Articles 2022

This week’s Court of Appeal Summaries. Civil topics covered include administrative law/professional discipline (chiropractors), family law (support), contracts, civil procedure in the corporate oppression context (order interlocutory or final for appeal purposes), insurance law (SABs) and commercial tenancies. Special mention to our partner, Reeva Finkel, who on behalf of our client successfully resisted a landlord’s attempt to improperly terminate our client’s tenancy.

In Canada Post Corporation v. Hamilton (City), the Court of Appeal considered the question of whether or not the municipality of Hamilton had the authority to become involved in the decision of where to place thousands of Canada Post mailboxes. In Novatrax International Inc. v. Hägele Landtechnik GmbH, the Court of Appeal addressed the effect of a forum selection and arbitration clause in an agreement. The Court of Appeal was split in its decision.

Summaries for the week’s civil decisions. Topics include spousal support, the stay of an appeal from a contempt order, and of an action under the Arbitration Act. In Singh v Trump, the Court set aside a motion judge’s order dismissing claims against Donald Trump and reinstated claims dismissed by the motions judge that were not properly before him. We all know what happened last time Trump disagreed with a judge presiding over his case.

There were seven substantive civil decisions released this week, and three of note: 407 ETR Concession Company Limited v. Day; Trillium Motor World Ltd. v. General Motors of Canada Limited; and Enerzone Inc. v. Ontario (Revenue). In particular, in 407 ETR Concession Company Limited v. Day, the Court approved the contractual extension of the limitation period in the 407 transponder lease agreements.

There were several substantive civil decision released this week. They included a priority dispute in the receivership, a motion to stay a Superior Court order pending the determination of a leave application to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, and an option to purchase a property and a question as to the ensuing rent owed.

There were three substantive civil decisions this week. Williams v. Toronto (City), is a class action against the City for negligence by tenants who occupied rooming houses with analysis on the legal test for finding a duty of care in negligence. Thompson v. Ontario (Attorney General) focuses on whether Brian's Law violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Balev v. Baggot concerns the meaning of habitual residence in the Hague Convention.