ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT SACHS, NORDHEIMER & PATTILLO JJ. ) ) ) ) Respondent )
|
|
- Gillian McCarthy
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 CITATION: Riddell v. Apple Canada Inc., 2016 ONSC 6014 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC (Oshawa DATE: ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT SACHS, NORDHEIMER & PATTILLO JJ. BETWEEN: MATTHEW RIDDELL M. Riddell in person Applicant and APPLE CANADA INC. M. Jilesen, for the respondent Respondent HEARD at Toronto: September 19, ONSC 6014 (CanLII NORDHEIMER J.: [1] Mathew Riddell applies for judicial review of the order of Deputy Judge Stabile of the Small Claims Court dated November 27, Pursuant to that order, the Deputy Judge ordered the applicant to deliver to the respondent an iphone 5, belonging to the applicant, for the purpose of the respondent having the iphone 5 examined by an expert. [2] The importance of the iphone 5 arises from the fact that this action involves a claim by the applicant that the iphone 5 overheated and caused severe burns to the applicant s right arm. The applicant claims damages in the amount of $25,000. [3] Given the nature of the allegations made in the applicant s claim, the respondent wishes to have the iphone 5 examined by an expert. The respondent asked the applicant if he would provide the phone to the respondent for that purpose, but the applicant refused.
2 Page: 2 [4] There is some confusion in the record whether the applicant intends to call expert evidence about the iphone 5. Before the Deputy Judge, it appears that the applicant did not intend to call an expert but, rather, simply intended to produce the iphone 5 to the trial judge along with various photographs that show a charred iphone 5. However, the applicant had a couple of months earlier, in a letter to the respondent s counsel dated September 24, 2015, said that he would be providing an expert report authored by a professional in the electronics industry with a wealth of knowledge and experience working directly with iphone products. That said, the fact is that the applicant had not provided any expert report at the time of the motion, even though a previous order of another Deputy Judge had required that any expert reports from the applicant be delivered sixty days prior to trial. At the time of the motion, the trial was scheduled for December 16, However, ultimately that date was vacated by the Deputy Judge when he made the inspection order ONSC 6014 (CanLII [5] The Deputy Judge concluded that, given that the iphone 5 was the foundation for the applicant s claim, it would not be in keeping with the principles of natural justice to require the respondent to proceed to trial without the benefit of an inspection. [6] The applicant complains that the reasons of the Deputy Judge are insufficient. I do not agree. The Deputy Judge gave five pages of handwritten reasons outlining why he decided to grant the order that the respondent had requested. The form and adequacy of the reasons must also be considered in the context in which they are given, namely, in a busy court like the Small Claims Court. I am satisfied that the reasons of the Deputy Judge are sufficient to allow for meaningful appellate review of the correctness of the decision and that they apprise the parties of the reasons why the conclusion in question was reached. The reasons, therefore, satisfy the basic requirements underlying a court s obligation to give reasons: R. v. Shepherd, [2002] 1 S.C.R [7] More central to the issue before us is the applicant s submission that the Deputy Judge did not have jurisdiction to make the inspection order. The applicant points to the fact that there is no rule in the Small Claims Court Rules, O. Reg. 258/98 that authorizes a Deputy Judge to make such an order.
3 Page: 3 [8] The parties agree that the standard of review on the issue of jurisdiction is one of correctness. [9] I begin with the basic proposition that the Small Claims Court is a court that is intended to provide expeditious and low cost resolutions of the matters that come before it. That is clear from the statutory provisions that establish the Small Claims Court (Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 25 and previous decisions of this court (Elguindy v. St. Joseph's Health Care, [2016] O.J. No (Div. Ct. at para. 9. In furtherance of that objective, the Small Claims Court Rules do not provide for oral examinations for discovery and the right to seek production of documents is very limited ONSC 6014 (CanLII [10] In terms of the granting of pre-trial orders, the applicant emphasizes, as have other decisions of the Small Claims Court that have considered the issue, the statement made by Sharpe J. in Phillips v. Dis-Management (1995, 24 O.R. (3d 435 (Gen. Div. at para. 10: The amount claimed here and in most claims of this nature falls within the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court where no discovery is available and where the proceedings are similarly summary in nature. [emphasis added] [11] With respect, there has been a tendency to take that statement by Sharpe J. out of context. It is a general observation regarding the basic approach that prevails in proceedings in the Small Claims Court. It is not a declaration defining the complete procedure available under the Small Claims Court Rules because, as I have already pointed out, the Small Claims Court Rules do provide for a very limited form of discovery. For example, r. 7.01(22 provides that, where the plaintiff s claim is based in whole or in part on a document, a copy of the document shall be attached to each copy of the claim. The same requirement applies in the case of a defendant s defence. That is a form of discovery. Similarly, r (2 requires that, at a settlement conference, every party shall provide a copy of any document to be relied on at the trial, including an expert report, and that every party also provide a list of witnesses. Again, this is a form of discovery. Further, r (1 provides that, at trial, a document or written statement or an audio or visual record shall be received in evidence provided that it has been served at least 30 days before the trial. Once again, this is a form of discovery.
