IBM Canada Limited (appellant) v. Richard Waterman (respondent) (34472; 2013 SCC 70; 2013 CSC 70) Indexed As: Waterman v. IBM Canada Ltd.
|
|
- Allen Simmons
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IBM Canada Limited (appellant) v. Richard Waterman (respondent) (34472; 2013 SCC 70; 2013 CSC 70) Indexed As: Waterman v. IBM Canada Ltd. Supreme Court of Canada McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ. December 13, Summary: An employer dismissed an employee. The employee's fully paid up pension was triggered by the dismissal. The employee sued for wrongful dismissal. At issue included whether the pension benefits paid to the employee after his dismissal should be deducted from his award. The matter was determined by way of summary trial. The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 376, awarded the employee damages totalling $93, based on a reasonable notice period of 20 months. The court refused to deduct the pension benefits, holding that he was bound by Girling v. Crown Cork & Seal Canada Inc. et al. (B.C.C.A.). The employer appealed. The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 308 B.C.A.C. 304; 521 W.A.C. 304, dismissed the appeal. The employer appealed. The Supreme Court of Canada, McLachlin, C.J.C., and Rothstein, J., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. Contracts - Topic 4023 Remedies for breach - Damages - Extent of liability - Losses attributable to breach - The Supreme Court of Canada, in the context of a case dealing with contract damages, stated that "Considerations other than the extent of the plaintiff's actual loss shape the way the compensation principle is applied and there are well-established exceptions to it. For example, the rule that contract damages compensate only the plaintiff's actual loss is not the only rule that applies to assessing contract damages. As a leading English case put it, 'Damages are measured by the plaintiff's loss, not the defendant's gain. But the common law, pragmatic as ever, has long recognised that there are many commonplace situations where a strict application of this principle would not do justice between the parties. Then compensation for the wrong done to the plaintiff is measured by a different yardstick'... In some cases, for example, an award of damages in contract may be based on the advantage gained by the defendant as a result of the breach rather than the loss suffered by the plaintiff... The rule that damages are measured by the plaintiff's actual loss, while the general rule, does not cover all cases. In addition, through the doctrines of remoteness and mitigation, the compensation principle gives way to considerations of reasonableness in relation to whether the plaintiff's expectations of the contract and his or her conduct in response to the breach of it were reasonable.... Finally, there are well-recognized exceptions in which benefits flowing to plaintiffs are not taken into account even though
2 the result is that they are better off, economically speaking, after the breach than they would have been had there been no breach. These exceptions are ultimately based on factors other than strict compensatory considerations...." - See paragraphs 36 and 37. Damages - Topic 1691 Deductions for payments or assistance by third parties - General - The Supreme Court of Canada, in the context of a case dealing with contract damages, stated that "... a potential compensating advantage [i.e., collateral benefit] problem exists if the plaintiff receives a benefit that would result in compensation of the plaintiff beyond his or her actual loss and either (a) the plaintiff would not have received the benefit but for the defendant's breach, or (b) the benefit is intended to be an indemnity for the sort of loss resulting from the defendant's breach. These factors identify a potential problem with a compensating advantage, but do not decide how it should be resolved." - See paragraph 32. Damages - Topic 1691 Deductions for payments or assistance by third parties - General - The Supreme Court of Canada, in the context of a case dealing with contract damages, stated that a review of the jurisprudence supported the following general propositions (subject to statutory or contractual provisions to the contrary) as to when a compensating advantage (i.e., collateral benefit) should reduce damages otherwise payable by a defendant: "- Benefits have not been deducted if (a) they are not intended to be an indemnity for the sort of loss caused by the breach and (b) the plaintiff has contributed to the entitlement to the benefit... - Benefits have not been deducted where the plaintiff has contributed to an indemnity benefit... - Benefits have been deducted when they are intended to be an indemnity