{"id":3351,"date":"2018-03-23T08:00:22","date_gmt":"2018-03-23T12:00:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/?p=3351\/"},"modified":"2018-03-27T13:56:53","modified_gmt":"2018-03-27T17:56:53","slug":"case-summary-commentary","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/case-summary-commentary\/","title":{"rendered":"CASE SUMMARY AND COMMENTARY"},"content":{"rendered":"<h3>When should the Court allow the examination for discovery of a non-party?<\/h3>\n<p>A recent Ottawa decision<a href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\">[1]<\/a> examined the issue of when it is appropriate for the Court to allow the discovery of a non-party.<\/p>\n<p>The general rule is that only a party to the action may be examined by the other party at examinations for discovery.\u00a0 However, the Court may grant a party leave to examine a non-party in limited circumstances.\u00a0 The test for leave for the discovery of a non-party is set out at Rule 31.10 of the Ontario <em>Rules of Civil Procedure<\/em>.\u00a0 Firstly, the person the party seeks to examine <u>must have information relevant to a material issue in the action<\/u>, and must not be an expert retained by or on behalf of a party in preparation for litigation.\u00a0\u00a0 Once that threshold has been met and a person has been shown to have information relevant to a material issue in the action, the Court <u>shall not<\/u> make an order granting leave to examine a non-party <u>unless it is satisfied that<\/u> (subrule 31.10(2)):<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li><u>the moving party has been unable to obtain the information from other persons whom the moving party is entitled to examine for discovery<\/u>, or from the person the party seeks to examine;<\/li>\n<li><u>it would be unfair to require the moving party to proceed to trial without having the opportunity of examining the person<\/u>; <strong>and<\/strong><\/li>\n<li><u>the examination will not,<\/u><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<ul>\n<li><u>unduly delay the commencement of the trial <\/u>of the action,<\/li>\n<li><u>entail unreasonable expense for other parties<\/u>, <strong>or<\/strong><\/li>\n<li><u>result in unfairness to the person the moving party seeks to examine<\/u>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>On January 17, 2018, Master Champagne released her decision in the matter of <em>Ghanim<\/em> v. <em>Ali<\/em> following a motion which had been heard on December 15, 2017 and in which the Defendant sought to examine the Plaintiff\u2019s wife for discovery. \u00a0The Plaintiff\u2019s wife was not a party to the action. The Defendant\u2019s motion was granted.<\/p>\n<p>The action pertained to a motor vehicle accident which had occurred on June 13, 2013.\u00a0 The Plaintiff, Mr. Ghanim, brought an action against the Defendant, Mr. Ali, for damages arising from a traumatic brain injury and other injuries he alleged were sustained in the motor vehicle accident.\u00a0 Material to the issues to be decided at trial were the Plaintiff\u2019s pre-accident life and a fall which occurred three days after the motor vehicle accident, and in which the Plaintiff struck his head.<\/p>\n<p>At his examination for discovery, the Plaintiff was unable to answer many of the questions put to him by the Defendant\u2019s counsel, due to memory losses he states he suffered as a result of the motor vehicle accident.\u00a0 At his examination, the Plaintiff answered more than fifty questions with \u201cI don\u2019t know\u201d and answered other questions by responding \u201cask my wife\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0 Other answers given were mostly prefaced with \u201cthey told me\u201d or \u201cshe told me\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>The issue before the Court was whether the Plaintiff\u2019s memory impairment was such that an order granting the Defendant leave to examine the Plaintiff\u2019s wife was appropriate.<\/p>\n<p>In this case, the parties agreed that the Plaintiff\u2019s wife would be a key witness at trial and it was not disputed that she had information which was relevant and material to the action.\u00a0 The Plaintiff\u2019s wife held most of the information regarding the Plaintiff\u2019s life prior to the motor vehicle accident, and was the only one to have witnessed the Plaintiff\u2019s fall three days after the accident.<\/p>\n<p>At the motion, counsel for the Defendant argued that the Plaintiff\u2019s inability to answer questions at his examination for discovery, while not willful, amounted to a constructive refusal.<\/p>\n<p>Master Champagne noted at paragraph 20 of her decision that she was \u201cloath to say the plaintiff\u2019s answers amount to a constructive refusal, as the term suggests willfulness or bad faith.\u201d She further noted that she did not find that to be the case on the material before her but that, having reviewed the Plaintiff\u2019s discovery transcript, she found that \u201cthe defendant has largely been unable to obtain the answers he requires and is entitled to through discovery.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>While the Plaintiff was willing to answer questions about his pre-accident life and post-accident fall by way of undertakings to be given at a second examination for discovery, Master Champagne stated that the volume of questions and the fact that virtually all of the answers would be by way of undertakings led her to conclude that the Defendant was unable to obtain the information to which he is entitled.\u00a0 Furthermore, the Court concluded that \u201csuch a process would be impractical, unnecessarily cumbersome and inefficient and in contradiction to the spirit of Rule 1.04\u201d of the Ontario <em>Rules of Civil Procedure<\/em> and the Court therefore exercised its discretion under that rule to make an order granting leave to the Defendant to examine the Plaintiff\u2019s wife for discovery.<\/p>\n<p>Master Champagne stated that \u201cthere is no doubt that the examination of a non-party should rarely be ordered\u201d and stressed the fact that her \u201cdecision turned on the volume of information that would be subject to questions and undertakings given the Plaintiff\u2019s memory impairment (\u2026) and should in no way be taken to be an erosion of the <em>Rules <\/em>or an opening for the broadening of the discovery of non-parties.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><strong><em>Summary\/Commentary<\/em><\/strong><em>:\u00a0\u00a0 In the Superior Court of Justice (except in Small Claims Court), there is an automatic right to examine the opposing parties.\u00a0 A party wishing to examine a non-party must seek leave of the Court for an order granting leave to examine the non-party, which order shall not be granted unless the person has information relevant to a material issue in the action, the moving party has been unable to obtain the information from the party to the action, it would be unfair to require the moving party to proceed to trial without the opportunity to examine the non-party <u>and<\/u> the examination will not unduly delay the commencement of the trial, entail unreasonable expense for other parties or result in unfairness to the person the moving party seeks to examine. <\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>In most cases, an injured person\u2019s spouse will be included as a party to the action, as the spouse can advance a claim for his or her own losses pursuant to section 61 of the Ontario <u>Family Law Act<\/u>.