4 Page: 4 [12] So the assertion that there is no discovery in a proceeding in the Small Claims Court is a false assertion. Discovery does exist in the Small Claims Court, but only to an extremely limited degree. The issue that this case raises is to what extent, if any, that limited discovery right ought to be expanded. [13] The applicant is correct that there is no specific provision in the Small Claims Court Rules that authorizes a Deputy Judge to order a party to deliver property to another party for the purpose of inspection. The one rule that does address the issue of inspection is r which reads: 2016 ONSC 6014 (CanLII The trial judge may, in the presence of the parties or their representatives, inspect any real or personal property concerning which a question arises in the action. [14] One other rule is of importance to the resolution of this issue. It is r of the Small Claims Court Rules which reads: (1 These rules shall be liberally construed to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every proceeding on its merits in accordance with section 25 of the Courts of Justice Act. (2 If these rules do not cover a matter adequately, the court may give directions and make any order that is just, and the practice shall be decided by analogy to these rules, by reference to the Courts of Justice Act and the Act governing the action and, if the court considers it appropriate, by reference to the Rules of Civil Procedure. [15] There are at least two decisions of the Small Claims Court that address the specific issue of pre-trial inspection of property. The two decisions reach opposite conclusions. In National Service Dog Training Centre Inc. v. Hall, [2013] O.J. No (Sm. Cl. Ct. Deputy Judge McGill concluded that, by virtue of analogy to the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, as authorized by r. 1.03, an order could be made for the inspection/assessment of a service dog that was central to the issue in the proceeding. In contrast, in Garg v. Raywall Limited Partnership (c.o.b. Raywal Cabinets, [2014] O.J. No (Sm. Cl. Ct. Deputy Judge Winny found that r was not sufficient authority to warrant an order being made for pre-trial inspection. In reaching that conclusion, he expressly disagreed with the conclusion reached in
5 Page: 5 National Service Dog Training Centre Inc. As will become evident, I prefer the reasoning and conclusion reached in National Service Dog Training Centre Inc. to that reached in Garg. [16] In my view, the order made by the Deputy Judge in this case is authorized by a combination of the two subrules in r I reach that conclusion for two reasons. [17] First, as r makes clear, the trial judge could inspect the iphone 5 at trial. Indeed, the applicant told the Deputy Judge that he intended to produce the iphone 5 to the trial judge. It is a safe assumption that producing the iphone 5 to the trial judge is not going to permit the trial judge to undertake any meaningful inspection of it. I note in passing on this point that in Garg, Deputy Judge Winny found that r was a provision for taking a view of real property or personal property which cannot be brought into the courtroom. While that is an interesting interpretation of r , the express language of the rule does not bear it out. There is nothing in the language of r that restricts its operation to an out of court examination or view ONSC 6014 (CanLII [18] In any event, in order to make the authority to inspect a meaningful one, under r , in a case such as this, some expert assistance will be necessary. In the interests of an expeditious determination at trial of the issues raised in this action, that expert assistance needs to be provided in advance of the trial. The reality of that situation is a matter that is not adequately covered by the Small Claims Court Rules, specifically r , and, thus, the Deputy Judge had authority, pursuant to r. 1.03(2, to make an order analogous to the type of order that could be made under r of the Rules of Civil Procedure. [19] Second, before this court, the applicant made it clear that he intended to call an expert witness and elicit expert evidence from him/her based on an inspection of the iphone 5. The applicant can, of course, have an expert examine the iphone 5 because it is in the applicant s possession. The respondent does not enjoy the same entitlement since the applicant has refused its request to examine the iphone 5. Given that refusal, the only way of levelling the playing field and ensuring that fairness between the parties is achieved, was for the Deputy Judge to order the applicant to provide the iphone 5 to the respondent for an inspection. That was an order that was necessary to secure a just determination of the central issue raised in the proceeding.
6 Page: 6 [20] On that latter point, I agree with the observations made by Deputy Judge McGill in National Service Dog Training Centre Inc. at para. 30: The lack of pre-trial inspections of property represents a gap in the Small Claims Court rules that has disparate impact on the parties. The party in possession of the property experiences no side effects whatsoever while the non-possessory party has its ability to prepare for trial severely restricted. An unlevel playing field is the result which is not just, fair or agreeable to good conscience. [21] There is another element of the Small Claims Court Rules that reinforces the need for the type of order that the Deputy Judge made in this case. Unlike the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Small Claims Court Rules do not require, as a prerequisite to calling an expert witness, that an expert report be delivered to the other side: Steckley v. Haid, [2009] O.J. No (Sm. Cl. Ct; M.A. Zuker and J.S. Winny, Ontario Small Claims Court Practice, 2016 (Toronto: Carswell, 2016 at p To the contrary, the Small Claims Court Rules appear to proceed on the basis that, in the usual course, a party will not call his or her own expert but will, rather, deliver the expert s report, which is admissible on its own (r (1, and then leave it to the opposing party to summons the expert for the purpose of cross-examination (r , if they wish to do so. Presumably this is done in the interests of expediting the hearing of the matter and reducing the costs associated with eliciting expert evidence ONSC 6014 (CanLII [22] What this allows for in a case such as this, however, is the possibility that the applicant will simply call his expert at the trial, without any prior disclosure of the evidence of the expert. If the trial judge permits the expert to testify, the respondent is then placed in the position that it is unable to respond to that evidence due to the lack of any prior opportunity to know what the expert would say or any opportunity to undertake any examination or testing of its own. The most that the respondent could do would be to have its expert at the trial to listen to the applicant s expert and then request an adjournment of the trial so that it can have the opportunity to make a proper response, including the requisite opportunity to do an inspection and conduct tests. If that request was granted, the trial would then be disrupted, potentially for some period of time, to the benefit of neither party. [23] I appreciate the natural tension that exists between, on the one hand, maintaining the summary approach to dispositions that the Small Claims Court is founded on, with the requisite
