Articles

In Hodge v. Neinstein, the Court upheld the Divisional Court’s certification of a class proceeding against Neinstein & Associates LLP, in which the plaintiffs claim that the firm’s accounts contravened the >Solicitors Act. In Bruff-Murphy v. Gunawardena, the Court of Appeal reviewed the law relating to the admissibility of expert opinion evidence and ordered a new trial after determining that certain expert evidence should not have been admitted.

There were a couple of noteworthy cases which may interest those interested in estate and franchise law. Topics covered include constructive dismissal, negligent investigation by the LSUC and the application of the Law Society Act, and motions for extensions of time used in a frivolous and vexatious fashion.

In Biancaniello v. DMCT LLP, the Court of Appeal reversed the Divisional Court , and held that a full and final release is just that, a full and final release. In Black v. Owen, the Court reaffirmed its decision in Amberwood Investments Ltd. v. Durham Condominium Corp. No. 123, which held that the common law rule that positive covenants do not run with freehold land is settled law in Ontario.

In Pennyfeather v. Timminco, the Court upheld the dismissal of a secondary securities market misrepresentation class action. In Royal SunAlliance v Intact Insurance, a contest between insurers as to responsibility for indemnifying victims of an accident, at issue was whether an endorsement of an automobile insurance policy that excludes coverage for a named driver is valid even though its form is not pre-approved by the Superintendent of Financial Services.

Topics this week included interesting issues in family law and wills and estates, wrongful dismissal, wills and estates, breach of contract, contractual interpretation, occupier’s liability, mortgages and state mutual assistance in criminal matters.

Here are summaries of this week’s civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Topics covered include representation orders to commence an action against a Union; fraud, unlawful conspiracy, deceit and breach of fiduciary duty by shareholders and directors; administrative law, aboriginal law, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; wills and estates; vexatious litigants; and setting aside default judgments.

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.