Civil rights 1%Criminal 2%

Bankrupty11%

Tax 6%

Corporate10%

Respondent industry characteristics

Technology5%

Telecommunications8%

Healthcare5%

Financial26%

Consumer goods9%

Industrial19%

Energy14%

Utilities5%

Basic materials9%


Methodology

The 2018 National Litigation Report was developed by the Grant Thornton Forensics and Dispute Resolution team, with input and feedback from a broader group of Grant Thornton professionals.The 54-question survey was delivered to Canadian legal professionals in 2017. Respondents consisted of lawyers and litigators—both external and in-house counsel—with practices in one of Canada’s 10 provinces. While many of the 102 respondents worked within several industries, the industries most represented in the survey responses are financial (26%), industrial (19%) and energy (14%). Fifty-eight percent of respondents practiced in several legal areas while 42% percent specialized in a single area, with litigation being the most common (39%).

Participants opted to focus on the issues relevant to their specific practice area. Lawyer comments were captured as thoroughly as possible, analyzed and then standardized into quantitative findings in a litigation database for reporting purposes.


Appendix—Bios

Jennifer Fiddian-Green, Partner, National Practice Leader, Forensic and Dispute Resolution

With her deep experience in both litigation support and fraud investigation, Jennifer Fiddian-Green regularly works for external counsel, supporting clients on their behalf, in a range of legal situations.

She also works directly with companies that have been fraud victims, often on the referral of that company’s external counsel. Clients find Jennifer’s services invaluable because she understands their concerns and their need for experts who quickly get up to speed and deliver real value. Jennifer remains front and centre when it comes to legal and professional developments, including ongoing regulatory updates and peer best practices in the area of dispute resolution, as well as increasing expectations on the part of government, regulators and the public around investigative detail and precision. She also maintains a focus on the growing area of data analytics and its impact on the legal profession: “In a recent study performed by the Coalition of Technology Resources for Lawyers, firms were asked how important they thought data analytics would be in the legal field 10 years from now. Thirty-one percent answered “10” and over 85% answered either seven or above.” Jennifer gives law firms assurance that they’re working with an independent, forward-thinking, innovative expert—and firm—that understands their challenges and will work through them together. ↑

David Malamed, Forensic Accounting Partner, Forensic and Dispute Resolution

With the growing complexity of digital fingerprints and electronic crime scenes, David Malamed’s deep experience with forensic accounting and data analysis tools and techniques has made him a go-to advisor for both internal clients

(i.e., the C-suite and general counsel) as well external litigators looking for expert support.

His background includes the time-tested application of forensic accounting procedures and technology to fraud cases of all kinds and covering all potential client impacts, including extent of involvement, amount of loss, potential sources of recovery and prevention of similar future events through advanced controls. While David rigorously applies legal and professional standards, he also understands how to achieve the best, most productive possible outcome in complex engagements: “Our clients view questionable activity in two ways: unintentional and intentional error. Intentional error generally results in severing future relationships, whether staff, vendor or client. However, unintentional error may allow for future relationships to continue and will likely result in at least some recovery.” Fraud prevention and early detection programs are becoming more critical for those who want to reduce financial loss to fraud. David is committed to helping clients improve their defences while providing leading resolution services should an event occur. ↑

Eric Au, Leader, Analytics Innovations Group

As a leader in data-driven services at Grant Thornton, Eric Au offers his legal clients years of experience in a range of litigation areas, including auditor negligence, fraud, damage quantifications and valuations.

Always on top of the issues, Eric understands the challenges law firms face in the wake of the financial crisis, including the ongoing downward pressure on fees, rethinking the billable hours model and finding ways to streamline manual processes through automation. Many firms are addressing these challenges by becoming more data-driven in their business and operational processes, and Eric is committed to working with his clients to make that happen. In fact, he is currently focusing on the application of data analytics to enhance professional services: “The field is rapidly exploding, not just in accounting and consulting, but in many professions and multiple


industries including healthcare and law. Techniques coming out of advanced analytics are moving the pace of change even quicker.” With the business community embracing data analysis as never before, Eric is well positioned to help his clients move into the future, for example, by engaging advanced techniques in machine learning to support e-discovery requirements in a range of litigations. ↑

Sandy Boucher, Senior Investigator, Forensic and Dispute Resolution

As a senior investigator with 32 years of experience supporting organizations in the development and support of their whistleblowing hotlines and dealing with information and tips from these sources, Sandy Boucher is well-versed on the threats

facing today’s public and private companies—and the fraud and corruption regulatory requirements that are constantly evolving at the global level.