7 Page: 7 savings of time and expense, and the need, on the other hand, to ensure that the Small Claims Court arrives at a result that is just and agreeable to good conscience Courts of Justice Act, s. 25. This requires an essential balance between ensuring expeditious, low cost proceedings and making pre-trial orders that are necessary to ensure that the trial judge can reach a just result. [24] This balance will generally tip in favour of not making pre-trial orders for discovery type relief. This is especially true when those orders seek information from third parties of the type that was addressed by this court in Elguindy. Indeed, the granting of any such form of pre-trial order, even when it only involves the parties to the proceeding, should be done sparingly and only in situations where it is clearly demonstrated that, without the requested pre-trial relief, justice cannot possibly be done between the parties given the nature of the claim at issue ONSC 6014 (CanLII [25] Recognizing, however, that there will be a small subset of cases in the Small Claims Court where an order for pre-trial inspection is necessary in order to do justice, especially in light of the increased monetary jurisdiction of that court, does not undermine the effectiveness and expediency of that court. It does not open the floodgates to discovery requests. It is a narrow and limited expansion of the existing discovery procedures in that court that reflects the need, in those rare cases, to grant an order that will secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every proceeding on its merits. On this point, I again adopt the observations made by Deputy Judge McGill in National Service Dog Training Centre Inc. at para. 31: Ordering a pre-trial inspection of the property is not hostile to the objectives of the court, it is central to principles of natural justice. This is an issue of fundamental fairness which the court must be allowed to address in the context of controlling its own proceedings and to support the most just, agreeable and in good conscience determination. A question about the condition of the property cannot be determined on the merits if only one side is allowed to collect relevant evidence. A party will not perceive the justice system as fair if it is denied the basic opportunity afforded to the other party. The playing field must be level or the administration of justice will fall into disrepute. [26] In this case, it is clear that an examination of the iphone 5 is critical to a proper determination whether it could have caused the damages that the applicant claims. The applicant categorically said that he would be calling expert evidence. In light of that stated intent, fairness
8 Page: 8 required that the respondent be given the same opportunity, that the applicant would have, to inspect the iphone 5. [27] The application for judicial review is dismissed. Given that the issue raised is a novel one, and one that has broader ramifications for proceedings in the Small Claims Court than just this one case, I would make no order as to costs ONSC 6014 (CanLII NORDHEIMER J. SACHS J. PATTILLO J. Date of Release:
9 CITATION: Riddell v. Apple Canada Inc., 2016 ONSC 6014 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC (Oshawa BETWEEN: ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT SACHS, NORDHEIMER & PATTILLO JJ ONSC 6014 (CanLII MATTHEW RIDDELL Applicant and APPLE CANADA INC. Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT NORDHEIMER J. Date of Release:
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Riddell v. Apple Canada Inc., 2017 ONCA 590 DATE: 20170710 DOCKET: C63349 MacPherson, Cronk and Benotto JJ.A. BETWEEN Matthew Riddell Appellant (Plaintiff) and Apple
More informationHOT TOPICS IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT. presented by J. Sebastian Winny on Saturday, April 28, 2018 for members of the Ontario Paralegal Association
HOT TOPICS IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT presented by J. Sebastian Winny on Saturday, April 28, 2018 for members of the Ontario Paralegal Association This presentation will address five subjects which are topical
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (COMMERCIAL LIST) BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA. -and-
Court File No. CV-17-11760-00CL ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (COMMERCIAL LIST) BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA -and- Applicant ASTORIA ORGANIC MATTERS LTD. and ASTORIA ORGANIC MATTERS CANADA LP
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT FERRIER, SWINTON & LEDERER JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Applicant.
CITATION: St. Catharines (City v. IPCO, 2011 ONSC 346 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 351/09 DATE: 20110316 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT FERRIER, SWINTON & LEDERER JJ. B E T W E E N: THE
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT J. WILSON, KARAKATSANIS, AND BRYANT JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Ministry of Attorney General and Toronto Star and Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, 2010 ONSC 991 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 34/09 DATE: 20100326 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT ) ) ) HEARD in writing. REASONS FOR DECISION (Motion for Leave to Appeal)
CITATION: Babcock v. Destefano 2017 ONSC 276 COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-458641 DATE: 20170113 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT BETWEEN: REGGIE BABCOCK Respondent/Plaintiff/ and ANGELO DESTEFANO
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants ) ) ) ) ) REASONS FOR DECISION ON MOTION
CITATION: Daniells v. McLellan, 2017 ONSC 6887 COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-5565-CP DATE: 2017/11/29 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: SHERRY-LYNN DANIELLS Plaintiff - and - MELISSA McLELLAN and
More informationCase Name: CEJ Poultry Inc. v. Intact Insurance Co.
Page 1 Case Name: CEJ Poultry Inc. v. Intact Insurance Co. Counsel: RE: CEJ Poultry Inc., and Intact Insurance Company and The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company [2012] O.J. No. 3005 2012 ONSC
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Plaintiff ) ) ) Defendants RULING RE: ADMISSION OF SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE
CITATION: Wray v. Pereira, 2018 ONSC 4623 OSHAWA COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-91778 DATE: 20180801 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Douglas Wray Plaintiff and Rosemary Pereira and Gil Pereira Defendants
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 231, 2015 ONCA 520 DATE: 20150709 DOCKET: C59661 BETWEEN Laskin, Lauwers and Hourigan JJ.A.