for the sort of loss caused by the breach but the plaintiff has not contributed in order to obtain entitlement to the benefit..." - See paragraph 56. Damages - Topic 1691 Deductions for payments or assistance by third parties - General - The Supreme Court Canada, in the context of a case dealing with whether a "collateral benefit" or a "compensating advantage" received by a plaintiff should reduce contract damages, set out the following conclusions: "(a) There is no single marker to sort which benefits fall within the private insurance exception [to the compensation principle]. (b) One widely accepted factor relates to the nature and purpose of the benefit. The more closely the benefit is, in nature and purpose, an indemnity against the type of loss caused by the defendant's breach, the stronger the case for deduction. The converse is also true. (c) Whether the plaintiff has contributed to the benefit remains a relevant consideration, although the basis for this is debatable. (d) In general, a benefit will not be deducted if it is not an indemnity for the loss caused by the breach and the plaintiff has contributed in order to obtain entitlement to it. (e) There is room in the analysis of the deduction issue for broader policy considerations such as the desirability of equal treatment of those in similar situations, the possibility of providing incentives for socially desirable conduct, and the need for clear rules that are easy to apply." - See paragraph 76. Damages - Topic 1730 Deductions for payments or assistance by third parties - Contractually from employer -
3 General - The Supreme Court of Canada, in the context of a case dealing with contract damages, stated that there were exceptions to the strict application of the principle that the defendant should compensate the plaintiff only for his or her actual loss, the most important of which was the exception for private insurance and other benefits which, for this purpose, were considered analogous to private insurance - That exception applied not only to insurance benefits in the strict sense, but also to other benefits such as pension payments to which an employee had contributed and which were not intended to be an indemnity for the type of loss suffered as a result of the defendant's breach - See paragraph 16. Damages - Topic 1742 Deductions for payments or assistance by third parties - Contractually - From employer - Pensions - [See Damages - Topic 1730]. Damages - Topic 1742 Deductions for payments or assistance by third parties - Contractually - From employer - Pensions - An employee's dismissal triggered his fully paid up pension - The trial judge awarded the employee damages for wrongful dismissal - On appeal, the employer asserted that the judge erred in not deducting the pension benefits from the award - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the dismissal of the appeal - Employee pension payments, including payments from a defined benefits plans, as was the case here, were a type of benefit that should generally not reduce the damages otherwise payable for wrongful dismissal - They fell within the private insurance exception to the compensation principle - Both the nature of the benefit and the parties' intention supported that conclusion - Pension benefits were a form of deferred compensation for the employee's service and constituted a type of retirement savings - They were not intended to be an indemnity for wage los due to unemployment - The parties could not have intended that the employee's retirement savings would be used to subsidize the employee's wrongful dismissal - There was no decision of the court that required deduction of a non-indemnity benefit to which the plaintiff had contributed, like the pension benefits here - See paragraphs 4 and 77 to 98. Damages - Topic 1745 Deductions for payments or assistance by third parties - Contractually - Insurance - General - [See third Damages - Topic 1691 and Damages - Topic 1730]. Damages - Topic 1745 Deductions for payments or assistance by third parties - Contractually - Insurance - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that three main policy considerations had often been advanced to explain why a compensating advantage (i.e., collateral benefit) should or should not be deducted: punishment, deterrence and the provision of incentives for socially responsible behaviour - The private insurance exception was often justified on the basis that deducting the benefit from damages reduced their punitive and deterrent value - The court concluded that it was unsound to rely on a punitive or deterrent justification for the private insurance exception, particularly in breach of contract cases where fault was not an operating concept - See paragraphs 70 and 71.
