Articles

The Court of Appeal had a busy week and released a number of civil decisions, many of which were procedural in nature - extension of time, leave to appeal, limitation periods, Rule 21. One of these procedural decisions was in the Nortel case, in which the court denied leave to appeal Justice Newbould’s trial decision, apparently bringing the matter substantially closer to a conclusion.

Should independence and impartiality be considered at the threshold admissibility stage, or only in the weight given to the evidence?

Following are this week’s summaries of civil decisions released by the Court of Appeal. Topics covered include contract issues, insurance, environmental regulations, summary judgment and oppression. For me, the most interesting decision was a very short decision in Miller Canfield v BDO Dunwoody. The decision highlights the importance of understanding the difference between contract repudiation and contract termination.

In Deslauriers Custom Cabinets and Howard v Benson Group, the Court further chipped away at Sattva and the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in that case that contractual interpretation is now an issue of mixed fact and law and therefore subject to a more deferential standard of review. Other decisions this week involve the class action brought against the Toronto Police as a result of Charter breaches perpetrated during the G20 Summit and the Residential Schools class action.

There was only one civil decision released by the Court of Appeal this week long enough to summarize. The rest were very short endorsements and criminal decisions.

The Court of Appeal only released civil law decisions this week. Topics covered included whether or not leave to appeal a vesting order made on a receivership sale under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act is required (it is), an ironic case in which a lawyer initially resisted a professional negligence claim for missing a limitation period by arguing the limitation period had been missed (nice try), insurance law and adjournments.

This week’s decisions from the Court of Appeal covered a broad range of topics, including defamation (the requirements for notice under the Libel and Slander Act), wrongful dismissal, expropriations, several contract interpretation cases, and a family law case involving whether there was a true loan from a parent to their child.

This week’s Court of Appeal decisions covered a range of subjects including contracts, torts, civil procedure, and wills and estates. The two most notable substantive decisions this week were Spence v BMO Trust Co. - can a bequest be voided on public policy grounds because the disappointed heir alleged that the true motivation for being cut out of the will was racism? – and Neuberger v York, a dispute over a $100 million dollar estate.

Cases this week included commercial leasing decisions involving issues such as insurance and allocation of risk, and the commencement of the limitation period for suing for ongoing breaches of covenants. Other topics included the enforceability of a choice of law and forum clause in a financial adviser case, MVA, copyright, and a debtor-creditor case where the debtor succeeded in a claim for intentional interference with economic relations.