More informationCase Name: Hunter v. Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Page 1 Case Name: Hunter v. Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Between Ralph Hunter, Plaintiff, and The Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Bonnie Bishop,
More informationRULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THECOLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO INDEX
October 1, 1996 Last Update: February 23, 2018 Index Page 1 RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THECOLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO INDEX RULE 1 - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION...
More informationPage 2 [2] The action arose from a motor vehicle accident on October 9, The plaintiff Anthony Okafor claimed two million dollars and the plainti
CITATION: OKAFOR v. MARKEL INSURANCE & KROPKA, 2010 ONSC 2093 COURT FILE NO.: C42087/97 DATE: 2010-06-01 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: JUNE OKAFOR AND ANTHONY OKAFOR Plaintiffs - and
More information[4] The defendant is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Ontario carrying on business as a theme water park in Limoges Ontario.
CITATION: CYR v. CALYPSO PARC INC. 2016 ONSC 2683 COURT FILE NO.: 12-54440 DATE: May 11, 2016 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: FRANCINE CYR Plaintiff AND: CALYPSO PARC INC. Defendant BEFORE: COUNSEL:
More informationL. Kamerman ) Monday, the 23rd day Mining and Lands Commissioner ) of April, 2007.
File No. CA 003-05 L. Kamerman ) Monday, the 23rd day Mining and Lands Commissioner ) of April, 2007. THE CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ACT IN THE MATTER OF An appeal to the Minister pursuant to subsection
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Plaintiff ) ) ) Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REASONS FOR DECISION
CITATION: Boyadjian v. Durham (Regional Municipality, 2016 ONSC 6477 OSHAWA COURT FILE NO.: 74724/11 DATE: 20161101 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: LUCY BOYADJIAN Plaintiff and THE REGIONAL
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Plaintiffs ) ) ) Defendant ) ) DECISION ON MOTION:
CITATION: Rush v. Via Rail Canada Inc., 2017 ONSC 2243 COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-507160 DATE: 20170518 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Yael Rush and Thomas Rush Plaintiffs and Via Rail Canada Inc.
More informationProcedural Rules Mining and Lands Commissioner
FR MENU Procedural Rules Mining and Lands Commissioner These rules apply to all proceedings before the Mining and Lands Commissioner that started on or after February 5, 2018. On this page Preamble Application
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REASONS FOR DECISON
CITATION: Lapierre v. Lecuyer, 2018 ONSC 1540 COURT FILE NO.: 16-68322/19995/16 DATE: 2018/04/10 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: MARTINE LaPIERRE, AMY COULOMBE, ANTHONY MICHAEL COULOMBE and
More informationCosts in Small Claims Court. By: W. Patrick Sloan, B.A. LL.B. Ferguson Barristers LLP
Costs in Small Claims Court By: W. Patrick Sloan, B.A. LL.B. Ferguson Barristers LLP Introduction The small claims court is intended to allow quicker and more cost efficient access to justice. Coupled
More informationAffidavits in Support of Motions
Affidavits in Support of Motions To be advised and verily believe or not to be advised and verily believe: That is the question Presented by: Robert Zochodne November 20, 2010 30 th Civil Litigation Updated
More informationDisposition before Trial
Disposition before Trial Presented By Andrew J. Heal January 13, 2011 Q: What's the difference between a good lawyer and a bad lawyer? A: A bad lawyer can let a case drag out for several years. A good
More informationSTATUS HEARINGS UNDER RULE 48.14
Volume 20, No. 4 June 2012 Civil Litigation Section STATUS HEARINGS UNDER RULE 48.14 Philip Cho Although entirely replaced in the 2010 amendments, unlike the transition provision under Rule 48.15, 1 status
More informationRULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AMENDMENTS BULLETIN
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AMENDMENTS BULLETIN July 2009 SUMMARY [The information below is provided as a service by Shillingtons LLP and is not intended to be legal advice. Those seeking additional information
More informationDIVISIONAL COURT, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE CAPITAL ONE BANK (CANADA BRANCH) APPELLANT S FACTUM I. STATEMENT OF THE APPEAL
Divisional Court File No. DC-12-463-00 DIVISIONAL COURT, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: CAPITAL ONE BANK (CANADA BRANCH) -and- Plaintiff (Appellant) LAURA M. TOOGOOD aka LAURA MARIE TOOGOOD aka
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Vellone, 2011 ONCA 785 DATE: 20111214 DOCKET: C50397 MacPherson, Simmons and Blair JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Ex Rel. The Regional Municipality of York
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Plaintiff ) ) ) Defendants RULING RE: ADMISSION OF EXPERT EVIDENCE OF DR. FINKELSTEIN
CITATION: Wray v. Pereira, 2018 ONSC 4621 OSHAWA COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-91778 DATE: 20180801 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Douglas Wray Plaintiff and Rosemary Pereira and Gil Pereira Defendants
More informationRULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE FITNESS TO PRACTISE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF SOCIAL WORKERS AND SOCIAL SERVICE WORKERS INDEX
RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE FITNESS TO PRACTISE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF SOCIAL WORKERS AND SOCIAL SERVICE WORKERS INDEX RULE 1 INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION... 1 1.01 Definitions... 1 1.02 Interpretations
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT. HACKLAND R.S.J., SWINTON and KARAKATSANIS JJ.