4 Damages - Topic 5702 Contracts - Breach of contract - Based on loss to the plaintiff - [See Contracts - Topic 4023]. Master and Servant - Topic 8073 Dismissal without cause - Damages - Deduction for pension benefits - [See Damages - Topic 1730 and second Damages - Topic 1742]. Cases Noticed: Sylvester v. British Columbia, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 315; 212 N.R. 51; 91 B.C.A.C. 124; 148 W.A.C. 124, dist. [paras. 10, 110]. Cooper v. Miller (No. 1), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 359; 164 N.R. 81; 41 B.C.A.C. 1; 66 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 24, 115]. Cunningham v. Wheeler - see Cooper v. Miller (No. 1). Phillips v. Western Co. of North America (1992), 953 F.2d 923 (5th Cir.), dist. [paras. 27, 146]. United States of America v. Price (1961), 288 F.2d 448 (4th Cir.), dist. [paras. 27, 146]. Sloas v. CSX Transportation Inc. (2010), 616 F.3d 380 (4th Cir.), refd to. [para. 27]. Parry v. Cleaver, [1970] A.C. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 31, 141]. Ratych v. Bloomer, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 940; 107 N.R. 335; 39 O.A.C. 103, refd to. [para. 31]. Attorney General v. Blake, [2001] 1 A.C. 268 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 36]. Bank of America Canada v. Mutual Trust Co. et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 601; 287 N.R. 171; 159 O.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 43, refd to. [paras. 36, 153]. Redpath v. Belfast and County Down Railway, [1947] N.I. 167 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 39]. Jorgenson v. Cewe (Jack) Ltd., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 812; 32 N.R. 1, dist. [paras. 41, 143]. Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Gill Estate, [1973] S.C.R. 654, dist. [paras. 43, 142]. Grand Trunk Railway v. Beckett (1887), 16 S.C.R. 713, refd to. [para. 43]. Quebec Workmen's Compensation Commission v. Lachance, [1973] S.C.R. 428, refd to. [para. 43]. Guy v. Trizec Equities Ltd., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 756; 27 N.R. 301; 32 N.S.R.(2d) 345; 54 A.P.R. 345, dist. [paras. 44, 142]. Chandler v. Ball Packaging Products Canada Ltd. (1992), 2 C.C.P.B 101 (Ont. Gen. Div.), affd. (1993), 2 C.C.P.B. 99 (Ont. Div. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 47, 125]. Emery v. Royal Oak Mines Inc. (1995), 24 O.R.(3d) 302 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 47]. Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canada (Attorney General) (2003), 301 N.R. 321; 2003 FCA 86, dist. [para. 48]. Bradburn v. Great Western Railway Co. (1874), L.R. 10 Ex. 1, refd to. [para. 54]. National Insurance Co. of New Zealand v. Espagne (1961), 105 C.L.R. 569 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 60]. Graham v. Baker (1961), 106 C.L.R. 340 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 60]. Smoker et al. v. London Fire and Civil Defence Authority et al., [1991] 2 A.C. 502; 139 N.R. 380 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 60]. Hopkins v. Norcross plc, [1993] 1 All E.R. 565 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 60]. Knapton v. ECC Card Clothing Ltd., [2006] I.C.R. 1084, refd to. [para. 60].
5 Gilbert v. Attorney General, [2010] NZCA 421; 8 N.Z.E.L.R. 72, refd to. [para. 60]. Girling v. Crown Cork & Seal Canada Inc. et al. (1995), 63 B.C.A.C. 176; 104 W.A.C. 176; 9 B.C.L.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 110]. Authors and Works Noticed: Burrows, Andrew, Remedies for Torts and Breach of Contract (3rd Ed. 2004), pp. 156 [paras. 26, 29]; 162 [paras. 54, 71]; 163 [para. 71]. Cassels, Jamie, and Adjin-Tettey, Elizabeth, Remedies: The Law of Damages (2nd Ed. 2008), pp. 416 [para. 20]; 420, 421 [para. 39]. Fleming, John G., The Collateral Source Rule and Contract Damages (1983), 71 Cal. L. Rev. 56, pp. 58, 59 [para. 71]. Kaplan, Ari, and Frazer, Mitch, Pension Law (2nd Ed. 2013), pp. 89 [para. 123]; 203 [para. 84]. Marks, John, Symmetrical Use of Universal Damages Principles - Such as the Principles Underlying the Doctrine of Proximate Cause - to Distinguish Breach-Induced Benefits That Offset Liability From Those That Do Not (2009), 55 Wayne L. Rev. 1387, p [para. 71]. McCamus, John D., The Law of Contracts (2nd Ed. 2012), p. 871 [para. 118]. Ogus, A.I., The Law of Damages (1973), pp. 87, 88 [para. 22]; 93 [para. 26]; 94 [paras. 26, 54]; 223 [paras. 39, 77]; 225 [paras. 31, 71]; 226 [paras. 31, 67, 73]; 227 [paras. 67, 73]. Perillo, Joseph M., The Collateral Source Rule in Contract Cases (2009), 46 San Diego L. Rev. 705, pp. 706 [para. 126]; 716 [para. 71]. Sproat, John R., Wrongful Dismissal Handbook (6th Ed. 2012), pp to [para. 90]. Swan, Angela, and Adamski, Jakub, Canadian Contract Law (3rd Ed. 2012), 1.27 [para. 72]. Waddams, Stephen M., The Law of Damages (5th Ed. 2012), ss to [para. 39]; [para. 26]. Counsel: D. Geoffrey Cowper, Q.C., and Lorene A. Novakowski, for the appellant; Christopher J. Watson and Matthew G. Siren, for the respondent. Solicitors of Record: Fasken Martineau DuMoulin, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant; MacKenzie Fujisawa, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent. This appeal was heard on December 14, 2012, by McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was released in both official languages on December 13, 2013, with the following opinions: Cromwell, J., (LeBel, Fish, Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 99; Rothstein, J., dissenting (McLachlin, C.J.C., concurring) - see paragraphs 100 to
