Articles 2019

There were five substantive civil decisions released by the Court of Appeal for Ontario this week. In two of them, the Court continued to provide guidance on the “valid defence” analysis to be undertaken pursuant to the Anti-SLAPP provisions of section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Topics covered this week included the application of s.137.1 of the Court of Justice Act, the interaction between pre-incorporation contract provisions of the Ontario Business Corporations Act and the common law rules governing deposits in real estate transactions, the enforceability of restrictive covenants where the underlying contract has been frustrated, and secured creditors’ rights of entry to repossess equipment.

This week, the Court of Appeal once again addressed the new anti-SLAPP legislation in United Soils Management Ltd. v. Mohammed and clarified that the anti-SLAPP legislation does not provide for the award of punitive damages against a plaintiff when an action is dismissed under section 137.1. Other topics covered included the duty of care in a tragic personal injury context, damages for wrongful dismissal and legal non-conforming uses under the Planning Act.

Topics covered this week included wills and estates (capacity and undue influence), insurance coverage in the MVA context where there was a question of intentional acts as opposed to mere negligence, and the familiar issue of whether an order is final or interlocutory for appeal purposes.

Topics covered this week included the limitation period for enforcing foreign judgments (the later of the two years from the expiry of the appeal period from the foreign judgment and when the plaintiff knew or ought to have known that there were assets in Ontario against which the plaintiff could enforce its judgment), and striking pleadings as an abuse of process (attempt to re-litigate).

In Presley v Van Dusen, the Court of Appeal yet again dealt with discoverability. In McDowell v. Fortress Real Capital Inc., the Court of Appeal overturned in part a motion judge’s decision to strike out the claims of a proposed class proceeding for various allegations of misconduct. Other topics covered this week included contractual interpretation, conflict of laws and costs in the family law context.

This week’s summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario touch on a variety of topics including commercial tenancies, residential tenancies, oppression in the condo law context, the expiry of a tolling agreement, restarting the limitation period clock, municipal law and health law.

Following are summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario this past week. The Court released a number of decisions this week, including an important pronouncement on Construction Act trusts, and the ability of the provincial legislature to establish trust certainties, in The Guarantee Company of Canada v Royal Bank of Canada, 2019 ONCA 9.

There were only three substantive civil decisions released by the Court of Appeal this week. In TD General Insurance Company v Intact Insurance Company, the Court examined two insurance policies that had overlapping coverage. In Healthy Lifestyle Medical Group Inc. v. Chand Morningside Plaza Inc., the Court set aside summary judgment on a guarantee.

There were only two substantive civil decisions of the Court of Appeal this week. Most notably, in Heller v Uber Technologies Inc., the Court revived a proposed class action by Uber drivers against Uber. Justice Perrell had stayed the class proceeding on jurisdictional grounds in favour of Uber’s arbitration clause requiring all disputes to be arbitrated in the Netherlands. The Court determined that the arbitration clause was invalid and unenforceable.