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT COURT FILE NO.: 29/07, 30/07 DATE: 20090306 HACKLAND R.S.J., SWINTON and KARAKATSANIS JJ. B E T W E E N: COMMISSIONER AND JANE DOE, AND B E T W E E N:
More informationBY-LAW NO. 44 ONTARIO COLLEGE OF SOCIAL WORKERS AND SOCIAL SERVICE WORKERS - RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE OF THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE
BY-LAW NO. 44 OF ONTARIO COLLEGE OF SOCIAL WORKERS AND SOCIAL SERVICE WORKERS - RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE OF THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OCSWSSW - Discipline Committee Rules of Procedure Index Page
More informationPART 6: RESOLVING ISSUES AND PRESERVING RIGHTS
PART 6: RESOLVING ISSUES AND PRESERVING RIGHTS What this Part is about: This Part is designed to resolve issues and questions arising in the course of a Court action. It includes rules describing how applications
More informationDISCLOSURE: THE LEGAL AND ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS IN PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE CASES. Andrew J. Heal
DISCLOSURE: THE LEGAL AND ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS IN PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE CASES Andrew J. Heal ANDREW J. HEAL, PARTNER HEAL & Co. LLP - 2 - DISCLOSURE: THE LEGAL AND ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROSECUTION
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT. SWINTON, THORBURN, and COPELAND JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CITATION: Movati Athletic (Group Inc. v. Bergeron, 2018 ONSC 7258 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-18-2411 DATE: 20181206 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT SWINTON, THORBURN, and COPELAND
More informationRULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF REGISTERED PSYCHOTHERAPISTS AND REGISTERED MENTAL HEALTH THERAPISTS OF ONTARIO INDEX
RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF REGISTERED PSYCHOTHERAPISTS AND REGISTERED MENTAL HEALTH THERAPISTS OF ONTARIO INDEX RULE 1 - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION... 3 1.01 Definitions...
More informationSupreme Court reaffirms low threshold for jurisdiction in recognition and enforcement cases
Supreme Court reaffirms low threshold for jurisdiction in recognition and enforcement cases Ted Brook Litigation Conflict of Laws Foreign Judgments Jurisdiction Enforcement and Recognition Service Ex Juris
More informationChodowski v. Huntsville Professional Building Inc. et al. [Indexed as: Chodowski v. Huntsville Professional Building Inc.]
Chodowski v. Huntsville Professional Building Inc. et al. [Indexed as: Chodowski v. Huntsville Professional Building Inc.] 104 O.R. (3d) 73 2010 ONSC 4897 Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Wood J. September
More informationDo You Know How to Advise Your Client When: Your Client Has Judgment for Possession and Needs You to Obtain a Writ of Possession
Do You Know How to Advise Your Client When: Your Client Has Judgment for Possession and Needs You to Obtain a Writ of Possession Overview Michael S. Myers Papazian Heisey Myers A mortgagee must look beyond
More informationCITATION: Maxrelco Immeubles Inc. v Jim Pattison Industries Ltd ONSC 5836 COURT FILE NO.: DATE: 2017/09/29 ONTARIO
CITATION: Maxrelco Immeubles Inc. v Jim Pattison Industries Ltd. 2017 ONSC 5836 COURT FILE NO.: 10-49174 DATE: 2017/09/29 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: Maxrelco Immeubles Inc. Plaintiff
More informationAssn. of Professional Engineers of Ontario v. Caskanette
[ ] GAZETTE At a hearing held over five days in February and March 2007, PEO s Discipline Committee heard allegations of professional misconduct against Rene G. Caskanette, P.Eng., Jeffrey D. Udall, P.Eng.,
More informationIN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, AS AMENDED - AND - IN THE MATTER OF PETER SBARAGLIA
Ontario Commission des P.O. Box 55, 19 th Floor CP 55, 19e étage Securities valeurs mobilières 20 Queen Street West 20, rue queen ouest Commission de l Ontario Toronto ON M5H 3S8 Toronto ON M5H 3S8 IN
More informationPage: 2 [2] The plaintiff had been employed by the defendant for over twelve years when, in 2003, the defendant sold part of its business to Cimco Ref
COURT FILE NO.: 68/04 DATE: 20050214 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT LANE, MATLOW and GROUND JJ. 2005 CanLII 3384 (ON SCDC B E T W E E N: Patrick Boland Appellant (Plaintiff - and -
More informationTYPES OF MOTIONS Jennifer Griffiths and Marni Miller
TYPES OF MOTIONS Jennifer Griffiths and Marni Miller A motion provides the mechanism for a party in litigation to obtain the court s direction on a limited issue prior to trial. Motions can be used to
More informationA summary of Injurious Affection
A summary of Injurious Affection Where no land of the claimant is expropriated By Devesh Gupta 30 March 2011 For the Ontario Expropriation Association Introduction The Ontario Expropriations Act 1 ( OEA
More informationEMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS
EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS 1. Front sheets... 2 2. Applications to and communications with the Court... 3 3. Provision of copies of authorities... 4 4. Final submissions at hearing...
