Articles 2020

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.

There was only one substantive civil decision, Lauzon v Fortier, a family law decision. The Court refused to interfere with the trial judge’s exercise of discretion that the husband be paid his equity by the wife immediately (even if that meant the wife might have to sell the matrimonial home), and that the husband make his equalization payment to his wife by way of a spousal rollover of his pension.

The Court released a great number of decisions this week, some of them quite lengthy. In Das v George Weston Limited, the Court of Appeal upheld a decision of Justice Perrell in which His Honour had dismissed as disclosing no reasonable cause of action a $2 billion class action against Loblaws in relation to the tragic 2013 collapse of the Rana Plaza building in Savar, Bangladesh.

Winmill provides critical analysis of the issue of discoverability as contained in section 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act, S.O, 2002 and the interpretation of the term “appropriate means” as used in that subsection. This article summarizes the decision, the consensus that has developed in subsequent jurisprudence and the policy implications of the decision.

Topics covered included another decision in the ongoing Residential School Settlement saga (procedural fairness), family law (unequal division of property and striking pleadings for failure to comply with disclosure order), estates (passing accounts by an attorney under a POA), real property (termination of APS of land and 99 year leases contravening the Planning Act), security for costs, appellate jurisdiction and stay pending appeal in the context of vexatious litigants.

Following are our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario released this past week.

Following are our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario released this past week.

Topics this week included the application of limitation periods to passing accounts in an estates matter, denial of a stay pending an appeal to the Supreme Court, the distinction between final and interlocutory orders, hearsay evidence and equitable set-off in the context of summary judgment for fraud, statutory interpretation of the Health Care Consent Act, and a proper pleading of claims for misfeasance in public office and malicious prosecution.

There were only two civil decisions summarized this week. Both were procedural in nature, were appeals from orders made after adjournment requests were denied, and were dismissed.

A discussion of a 2018 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, British Columbia v. Philip Morris International Inc., 2018 SCC 36, which affirms that judicial concern for issues like the relevance of evidence and trial fairness have little to no significance in determining an Act’s meaning, unless those concerns are supported by a textual or purposive analysis of the legislation.