6 155. Appeal dismissed. Editor: Gary W. McLaughlin Damages - Topic 1742 Deductions for payments or assistance by third parties - Contractually - From employer - Pensions - The Supreme Court of Canada, in the context of a case dealing with contract damages, stated that there were exceptions to the strict application of the principle that the defendant should compensate the plaintiff only for his or her actual loss, the most important of which was the exception for private insurance and other benefits which, for this purpose, were considered analogous to private insurance - That exception applied not only to insurance benefits in the strict sense, but also to other benefits such as pension payments to which an employee had contributed and which were not intended to be an indemnity for the type of loss suffered as a result of the defendant's breach - See paragraph 16. Damages - Topic 1745 Deductions for payments or assistance by third parties - Contractually - Insurance - General - The Supreme Court Canada, in the context of a case dealing with whether a "collateral benefit" or a "compensating advantage" received by a plaintiff should reduce contract damages, set out the following conclusions: "(a) There is no single marker to sort which benefits fall within the private insurance exception [to the compensation principle]. (b) One widely accepted factor relates to the nature and purpose of the benefit. The more closely the benefit is, in nature and purpose, an indemnity against the type of loss caused by the defendant's breach, the stronger the case for deduction. The converse is also true. (c) Whether the plaintiff has contributed to the benefit remains a relevant consideration, although the basis for this is debatable. (d) In general, a benefit will not be deducted if it is not an indemnity for the loss caused by the breach and the plaintiff has contributed in order to obtain entitlement to it. (e) There is room in the analysis of the deduction issue for broader policy considerations such as the desirability of equal treatment of those in similar situations, the possibility of providing incentives for socially desirable conduct, and the need for clear rules that are easy to apply." - See paragraph 76. Damages - Topic 1745 Deductions for payments or assistance by third parties - Contractually - Insurance - General - The Supreme Court of Canada, in the context of a case dealing with contract damages, stated that there were exceptions to the strict application of the principle that the defendant should compensate the plaintiff only for his or her actual loss, the most important of which was the exception for private insurance and other benefits which, for this purpose, were considered analogous to private insurance - That exception applied not only to insurance benefits in the strict sense, but also to other benefits such as pension payments to which an employee had contributed and which were not intended to be an indemnity for the type of loss suffered as a result of the defendant's breach - See
7 paragraph 16. Damages - Topic 5702 Contracts - Breach of contract - Based on loss to the plaintiff - The Supreme Court of Canada, in the context of a case dealing with contract damages, stated that "Considerations other than the extent of the plaintiff's actual loss shape the way the compensation principle is applied and there are well-established exceptions to it. For example, the rule that contract damages compensate only the plaintiff's actual loss is not the only rule that applies to assessing contract damages. As a leading English case put it, 'Damages are measured by the plaintiff's loss, not the defendant's gain. But the common law, pragmatic as ever, has long recognised that there are many commonplace situations where a strict application of this principle would not do justice between the parties. Then compensation for the wrong done to the plaintiff is measured by a different yardstick'... In some cases, for example, an award of damages in contract may be based on the advantage gained by the defendant as a result of the breach rather than the loss suffered by the plaintiff... The rule that damages are measured by the plaintiff's actual loss, while the general rule, does not cover all cases. In addition, through the doctrines of remoteness and mitigation, the compensation principle gives way to considerations of reasonableness in relation to whether the plaintiff's expectations of the contract and his or her conduct in response to the breach of it were reasonable.... Finally, there are well-recognized