Having managed international criminal investigations with the Royal Hong Kong Police, Sandy adds a unique skillset to the Grant Thornton Forensic and Dispute Resolution Services team and has helped countless organizations trace fraudsters, investigate corrupt officials and retrieve assets around the world. As the leader of the Grant Thornton investigative research and corruption practice in Canada, as well as a leader in our digital forensic and cyber security practice, Sandy’s long list of achievements includes conducting investigations into foreign corruption on behalf of Canadian companies, aiding organizations in identifying fraud risk and uncovering an IT procurement scheme at a major Canadian corporation. With his extensive resumé and his passion for helping companies fight corruption and fraud, Sandy is well-positioned to assist organizations in the realms of anti-corruption compliance and policy development, anti-fraud program development, fraud prevention and detection, and internal training. ↑

Paul Coleman, Partner, Tax, Succession and Estate Planning

With wealthy baby boomers increasingly looking to pass down large amounts of wealth and the rise in blended families complicating the dynamics of that process, family lawyers need professional accounting and tax advice more than ever.

With a strong combination of training and experience that includes a Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE) designation, extensive litigation support work and strong tax expertise—particularly in the area of estate taxation—Paul Coleman is engaged by lawyers involved

in a range of estate litigation matters. They can effectively tap his deep knowledge of succession and the transition of wealth across generations, including privately held business interests. ↑

Michael Creber, Partner, Recovery & Reorganization

For the last 30 years, Michael Creber has helped distressed entities resolve a host of insolvency issues related to financing, mergers and acquisitions, restructurings, turnarounds, corporate recovery services and business viability reviews.

As a partner in the Grant Thornton specialist advisory services group in Toronto and chair of the Partnership Board, Michael is an invaluable resource to major corporations, financial institutions, lenders, regulatory agencies and governments alike as he helps them navigate complex financial and insolvency restructuring projects both within Canada and beyond.

Melanie Joseph, Principal, National Accounting Standards

With over 20 years’ experience working with private enterprises, not-for-profits, pension and benefit plans, and public sector entities, Melanie Joseph has extensive knowledge of Accounting Standards for Private Enterprises (ASPE),

Accounting Standards for Not-for-Profit Organizations (ASNPO), Accounting Standards for Pension Plans and Public Sector Accounting Standards (PSAS).

This makes Melanie an excellent resource for counsel litigating situations involving accounting-related disagreements, disagreements with auditors or accounting for complex agreements (e.g., a new type of sales contract). “For private enterprises, accounting standards have not changed significantly in recent years, but the business environment has become more global and may involve more complex transactions.” Such transactions may require not only advice on accounting treatments, but—when complex payment formulae are based on financial statement figures—advice on appropriate accounting when the seller and purchaser disagree. Melanie continues to stay abreast of developments across multiple accounting standards and keep her clients informed of potential impacts. ↑


Trisha LeBlanc, Regional Quality Partner, Central Canada

“With different accounting frameworks in play both nationally and internationally and cross-border M&A activity increasing, sale and purchase agreements can require financial information to be provided under US GAAP, IFRS or ASPE (whichever

is specified in the agreement). This means it’s critical that lawyers and arbitrators find the right topic expert for the case.”

Trisha LeBlanc specializes in providing expert opinions on auditing or accounting issues, including buyer-seller transaction disputes and claims against accounting firms for not fulfilling contracts or engagements. She has a particular focus on IFRS and US GAAP reporting issues and has conducted in-depth GAAP training seminars. She can also apply knowledge of what accounting or auditing rules were in place when an agreement was originally signed, which can be a challenge given the pace of recent regulatory change. Beyond her own areas of specialization, Trisha can quickly and effectively source and collaborate with a range of subject matter specialists, depending on the issue at hand (for example, financial instruments) and the legal situation in play. In legal and arbitration cases, it’s critical that experts employed by counsel stand up on both the quality of work done and experience in the specific areas of dispute, and Trisha inspires confidence on both counts. ↑

Dennis Leung, Partner, Valuation and Dispute Resolution

With over 14 years’ experience performing business valuation and litigation support services, Dennis Leung’s expertise spans a vast range of industries, including retail, manufacturing, agriculture, natural resources, healthcare, transportation and IT.

He has helped countless clients conduct business valuations in the areas of corporate and tax reorganizations, shareholder transactions, shareholder disputes, financial reporting, M&A and fairness opinions. On the litigation support services side, his work has primarily focused on financial loss quantification and post-acquisition disputes. In addition to his extensive hands-on experience, Dennis is also a Chartered Professional Accountant, Chartered Business Valuator, and holder of the Corporate Finance (CF) qualification, as well as a qualified expert in the Tax Court of Canada. Dennis is deeply committed to furthering the Chartered Business Valuator profession and has made great strides in this regard as a member of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Business Valuators’ (CICBV) Communication and Workshop Committee, a former course

Kendall Kent, National Practice Leader, Assurance

As the national professional practice leader and a practicing assurance partner in Halifax, Kendall Kent is keenly aware of the challenges faced by today’s large organizations.

