Richard Perry Macklin

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, defamation and other disputes. Richard has also developed considerable experience in government litigation including: coroner’s inquests, licencing, general administrative, Indigenous 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.

Richard’s clients have included “blue chip” real estate companies, public and private corporations, Police Services Boards, a Provincial Law Society and its insurer, and Indigenous Governing Agencies.

Richard’s volunteer pursuits include serving as an executive on his local Residents’ Association, being on the Governance Committee of the Briars Golf Club, and serving as an Advisory Board member on the influential Cross-Over Youth Project (Ryerson University) (2015-2020).

We successfully resisted a motion to quash in the planning law context. The Ontario government, in Bill 185, purported to bar community groups from challenging planning board decisions. A developer tried to quash our appeal on those grounds. The Ontario Divisional Court rejected the developer’s arguments.

We acted successfully, on one of the early combined appeal/judicial review cases, before the Ontario Divisional Court, since the Supreme Court’s Yatar ruling

Whelton Hiutin LLP lawyers Richard Macklin, Wei Jiang, and articling students Arlene Campbell and Shae Lynn Chung were recently successful in setting aside Mareva and CPL orders obtained in a commercial dispute. The orders at issue were wide-reaching orders freezing bank accounts and preventing the sale of property. The Court found that the plaintiff VPC Group Inc. had failed to make fair disclosure when it initially obtained the orders without notice to the defendants. The Court noted “there has been far from full and fair material disclosure” and held that even if fair disclosure had been made, the orders would be lifted as VPC had failed to meet the requirements for obtaining such drastic orders. The parties agreed on costs, in favour of the Whelton Hiutin client, in the amount of $310,000.