In Cadieux v. Cadieux, the Court upheld the motion judge’s decision to approve a Pierringer agreement between the plaintiffs and the City of Ottawa, which would result in the non-settling defendants being jointly and severally liable only to the degree of their collective fault for a motor vehicle accident. The Court affirmed that Pierringer agreements do not inherently prejudice non-settling defendants and emphasized that allowing proportionate reductions in liability due to potential co-tortfeasor insolvency would discourage the public interest in encouraging settlements and conflict with the Negligence Act’s goal of making plaintiffs whole. The risk of one tortfeasor not being able to contribute their share of liability falls on the other jointly and severally liable tortfeasors who do have the ability to pay, not on the plaintiff.
In Metrolinx v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1587, five employees were dismissed for sexual harassment, and the dismissals were grieved. The arbitrator ordered the reinstatement of the grievors; however, this decision was overturned on judicial review. The Court ultimately found the arbitration award to be unreasonable and dismissed the grievors’ appeal.
In Amirthalingam v. Ratnam, the Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge’s exercise of her trial management powers in refusing leave to withdraw the deemed admissions and in declining to permit the appellants to call a last-minute witness. The Court also upheld the trial judge’s finding that the respondent had established all the necessary elements for their claim of unjust enrichment.
Shanthakumar Estate v. Canada Border Services Agency explores police negligence, focusing primarily on the standard of care. The Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge did not apply an inappropriate standard of care as to whether the arresting officers were negligent in making the arrests in question.
Westmount-Keele Limited v. Nicholas C. Tibollo Professional Corporation was a professional negligence claim in which the Court partially allowed the plaintiff’s appeal and increased the amount of damages awarded against the solicitors.
Finally, Hesch v. Langford was a priority dispute between motor vehicle insurers in respect of contributing to a settlement with the estate of a victim of an accident and her family following a collision with an uninsured motorist.