Articles

Until now, mortgagees could commence their enforcement lawsuits anywhere in Ontario they pleased, regardless of where the mortgaged property is located. That option is now gone.

When can a witness who has not been retained by a party to the litigation give opinion testimony at trial?

Summaries of this week’s Ontario Court of Appeal civil decisions (non-criminal). (March 23-27, 2015)

Below are summaries of this week’s Ontario Court of Appeal civil decisions (non-criminal). Topics include motions to strike, family law, undisclosed material changes in condominium construction plans, and judicial review of a Toronto Chief of Police Order.

The recent decision of the Ontario Securities Commission in Re Azeff provides welcome clarification of the scope of the prohibition on tippee liability in Canada, and stands in contrast to a recent decision of the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

A recent Superior Court decision has considered the oppression remedy under section 248 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act, and personal liability of directors of closely held companies.

There were quite a few summary judgment cases dealt with by the Court of Appeal this week, several dealing with limitation periods. There was also an interesting franchise law decision discussing the contract law doctrine of severance of void or unenforceable terms from the rest of the contract and a decision on whether a judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice could participate in a joint hearing with other supervisory judges either inside or outside of Ontario.

It was a quiet week for the Court of Appeal. Topics covered in this week’s civil decisions (non-criminal) include: detention order reviews; determining whether orders are interlocutory or final; whether a motion for leave to appeal should be reopened; whether a court’s dismissal of a counterclaim on summary judgment was justified; limitation periods in the context of negligent investigation; and of course costs decisions.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has affirmed the applicability of the common law tort of intrusion upon seclusion in the healthcare context. In Hopkins v. Kay, 2015 ONCA 112, the Court of Appeal affirmed that the Ontario Personal Health Information Protection Act does not preclude a common law tort action for breach of privacy.