\u00a0 Those losses typically include a loss of care, guidance and companionship (ie. changes in the spouses\u2019 relationship due to the injuries sustained by the other spouse in the accident) as well as certain economic losses (such as a loss of income or the value of housekeeping and\/or nursing services provided to the injured spouse).\u00a0\u00a0 This ruling is a reminder that a decision to not include a spouse in an action will not necessarily prevent that person from being subjected to examination for discovery. <\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong><em>Each case turns on its own facts.\u00a0 If you or a loved one has been injured in an accident, contact one of LMR\u2019s personal injury lawyers for information about your rights and obligations.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref1\" name=\"_ftn1\">[1]<\/a> <em>Ghanim <\/em>v<em>. Ali<\/em>, 2018 ONSC 407 (Master Champagne)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>When should the Court allow the examination for discovery of a non-party? A recent Ottawa decision[1] examined the issue of when it is appropriate for the Court to allow the &hellip; <\/p>\n<p><a class=\"button\" href=\"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/case-summary-commentary\/\">Continuer la lecture<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":15,"featured_media":3353,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[76],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3351","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-case-study"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v28.1 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>When should the Court allow the examination for discovery of a non-party<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Firstly, the person the party seeks to examine must have information relevant to a material issue in the action, and must not be an expert retained by or on behalf of a party in preparation for litigation.\u00a0\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/case-summary-commentary\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"fr_FR\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"When should the Court allow the examination for discovery of a non-party\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Firstly, the person the party seeks to examine must have information relevant to a material issue in the action, and must not be an expert retained by or on behalf of a party in preparation for litigation.\u00a0\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/case-summary-commentary\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"LMR Lawyers\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LMRLawyers\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-03-23T12:00:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-27T17:56:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/CASE-SUMMARY-AND-COMMENTARY.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1000\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"667\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Christine LaCasse\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@LMRlawyers\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@LMRlawyers\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u00c9crit par\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Christine LaCasse\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Dur\u00e9e de lecture estim\u00e9e\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lmrlawyers.com\\\/fr\\\/case-summary-commentary\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lmrlawyers.com\\\/fr\\\/case-summary-commentary\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Christine LaCasse\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lmrlawyers.com\\\/fr\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0202d38f62a52b2344640ae2541287be\"},\"headline\":\"CASE SUMMARY AND COMMENTARY\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-03-23T12:00:22+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-27T17:56:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lmrlawyers.com\\\/fr\\\/case-summary-commentary\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1173,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lmrlawyers.com\\\/fr\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lmrlawyers.com\\\/fr\\\/case-summary-commentary\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lmrlawyers.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2018\\\/03\\\/CASE-SUMMARY-AND-COMMENTARY.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Case Study\"],\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lmrlawyers.com\\\/fr\\\/case-summary-commentary\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lmrlawyers.com\\\/fr\\\/case-summary-commentary\\\/\",\"name\":\"When should the Court allow the examination for discovery of a non-party\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lmrlawyers.com\\\/fr\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lmrlawyers.com\\\/fr\\\/case-summary-commentary\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lmrlawyers.com\\\/fr\\\/case-summary-commentary\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lmrlawyers.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2018\\\/03\\\/CASE-SUMMARY-AND-COMMENTARY.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-03-23T12:00:22+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-27T17:56:53+00:00\",\"description\":\"Firstly, the person the party seeks to examine must have information relevant to a material issue in the action, and must not be an expert retained by or on behalf of a party in preparation for litigation.\u00a0\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lmrlawyers.com\\\/fr\\\/case-summary-commentary\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/lmrlawyers.com\\\/fr\\\/case-summary-commentary\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lmrlawyers.com\\\/fr\\\/case-summary-commentary\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lmrlawyers.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2018\\\/03\\\/CASE-SUMMARY-AND-COMMENTARY.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lmrlawyers.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2018\\\/03\\\/CASE-SUMMARY-AND-COMMENTARY.jpg\",\"width\":1000,\"height\":667,\"caption\":\"CASE SUMMARY AND COMMENTARY\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lmrlawyers.com\\\/fr\\\/case-summary-commentary\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lmrlawyers.com\\\/fr\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"CASE SUMMARY AND COMMENTARY\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lmrlawyers.com\\\/fr\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lmrlawyers.com\\\/fr\\\/\",\"name\":\"LMR Lawyers\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lmrlawyers.com\\\/fr\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lmrlawyers.com\\\/fr\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lmrlawyers.com\\\/fr\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Low Murchison Radnoff LLP\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lmrlawyers.com\\\/fr\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lmrlawyers.com\\\/fr\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lmrlawyers.