exceptions in which benefits flowing to plaintiffs are not taken into account even though the result is that they are better off, economically speaking, after the breach than they would have been had there been no breach. These exceptions are ultimately based on factors other than strict compensatory considerations...." - See paragraphs 36 and 37. Master and Servant - Topic 8073 Dismissal without cause - Damages - Deduction for pension benefits - The Supreme Court of Canada, in the context of a case dealing with contract damages, stated that there were exceptions to the strict application of the principle that the defendant should compensate the plaintiff only for his or her actual loss, the most important of which was the exception for private insurance and other benefits which, for this purpose, were considered analogous to private insurance - That exception applied not only to insurance benefits in the strict sense, but also to other benefits such as pension payments to which an employee had contributed and which were not intended to be an indemnity for the type of loss suffered as a result of the defendant's breach - See paragraph 16. Master and Servant - Topic 8073 Dismissal without cause - Damages - Deduction for pension benefits - An employee's dismissal triggered his fully paid up pension - The trial judge awarded the employee damages for wrongful dismissal - On appeal, the employer asserted that the judge erred in not deducting the pension benefits from the award - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the dismissal of the appeal - Employee pension payments, including payments from a defined benefits plans, as was the case here, were a type of benefit that should generally not reduce the damages otherwise payable for wrongful dismissal - They fell within the private insurance exception to the compensation principle - Both the nature of the benefit and the parties' intention supported that conclusion - Pension benefits were a
8 form of deferred compensation for the employee's service and constituted a type of retirement savings - They were not intended to be an indemnity for wage los due to unemployment - The parties could not have intended that the employee's retirement savings would be used to subsidize the employee's wrongful dismissal - There was no decision of the court that required deduction of a non-indemnity benefit to which the plaintiff had contributed, like the pension benefits here - See paragraphs 4 and 77 to 98.
Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Robert Sarrazin and Darlind Jean (respondents) (33917; 2011 SCC 54; 2011 CSC 54)
Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Robert Sarrazin and Darlind Jean (respondents) (33917; 2011 SCC 54; 2011 CSC 54) Indexed As: R. v. Sarrazin (R.) et al. Supreme Court of Canada McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie,
More informationIndexed As: R. v. J.F. Supreme Court of Canada McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Fish, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Karakatsanis, JJ. March 1, 2013.
J.F. (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (intervenor) (34284; 2013 SCC 12; 2013 CSC 12) Indexed As: R. v. J.F. Supreme Court of Canada McLachlin,
More informationIndexed As: Sun-Rype Products Ltd. et al. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co. et al.
Sun-Rype Products Ltd. and Wendy Weberg (appellants/respondents on cross-appeal) v. Archer Daniels Midland Company, Cargill, Incorporated, Cerestar USA, Inc., formerly known as American Maize-Products
More informationIndexed As: Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Human Rights Commission (N.S.) et al.
Halifax Regional Municipality, a body corporate duly incorporated pursuant to the laws of Nova Scotia (appellant) v. Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, Lucien Comeau, Lynn Connors and Her Majesty the
More informationIndexed As: Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society et al. v. Canada (Attorney General)
Attorney General of Canada (appellant) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society and Sheryl Kiselbach (respondents) and Attorney General of Ontario, Community Legal Assistance Society,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Construction Labour Relations v. Driver Iron Inc., 2012 SCC 65 DATE: 20121129 DOCKET: 34205 BETWEEN: Construction Labour Relations - An Alberta Association Appellant and
More informationIndexed As: McLean v. British Columbia Securities Commission
Patricia McLean (appellant) v. Executive Director of the British Columbia Securities Commission (respondent) and Financial Advisors Association of Canada and Ontario Securities Commission (interveners)
More informationIndexed As: Hopkins v. Ventura Custom Homes Ltd. Manitoba Court of Appeal Hamilton, Chartier, C.J.M., and Beard, JJ.A. July 5, 2013.
William Eric Hopkins and Christa Leigh Hopkins (plaintiffs/respondents) v. Ventura Custom Homes Ltd. (defendant/appellant) (AI 12-30-07742; 2013 MBCA 67) Indexed As: Hopkins v. Ventura Custom Homes Ltd.