More informationTechnical Standards and Safety Authority. Rules of Practice
Technical Standards and Safety Authority Rules of Practice APPEALS FILED UNDER SUBSECTION 22.(1) OF THE TECHNICAL STANDARDS & SAFETY ACT, 2000, S.O. 2000, CHAPTER 16 April, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENT TSSA Rules
More informationCode of Procedure for Matters under the Personal Health
HEALTH MARCH 2017 Code of Procedure for Matters under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 CONTENTS PART I INTRODUCTION...1 1. Application...1 2. Purpose and Interpretation...1 3. Definitions...2
More informationENDORSEMENT months' compensation in lieu of notice; damages equal to the value of his employment benefits; and
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO CITATION: Holmes v. Hatch Ltd., 2017 ONSC 379 COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-553456 DATE: 20170202 RE: Paul Holmes, Plaintiff AND: Hatch Ltd., Defendant BEFORE: Pollak J. COUNSEL:
More informationYork Regional Police. Rules for Discipline Hearings under Part V the Police Services Act
York Regional Police Rules for Discipline Hearings under Part V the Police Services Act September 2014 Rules for Discipline Hearings under Part V the Police Services Act Application and General 1.0 These
More informationIN THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL (ON APPEAL FROM THE DIVISIONAL COURT)
Court of Appeal Number: C61116 Divisional Court File No.: 250/14 IN THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL (ON APPEAL FROM THE DIVISIONAL COURT) B E T W E E N: TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY and BRAYDEN VOLKENANAT Applicants
More informationDiscipline Committee Rules
Discipline Committee Rules Revised April 2014 Table Of Contents Rule 1 Definitions 3 Rule 2 Procedural and Interlocutory Motions 3 Rule 3 Production From Third Parties 4 Rule 4 Withdrawal of Allegations
More informationEMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS
EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS 1. Front sheets... 2 2. Applications to and communications with the Court... 3 3. Provision of copies of authorities... 4 4. Final submissions at hearing...
More informationAMENDMENTS TO THE ONTARIO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Toll-free 1.877.262.7762 www.virtualassociates.ca AMENDMENTS TO THE ONTARIO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE This chart is updated as of July 1, 2017. This table is intended as a guideline only. The statutory
More informationPlaintiff counsel beware - It is now easier to dismiss an action for delay
Plaintiff counsel beware - It is now easier to dismiss an action for delay Three recent judgments of the Court of Appeal show that plaintiffs face two serious dangers, should they fail to prosecute their
More informationCase Name: Durling v. Sunrise Propane Energy Group Inc.
Page 1 Case Name: Durling v. Sunrise Propane Energy Group Inc. Between James Durling, Jan Anthony Thomas, John Santoro, Giuseppina Santoro, Anna Manco, Francesco Manco and Cesare Manco, Plaintiffs, and
More informationSmall Claims Court Appeals
Small Claims Court Appeals Todd R. Christensen Introduction Based on my personal experience Tailored to paralegals To help you make better recommendations Precedent appeal materials to de-mystify process
More informationSMALL CLAIMS COURT RULES SUMMARY OF CONTENTS RULE 1 INTERPRETATION
SMALL CLAIMS COURT RULES SUMMARY OF CONTENTS Rule 1. Interpretation Rule 2. Non-Compliance with the Rules Rule 3. Time Rule 4. Parties Under Disability Rule 5. Partners and Sole Proprietorships Rule 6.
More informationCase Name: Gomori v. Greenvilla Development Group Inc.
Case Name: Gomori v. Greenvilla Development Group Inc. Between Gabriel Gomori and Marissa Gomori, Plaintiffs, and Greenvilla Development Group Inc., 1437639 Ontario Ltd., Amadeo Picano, Mediterranean Carpentry
More informationTo Seek a Stay or Not to Seek a Stay
To Seek a Stay or Not to Seek a Stay Paul D. Guy and Scott McGrath; WeirFoulds LLP Is seeking a stay of foreign proceedings a prerequisite to obtaining an anti-suit injunction in Canada? An anti-suit injunction
More informationTHE USE OF NO-FAULT REPORTS BY A TORT DEFENDANT BEASLEY REVISITED, ONE YEAR LATER
THE USE OF NO-FAULT REPORTS BY A TORT DEFENDANT BEASLEY REVISITED, ONE YEAR LATER Materials prepared by: Jim Tomlinson, Adrian Nicolini, Samantha Share Date: November 10, 2011 McCague Borlack LLP Suite
More informationTHE WHY, WHEN AND HOW OF THE MOTION FOR DIRECTION AND ORDER GIVING DIRECTIONS
THE WHY, WHEN AND HOW OF THE MOTION FOR DIRECTION AND ORDER GIVING DIRECTIONS Recommended Best Practices for Passing of Accounts Applications by Fiduciaries The Law Society of Upper Canada Chair: the Honourable
More informationJustice Marvin A. Zuker ONTARIO SMALL CLAIMS COURT PRACTICE
Justice Marvin A. Zuker ONTARIO SMALL CLAIMS COURT PRACTICE Practice Advisor September 20, 2013 Below please find a comprehensive collection of updates to the legislative provisions that have been amended
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
BETWEEN COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Doherty, Epstein and Miller JJ.A. CITATION: Chirico v. Szalas, 2016 ONCA 586 DATE: 20160722 DOCKET: C60439 & M45948 Jim Chirico Medical Health Officer North Bay Parry
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) ) Defendant ) ) ) ) HEARD: September 24, Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992
COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV-333934CP DATE: 20091016 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: 405341 ONTARIO LIMITED Plaintiff - and - MIDAS CANADA INC. Defendant Allan Dick, David Sterns and Sam Hall
More informationSupreme Court of the State of New York County of Nassau IAS Trial Part 22 Part Rules Updated: January 25, 2018
Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Nassau IAS Trial Part 22 Part Rules Updated: January 25, 2018 Justice: Law Secretary: Secretary: Part Clerk: Hon. Sharon M.J. Gianelli, J.S.C. Karen L.