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2015\\\/07\\\/logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lmrlawyers.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2015\\\/07\\\/logo.png\",\"width\":276,\"height\":79,\"caption\":\"Low Murchison Radnoff LLP\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lmrlawyers.com\\\/fr\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LMRLawyers\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/LMRlawyers\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/company\\\/low-murchison-radnoff-llp\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lmrlawyers.com\\\/fr\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0202d38f62a52b2344640ae2541287be\",\"name\":\"Christine LaCasse\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/7595773c0e916adbae9c979a6f0a1626e47bc8e95c94f58cf3293f91e2cb0e98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/7595773c0e916adbae9c979a6f0a1626e47bc8e95c94f58cf3293f91e2cb0e98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/7595773c0e916adbae9c979a6f0a1626e47bc8e95c94f58cf3293f91e2cb0e98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Christine LaCasse\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"When should the Court allow the examination for discovery of a non-party","description":"Firstly, the person the party seeks to examine must have information relevant to a material issue in the action, and must not be an expert retained by or on behalf of a party in preparation for litigation.\u00a0","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/case-summary-commentary\/","og_locale":"fr_FR","og_type":"article","og_title":"When should the Court allow the examination for discovery of a non-party","og_description":"Firstly, the person the party seeks to examine must have information relevant to a material issue in the action, and must not be an expert retained by or on behalf of a party in preparation for litigation.\u00a0","og_url":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/case-summary-commentary\/","og_site_name":"LMR Lawyers","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LMRLawyers","article_published_time":"2018-03-23T12:00:22+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-27T17:56:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1000,"height":667,"url":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/CASE-SUMMARY-AND-COMMENTARY.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Christine LaCasse","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@LMRlawyers","twitter_site":"@LMRlawyers","twitter_misc":{"\u00c9crit par":"Christine LaCasse","Dur\u00e9e de lecture estim\u00e9e":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/case-summary-commentary\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/case-summary-commentary\/"},"author":{"name":"Christine LaCasse","@id":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/#\/schema\/person\/0202d38f62a52b2344640ae2541287be"},"headline":"CASE SUMMARY AND COMMENTARY","datePublished":"2018-03-23T12:00:22+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-27T17:56:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/case-summary-commentary\/"},"wordCount":1173,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/case-summary-commentary\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/CASE-SUMMARY-AND-COMMENTARY.jpg","articleSection":["Case Study"],"inLanguage":"fr-FR"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/case-summary-commentary\/","url":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/case-summary-commentary\/","name":"When should the Court allow the examination for discovery of a non-party","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/case-summary-commentary\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/case-summary-commentary\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/CASE-SUMMARY-AND-COMMENTARY.jpg","datePublished":"2018-03-23T12:00:22+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-27T17:56:53+00:00","description":"Firstly, the person the party seeks to examine must have information relevant to a material issue in the action, and must not be an expert retained by or on behalf of a party in preparation for litigation.\u00a0","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/case-summary-commentary\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"fr-FR","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/case-summary-commentary\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"fr-FR","@id":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/case-summary-commentary\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/CASE-SUMMARY-AND-COMMENTARY.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/CASE-SUMMARY-AND-COMMENTARY.jpg","width":1000,"height":667,"caption":"CASE SUMMARY AND COMMENTARY"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/case-summary-commentary\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"CASE SUMMARY AND COMMENTARY"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/#website","url":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/","name":"LMR Lawyers","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"fr-FR"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/#organization","name":"Low Murchison Radnoff LLP","url":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"fr-FR","@id":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/07\/logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/07\/logo.png","width":276,"height":79,"caption":"Low Murchison Radnoff LLP"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LMRLawyers","https:\/\/x.com\/LMRlawyers","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/low-murchison-radnoff-llp"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/#\/schema\/person\/0202d38f62a52b2344640ae2541287be","name":"Christine LaCasse","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"fr-FR","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7595773c0e916adbae9c979a6f0a1626e47bc8e95c94f58cf3293f91e2cb0e98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7595773c0e916adbae9c979a6f0a1626e47bc8e95c94f58cf3293f91e2cb0e98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7595773c0e916adbae9c979a6f0a1626e47bc8e95c94f58cf3293f91e2cb0e98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Christine LaCasse"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3351","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/15"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3351"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3351\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3354,"href":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3351\/revisions\/3354"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3353"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3351"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3351"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lmrlawyers.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3351"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}