Over the past 20 years, he has provided assurance and business advisory services to large public and private companies, assisting with complex accounting and regulatory matters, debt and equity offering documents, internal control assessments and acquisition structuring, as well as with a host of other business advisory matters. Always willing to go the extra mile, Kendall takes great strides to remain abreast of the most current accounting frameworks and assurance standards so he can provide his clients with the valuable accounting, management and general business advice they need to thrive in these changing times. His strong work ethic is also evident in his efforts to advance his profession—he’s instructed numerous professional development courses, participated in the Grant Thornton International Partner Program and was the 2011 recipient of the firm’s Professional Excellence Award, which recognizes those who exhibit role model behaviour. As risk and regulatory matters become more complex, Kendall is prepared to meet the challenges head on—and assist his clients in doing the same. ↑

Jonathan Krieger, Partner, National Practice Leader, Recovery & Reorganization

In his 18 years providing professional insolvency services Jonathan Krieger has seen it all.

As a specialist in consulting, restructuring, monitoring, and investigative and financial

planning issues, he’s administered several complex receiverships with debt in excess of $200 million and been involved in a number of complex CCAA reorganizations spanning a variety of industries—most notably automotive, real estate and manufacturing. Today, as the Grant Thornton national practice leader for recovery and reorganization in Canada, Jonathan is well-positioned to help both private and public organizations resolve their insolvency and restructuring issues—including those that span multiple jurisdictions and borders.


leader for CICBV’s Private Company Finance Course, as well as through various lectures and published articles. ↑

Brad Rolph, National Transfer Pricing Leader, Tax Services

The leader of the tax service line for the Southern Ontario market and the national transfer pricing division, Brad Rolph is a pioneer in transfer pricing.

As one of the first economists hired by an accounting firm in Canada to practice transfer pricing exclusively, Brad has spent the last 20 years helping multinational companies plan, implement and defend transfer pricing policies that strategically optimize tax-efficient supply chains. He has successfully defended such polices under audit, at appeals and at competent authority, and has negotiated and coordinated APAs. He also provides litigation support and expert witness reports to law firms representing clients with transfer pricing matters. Brad has served companies based in Canada, the United States, England, Ireland, Finland, France, Germany, Sweden, Saudi Arabia and Japan, as well as a wide range of industries including: aerospace, mining, metals and minerals, transportation, heavy manufacturing, steel, utilities, automotive, chemical, pharmaceutical, electronic, financial services, wholesale trade and consumer goods. He also has extensive experience with Japanese trading companies and web-based businesses. His diverse background earned him a coveted spot on Euromoney’s 2015 Guide to the World’s Leading Transfer Pricing Advisers, as well as the trust of countless multinational organizations faced with increasingly complex supply chains and transfer pricing challenges. ↑

Rinna Sak, Partner, National Leader, Accounting Services

Rinna Sak has more than 19 years’ experience working with public and private entities.

She specializes in helping clients achieve what she calls “accounting nirvana” by providing answers and solutions that best

meet their business needs while conforming to financial reporting frameworks and investor information requirements. To that end, she is often sought out by CFOs, controllers and other senior financial reporting personnel to address the interpretation of accounting rules respecting particular transactions, disagreements with auditors or transaction structuring issues. She provides particularly deep knowledge in the area of IFRS, for example, in understanding and applying new standards (IFRS 9, IFRS 15, IFRS 16) and in interpreting reporting requirements as they apply to the way businesses structure

complex deals and financing arrangements. She also has a focus on Accounting Standards for Private Enterprises (ASPE), which are less complex than IFRS but—due to far less application guidance—often require significant judgment and interpretation: “Given current reporting complexity and the level of judgement required, clients are more and more in need of advice, both in structuring arrangements proactively and in dealing with after-the-fact disputes. A high level of technical knowledge, along with a practical approach, is critical to success.” ↑

Jim Smith, Litigation Support, Forensic and Dispute Resolution

Based in Winnipeg, Jim Smith specializes in providing expert opinion in family law cases, usually engaged by a family lawyer but occasionally engaged directly by one of the parties involved.

Applying his years of courtroom experience and an ability to reduce complicated situations down to key issues, Jim focuses on assessments of income for support purposes, including cases involving imputed income and potential add backs under Section 19 of the Child Support Guidelines. Jim also works on valuation of business interests related to marital issues, such as fair value versus fair market value, as well as deferral of implicit taxes. ↑

Shane Troyer, Partner, Forensic and Dispute Resolution

As the lead partner of the forensic and dispute resolution and business risk services practices in British Columbia, Shane Troyer has over 18 years’ experience in forensic accounting and investigation, fraud and corruption risk management, regulatory

compliance, and assurance services.

