Articles 2022

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.

In a labour law case it was decided that the Expenditure Restraint Act, which capped public service employee wages during the recession arising out of the financial crisis of 2008 and did not allow unions to try and make up those losses at a later date, did not infringe the federal unions’ right to freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter. Other topics include administrative law, securities class actions, mortgagees’ rights as against residential tenants and easements of necessity.

In the recent decision of Sanzone v. Schechter, the Ontario Court of Appeal provided insight regarding the evidentiary burden that a defendant must meet in moving to dismiss an action by way of summary judgment, and in particular what expert evidence may be required.