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
Page 1 of 15 Home Feedback Site Map Français Home Court of Appeal for Ontario Superior Court of Justice Ontario Court of Justice Location Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court Appeal Information Package
More informationCARDINAL HEALTH CANADA INC., Defendant ENDORSEMENT. [2] The plaintiff s motion for summary judgment is dismissed.
CITATION: ANDERSON v. CARDINAL HEALTH, 2013 ONSC 5226 COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-471868-0000 DATE: 20130815 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: LILLIAN ANDERSON, Plaintiff AND CARDINAL HEALTH CANADA INC.,
More informationCOUNSEL: Counsel, for the plaintiffs: Adam Moras, Sokoloff Lawyers Fax:
CITATION: Yan et al v. Nabhani, 2015 ONSC 3138 COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-431449 MOTION HEARD: May 4, 2016 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: Zhen Ling Yan and Xiao Qing Li, plaintiffs AND: Esmaeil
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
BETWEEN COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Downer v. The Personal Insurance Company, 2012 ONCA 302 Ryan M. Naimark, for the appellant Lang, LaForme JJ.A. and Pattillo J. (ad hoc) John W. Bruggeman,
More informationAttempting to reconcile Kitchenham and Tanner: Practical considerations in obtaining productions protected by deemed and implied undertakings
Attempting to reconcile Kitchenham and Tanner: Practical considerations in obtaining productions protected by deemed and implied undertakings By Kevin L. Ross and Alysia M. Christiaen, Lerners LLP The
More informationCITATION: R. v. Schertzer, 2012 ONSC 227 COURT FILE NO.: CR487/06 CR837/10 DATE: ONTARIO. ) Milan Rupic, Susan Reid, John Pearson and
CITATION: R. v. Schertzer, 2012 ONSC 227 COURT FILE NO.: CR487/06 CR837/10 DATE: 20120109 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN and Applicant JOHN SCHERTZER, STEVEN CORREIA,
More informationLitigation Process. in the Province. Ontario
Litigation Process in the Province of Ontario Demand Letter This document is only intended to provide a generic outline of the litigation process for educational purposes. The specific details of each
More informationCase Name: Laudon v. Roberts. Between Rick Laudon, Plaintiff, and Will Roberts and Keith Sullivan, Defendants. [2007] O.J. No.
Page 1 Case Name: Laudon v. Roberts Between Rick Laudon, Plaintiff, and Will Roberts and Keith Sullivan, Defendants [2007] O.J. No. 1414 156 A.C.W.S. (3d) 844 49 C.P.C. (6th) 311 2007 CarswellOnt 2191
More informationConstitutional Practice and Procedure in Administrative Tribunals: An Emerging Issue
Constitutional Practice and Procedure in Administrative Tribunals: An Emerging Issue David Stratas Introduction After much controversy, 1 the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that tribunals that have
More informationEFFECTIVE DATE: When Published [Information outdated - Feb. 2000]
Financial Services Commission of Ontario Commission des services financiers de l Ontario SECTION: Procedures - Hearings INDEX NO.: P520-780 TITLE: APPROVED BY: PUBLISHED: Pre-Hearing Conference Procedures
More informationUniform Class Proceedings Act
8-1 Uniform Law Conference of Canada Uniform Class Proceedings Act 8-2 Table of Contents PART I: DEFINITIONS 1 Definitions PART II: CERTIFICATION 2 Plaintiff s class proceeding 3 Defendant s class proceeding
More informationJustice Marvin A. Zuker ONTARIO SMALL CLAIMS COURT PRACTICE
Justice Marvin A. Zuker ONTARIO SMALL CLAIMS COURT PRACTICE Practice Advisor June 28, 2013 Below please find a comprehensive collection of updates to the legislative provisions that have been amended since
More informationAssessment Review Board
Assessment Review Board RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE (made under section 25.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act) INDEX 1. RULES Application and Definitions (Rules 1-2) Interpretation and Effect
More informationCOUNSEL: K. C. Tranquilli, for the Defendants P. Chang and S. Power/Moving Parties D. Gilbert, for the Plaintiffs/Responding Parties
AHERNE et al. v CHANG et al. CITATION: 2012 ONSC2689 COURT FILE NO.: CV-08-358325 DATE: 2012/05/02 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: AHERNE et al. v CHANG et al. MASTER RONNA M. BROTT COUNSEL:
More informationOBJECTION YOUR HONOUR!