In his current role, Shane deploys advanced skillsets in forensic accounting, forensic technology, compliance program development, risk assessment and interviewing techniques to help his clients prevent, detect and investigate fraud and wrongdoing. Shane is a specialist in the design and implementation of anti-fraud, anti-corruption and regulatory compliance programs and has advised numerous public companies listed on the NASDAQ, NYSE MKT and the TSX in this regard. While he started his investigative career in the mining sector—working with numerous global and North American-based companies—he also has experience working with the forestry, technology and retail industries, as well as the public sector. Shane has worked alongside law enforcement and crown counsel on both criminal and civil matters and has informed criminal, civil and administrative proceedings. He’s

Audit | Tax | Advisory© 2018 Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd. All rights reserved.

grantthornton.ca

About Grant Thornton in CanadaGrant Thornton LLP is a leading Canadian accounting and advisory firm providing audit, tax and advisory services to private and public organizations. We help dynamic organizations unlock their potential for growth by providing meaningful, actionable advice through a broad range of services. Together with the Quebec firm Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton LLP, Grant Thornton in Canada has approximately 4,000 people in offices across Canada. Grant Thornton LLP is a Canadian member of Grant Thornton International Ltd, whose member firms operate in over 130 countries worldwide.

ContributorsMichelle AlfonsoManaging Director & National Transaction Advisory Services Leader

Eric AuLeader, Analytics Innovations Group

Sandy BoucherSenior Investigator, Forensic and Dispute Resolution

Paul ColemanPartner, Tax, Succession and Estate Planning

Michael CreberPartner, Recovery & Reorganization

Jennifer Fiddian-GreenPartner, National Practice Leader, Forensic and Dispute Resolution

Dave FlorioNational Business Risk Services Leader

Jeremy JagtPartner, Assurance Services

Melanie JosephPrincipal, National Accounting Standards

Kendall KentNational Practice Leader, Assurance

Jonathan KriegerPartner, National Practice Leader, Recovery & Reorganization

Trisha LeBlancRegional Quality Partner, Central Canada

Dennis LeungPartner, Valuation and Dispute Resolution

Troy MacDonaldNational Practice Leader, Corporate Finance and Infrastructure

Keith MacIntyrePartner, Tax Services

David MalamedForensic Accounting Partner, Forensic and Dispute Resolution

Jeff PocockNational Practice Leader, M&A and Private Equity

Brad RolphNational Transfer Pricing Leader, Tax Services

Rinna SakPartner, National Leader, Accounting Services

Scott ShannonPartner, Assurance Services

Jim SmithLitigation Support, Forensic and Dispute Resolution

Don ThomsonPartner, Assurance Services

Shane TroyerPartner, Forensic and Dispute Resolution

Scott WeissentPrincipal, Advisory Services

Jin WenSenior Manager, Tax Services

Mark WentzellPartner, Recovery & Reorganization

Ryan WildmanPartner, Assurance Services

Daniel WoottonPartner, Recovery & Reorganization

conducted investigations on a wide array of matters—including bid rigging, self-dealing, price fixing, financial reporting fraud, asset misappropriation and conflict of interest, to name a few—and brings a unique blend of preventative and reactive forensic skillsets and experience to the Western Canadian market. ↑

Ryan Wildman, Partner, Assurance Services

As both an assurance partner in the Toronto, Ontario office and the Canadian Director of Quality Monitoring, Ryan Wildman’s current portfolio has the depth and breadth expected from someone with 13 years’ experience serving privately held and publicly traded business clients.

In that time, he has consistently endeavoured to enhance audit quality and efficiency while developing extensive expertise in Canadian, US

and international auditing standards. He is also currently responsible for the leadership and oversight of the Canadian firm’s Internal Monitoring Program and for managing relationships with external assurance regulators. Over time, Ryan has cultivated a specialization in expert opinions focused on auditing issues, including claims against professional services firms. “I feel it’s important to bring every aspect of your experience to the client table. My extensive work with provincial, national and international regulators; domestic assurance standards and inspection committees; and international audit quality steering committees has given me a strong grasp of the background and intent that lie behind the written word. When matters appear subjective and an expert opinion is required, that experience is a critical asset in driving credibility.” ↑

Disputes Discovery 2018 National uncover some of the key trends, issues, challenges and...

Documents

Transcript of Disputes Discovery 2018 National uncover some of the key trends, issues, challenges and...