Articles

Topics this week included the application of limitation periods to passing accounts in an estates matter, denial of a stay pending an appeal to the Supreme Court, the distinction between final and interlocutory orders, hearsay evidence and equitable set-off in the context of summary judgment for fraud, statutory interpretation of the Health Care Consent Act, and a proper pleading of claims for misfeasance in public office and malicious prosecution.

There were only two civil decisions summarized this week. Both were procedural in nature, were appeals from orders made after adjournment requests were denied, and were dismissed.

A discussion of a 2018 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, British Columbia v. Philip Morris International Inc., 2018 SCC 36, which affirms that judicial concern for issues like the relevance of evidence and trial fairness have little to no significance in determining an Act’s meaning, unless those concerns are supported by a textual or purposive analysis of the legislation.

Following are the summaries of this week’s decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Topics covered include the duty of honest performance, constructive dismissal and adverse possession.

There were not many substantive decisions. Perhaps the most interesting was Am-Stat Corporation v Ontario. Other topics covered this week included costs in the family law and class action contexts, private and public interest standing in the insurance/MVA context, and wrongful dismissal in the doctor’s hospital privileges context.

Following are the summaries for this week’s civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. All the decisions this week were procedural in nature. One of those was yet another decision in Fontaine v Canada, the Residential School Settlement case, with more appellate decisions apparently to come in that matter.

Plaintiffs' counsel be aware: the litigation finger test can assist in cases of misdescription or misnomer of a party, allowing the plaintiff to correct their mistake and "add" the intended person as a party even after the expiration of the limitation period.

Following are the summaries for this week’s civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. In Shah v LG Chem Ltd, the Court of Appeal certified a class action for claims of conspiracy at common law and conspiracy to price fix under the Competition Act, in relation to lithium-ion batteries. The Court determined that the concept of “indeterminate liability” in negligence law should not be imported into the analysis of common conspiracy or Competition Act claims.

In Wang v Canada, the Court of Appeal held that habeas corpus applies not only to detention in prison, but in any situation where the applicant’s liberty is curtailed, such as house arrest. Other topics included a professional negligence claim against a lawyer, a jurisdictional dispute in respect of an oppression claim, a summary judgment for fraud, and an appeal of a jury’s damage award in an MVA trial.

There were two wrongful dismissal cases this week. One was brought by a physician against Sick Kids Hospital. The second involved the breach of fiduciary duty of a senior officer of a public company who was found to have been self-dealing. Other topics included spousal support and dismissal for delay.