The interaction between a government’s statutory obligation and a common law duty of care can be a difficult area to navigate in negligence claims. In Williams v Toronto, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that, on the facts of that case, the failure of the City of Toronto to fulfil a statutory obligation was civilly actionable by residents. In so doing, the Court provides further guidance as to...
July 29, 2015
In PDM Entertainment Inc. v. Three Pines Creations Inc and Louise Penny, the Ontario Court of Appeal had to decide who was entitled to produce the next television adaptation of the fictional Chief Inspector Gramache.
The Quebec Court of Appeal affirmed the trial decision in Dunkin' Brands Canada Ltd v. Bertico Inc. establishing a duty on franchisor Dunkin' Brands to take reasonable steps to protect and enhance the brand in the face of competition. The effect of the decision will have a lasting and potentially far reaching impact on the duties of parties to franchise agreements.
In the recent decision of Imperial Manufacturing Group Inc. v. Decor Grates Incorporated, 2015 FCA 100, the Federal Court of Appeal used an appeal of a particulars motion in an industrial designs case to eliminate the prior distinction between the standard of review of discretionary or interlocutory orders and all other appeals from the Federal Court.
Bankruptcy provides debtors with a fresh start. A clean slate, free from previous financial obligations. The general rule is that all previous debts are extinguished, subject to a very narrow band of exceptions, where the onus is on the creditor to establish the survival of the debt obligation post-bankruptcy.
At trial, the Judge held that the plaintiff and the defendant real estate agents should share the 10% commission on the sale of a plaza and gas station.
Administrative lawyers and regulators should take note: in Swart v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Prince Edward Island the Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal provided express guidance in the prosecution of complaints against doctors.
March 19, 2015
In Ontario, either party in a civil action can demand that its case be decided by a jury. In Kempf v. Nyugen (2015 ONCA 114), the Court of Appeal for Ontario addressed the question of when a case can be removed from a jury's hands because it is too complex, in a decision that strengthens the right to have civil cases decided in jury trials.
Following the Ontario Court of Appeal's 2010 decision in Dynasty Furniture Manufacturing Ltd. v. Toronto Dominion Bank (2010 ONCA 514), many legal observers believed that the court had closed the door on a bank's liability for negligence in the absence of actual knowledge of fraudulent activities conducted through an account of its customer.
On an appeal from a Rule 21 motion, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Personal Health Information Protection Act, S.O. 2004, c. 3, Sch. A (PHIPA) does not create an exhaustive code precluding a civil action for intrusion upon seclusion.
The Court of Appeal addressed the admissibility and permissible use of surreptitiously recorded video surveillance evidence at trial in its recent decision Iannarella v. Corbett, 2015 ONCA 110.
February 23, 2015
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently had a chance to consider the law regarding exclusion clauses in the lease context.
Law and fact, deference and correctness seem no less muddled than ever, as judges begin to interpret the Supreme Court's decision in Sattva Capital Corp v. Creston Moly Corp, 2014 SCC 53. In Sattva Capital, the Court held that pure contractual interpretation matters generally raise issues of mixed fact and law requiring deference, unless it is possible to clearly identify extricable issues of law.
February 05, 2015
The Court of Appeal has affirmed the robust gatekeeping function to be exercised by trial courts in the admission of expert evidence (Meady v. Greyhound, 2015 ONCA 6).
September 16, 2014 (Toronto);
The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53 ("Sattva") appeared to herald a new era of deference to arbitrators: on at least ordinary questions of law, courts are now to review arbitration awards on a reasonableness standard. Saatva also confirmed that questions of contractual interpretation are usually questions of mixed law and fact. This...