Articles 2022

In Deslaurier Custom Cabinets Inc. and Sankar v. Bell Mobility Inc., while the leave applications were pending, the SCC released its decision in Ledcor Construction Ltd, which clarified that the standard of review is correctness, not palpable and overriding error, for standard form contracts and extricable questions of law.

There were several substantive civil decisions released this week. Topics covered included family law (spousal and child support), employment law, religious organizations, administrative law (OSC), standing to oppose a settlement entered into by a party under a disability , limitation periods, and contempt for breach of Mareva orders.

Boaden Catering Limited v. Real Food For Real Kids Inc. was a contest over website domain names. The decision of United States v Equinix Inc. dealt with the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, which allows countries that have a mutual legal assistance treaty with Canada to seek the help of the Minister of Justice in locating and obtaining relevant evidence believed to be in Canada.

Following are the summaries for this week’s civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. In York (Regional Municipality) v. Tsui, the Court concluded that municipal by-laws that circumscribe the hours of operation of body rub parlours are not criminal laws and therefore not ultra vires. In Scaduto v Cucu, the Court considered whether to grant amicus curiae status to a party that had been adverse in interest in previous proceedings.

There were only three short procedural decisions we summarized this week.

Summaries for this week’s civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Topics covered included family law, limitation periods, vexatious litigants, easements, lawyers’ professional negligence and class actions. Perhaps the most interesting decision of the week was the class action decision, Castrillo v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, which touches on worker’s compensation law, intentional torts, administrative law and civil procedure.

In Cheng v. Liu, the court dealt with whether it had jurisdiction to hear a corollary relief proceeding under the Divorce Act after a valid divorce in a foreign jurisdiction. In Meehan v. Good, the court made it clear that a lawyer’s duty to his or her client may go beyond the four corners of the scope of the retainer.

Summaries for this week’s civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Topics covered this week included: the effect of pending retirement on a high income earner with spousal support obligations (Schulstad); a dispute between two law firms regarding an agency agreement that resulted in a charging order (Fancy Barristers); and the sufficiency of a pleading in a defamation case (Catalyst Capital).

The Court of Appeal considered: the sufficiency of conflict screens when counsel moves to another firm and found that the standard procedures to be inadequate in that particular case because of how close the new lawyer to the firm worked with his former adversary (Chartis); summary judgment in the medical malpractice context (Hirchberg); the doctrine of abuse of process in an insurance arbitration context (Intact); and relief from forfeiture of a deposit (Invecom).