OBJECTION YOUR HONOUR! ROBERT S. HARRISON JENNIFER McALEER FASKEN MARTINEAU DuMOULIN LLP THE BASICS What is an Objection? By definition an objection is an interruption. It should only be made when it is
More informationOmbudsman Report Investigation into whether the City of London s Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee held an illegal meeting on March 2, 2015
Ombudsman Report Investigation into whether the s Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee held an illegal meeting on March 2, 2015 André Marin Ombudsman of Ontario Complaint 1 On March 3, 2015, my Office
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
1 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Shaw v. Phipps, 2012 ONCA 155 DATE: 20120313 DOCKET: C53665 Goudge, Armstrong and Lang JJ.A. BETWEEN Michael Shaw and Chief William Blair Appellants and Ronald Phipps
More informationThomas Gorsky and C. Chan, for the Defendant ENDORSEMENT
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO CITATION: CHRISTMAS v. FORT McKAY, 2014 ONSC #373 COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-461796 DATE: 20140128 RE: BERND CHRISTMAS, Plaintiff AND FORT McKAY FIRST NATION, Defendant BEFORE:
More informationAviva Canada Inc. & Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, Defendants
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO CITATION: Romanko v. Aviva, 2017 ONSC 2393 COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV-38350PD2 DATE: 20170419 RE: BEFORE: Omelian Romanko & Neonila Romanko, Plaintiffs AND: Aviva Canada
More informationEMPLOYMENT COURT PRACTICE DIRECTIONS October 2016
EMPLOYMENT COURT PRACTICE DIRECTIONS October 2016 Except to the extent that former Practice Directions are hereby revoked, these directions will apply in addition to those previously issued and which may
More informationRECENT STATEMENTS BY THE COURTS OF ONTARIO ON THE LAW OF COSTS. by Roseanna R. Ansell-Vaughan
RECENT STATEMENTS BY THE COURTS OF ONTARIO ON THE LAW OF COSTS by Roseanna R. Ansell-Vaughan In the last year, the Courts of Ontario have delivered a cluster of decisions on costs that speak to various
More informationHoulden & Morawetz On-Line Newsletter
2012 37 Houlden & Morawetz On-Line Newsletter Date: September 10, 2012 Headlines The Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed the issue of how to distribute commingled funds to the victims of a fraudulent
More informationHALEY WHITTERS and JULIE HENDERSON
CITATION: Whitters v. Furtive Networks Inc., 2012 ONSC 2159 COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-420068 DATE: 20120405 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: HALEY WHITTERS and JULIE HENDERSON - and - FURTIVE NETWORKS
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
COURT FILE NO.: DC06-0065ML DATE: 20070209 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT B E T W E E N: NIAGARA ESCARPMENT COMMISSION Appellant - and - PALETTA REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HALTON CITY
More informationCITATION: Carter et al. v. Minto Management Limited et al., 2017 ONSC 3131 COURT FILE NO.: CV MOTION HEARD:
CITATION: Carter et al. v. Minto Management Limited et al., 2017 ONSC 3131 COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-564220 MOTION HEARD: 20170515 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: Sean Carter and Meghan Somerville,
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS. Eugene Kim, an individual, and Snell & Wilmer L.L.P., an Arizona limited liability partnership, ORDER REVERSED
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2015COA114 Court of Appeals No. 14CA1161 City and County of Denver District Court No. 14CV30628 Honorable Michael A. Martinez, Judge Ledroit Law, a Canadian law firm, Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationTAB 3. Report to Convocation December 1, Paralegal Standing Committee
TAB 3 Report to Convocation December 1, 2017 Paralegal Standing Committee Committee Members Michelle Haigh, Chair Janis Criger, Vice-Chair Marion Boyd Robert Burd Cathy Corsetti Ross Earnshaw Brian Lawrie
More informationSUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FEDERAL COURT AND IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL. A Discussion Paper of the Rules Subcommittee on Summary Judgment
1 SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FEDERAL COURT AND IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL A Discussion Paper of the Rules Subcommittee on Summary Judgment I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of summary judgment is to dispose
More informationRULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE & FITNESS TO PRACTISE COMMITTEE
RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE & FITNESS TO PRACTISE COMMITTEE October 2015 RULES OF PROCEDURE Table of Contents RULE 1 INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION... 4 1.01 DEFINITIONS... 4 1.02 GENERAL
More informationDecision F07-03 MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner. June 22, 2007
Decision F07-03 MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner June 22, 2007 Quicklaw Cite: [2007] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 14 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/other_decisions/decisionfo7-03.pdf
More informationCanadian Triton International, Ltd. (Assignees of) v. National Iranian Oil Co.
Canadian Triton International, Ltd. (Assignees of) v. National Iranian Oil Co. Between Crown Resources Corporation S.A. and Ata Olfati, as Assignees of the Estate of Canadian Triton International, Ltd.,
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO BETWEEN CITATION: Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1352 v. Newport Beach Development Inc., 2012 ONCA 850 DATE: 20121204 DOCKET: C54462 Winkler C.J.O., Laskin
More informationREASONS FOR DECISION. Civil Procedure R R O 1990 Reg 194 the. its brakes in order to avoid a collision with another vehicle
CITATION BAYNE v TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION 2014 ONSC 733 COURT FILE NOs CV 08 348401 and CV 09 386390 MOTION HEARD JANUARY 21 2014 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO RE Angela Bayne v Toronto Transit Commission
More informationTRIALS RULE 52 TRIAL PROCEDURE
TRIALS RULE 52 TRIAL PROCEDURE FAILURE TO ATTEND AT TRIAL 52.01 (1) Where an action is called for trial and all parties fail to attend, the trial judge may strike the action off the trial list. (2) Where
More informationOrder F16-15 DISTRICT OF WEST VANCOUVER. Ross Alexander Adjudicator. March 15, 2016
Order F16-15 DISTRICT OF WEST VANCOUVER Ross Alexander Adjudicator March 15, 2016 CanLII Cite: 2016 BCIPC 17 Quicklaw Cite: [2016] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 17 Summary: An applicant requested that the District
More informationHoule v. St. Jude Medical Inc., 2018 ONCA 88 (CanLII) COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Houle v. St. Jude Medical Inc., 2018 ONCA 88 (CanLII) Date: 2018-02-01 File M48474 number: Citation: Houle v. St. Jude Medical Inc., 2018 ONCA 88 (CanLII), , retrieved on 2018-02-01
More information