More informationHer Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Hussein Jama Nur (respondent)
Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Hussein Jama Nur (respondent) Attorney General of Canada (appellant) v. Hussein Jama Nur (respondent) and Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of British Columbia,
More informationIndexed As: Figueiras v. York (Regional Municipality) et al. Ontario Court of Appeal Rouleau, van Rensburg and Pardu, JJ.A. March 30, 2015.
Paul Figueiras (applicant/appellant) v. Toronto Police Services Board, Regional Municipality of York Police Services Board, and Mark Charlebois (respondents/respondents) (C58771; 2015 ONCA 208) Indexed
More informationIndexed As: Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.) v. Human Rights Tribunal (B.C.) et al.
Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia (appellant) v. Guiseppe Figliola, Kimberley Sallis, Barry Dearden and British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (respondents) and Attorney General of British
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: R. v. Punko, 2012 SCC 39 DATE: DOCKET: 34135, 34193
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Punko, 2012 SCC 39 DATE: 20120720 DOCKET: 34135, 34193 BETWEEN: AND BETWEEN: John Virgil Punko Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Randall Richard Potts
More informationKeith Pridgen and Steven Pridgen (applicants) v. The University of Calgary (respondent) ( ; 2010 ABQB 644)
In The Matter Of Keith Pridgen and Steven Pridgen on Findings of Non-Academic Misconduct on Appeal from the Ad Hoc Review Committee of the General Faculties Council Keith Pridgen and Steven Pridgen (applicants)
More informationIndexed As: Mavi et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.
Attorney General of Canada (appellant) v. Pritpal Singh Mavi, Maria Cristina Jatuff de Altamirano, Nedzad Dzihic, Rania El-Murr, Oleg Grankin, Raymond Hince, Homa Vossoughi and Hamid Zebaradami (respondents)
More informationIndexed As: Boucher v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. et al. Ontario Court of Appeal Hoy, A.C.J.O., Laskin and Tulloch, JJ.A. May 22, 2014.
Meredith Boucher (plaintiff/respondent) v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. and Jason Pinnock (defendants/appellants) (C56243; C56262; 2014 ONCA 419) Indexed As: Boucher v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. et al. Ontario Court
More informationIndexed As: Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. et al. v. Microsoft Corp. et al.
Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. and Neil Godfrey (appellants) v. Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Canada Co./Microsoft Canada CIE (respondents) and Attorney General of Canada (intervener) (34282; 2013 SCC
More informationIndexed As: R. v. Spencer (M.D.)
Matthew David Spencer (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) and Director of Public Prosecutions, Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of Alberta, Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Canadian
More informationHer Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. William Imona Russel (accused) (C51166)
Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. William Imona Russel (accused) (C51166) Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. William Imona Russel (accused) (C51877) Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Paul Whalen
More informationIndexed As: British Columbia Teachers' Federation v. British Columbia Public School Employers' Association
British Columbia Teachers' Federation (appellant/union) v. British Columbia Public School Employers' Association (respondent/employer) (CA039123; 2012 BCCA 326) Indexed As: British Columbia Teachers' Federation
More informationIndexed As: Moore v. Getahun et al. Ontario Court of Appeal Laskin, Sharpe and Simmons, JJ.A. January 29, 2015.
Blake Moore (respondent) v. Dr. Tajedin Getahun, The Scarborough Hospital - General Division, Dr. John Doe and Jack Doe (appellant) (C58338; 2015 ONCA 55) Indexed As: Moore v. Getahun et al. Ontario Court
More informationHer Majesty the Queen (applicant/appellant) v. Richard Gill (respondent/respondent) (C53886; 2012 ONCA 607) Indexed As: R. v. Gill (R.
Her Majesty the Queen (applicant/appellant) v. Richard Gill (respondent/respondent) (C53886; 2012 ONCA 607) Indexed As: R. v. Gill (R.) Ontario Court of Appeal Doherty, Lang and Epstein, JJ.A. September
More informationIndexed As: Murphy v. Amway Canada et al. Federal Court of Appeal Nadon, Gauthier and Trudel, JJ.A. February 14, 2013.
Kerry Murphy (appellant) v. Amway Canada Corporation and Amway Global (respondents) (A-487-11; 2013 FCA 38) Indexed As: Murphy v. Amway Canada et al. Federal Court of Appeal Nadon, Gauthier and Trudel,
More informationThe Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (appellant) v. Thanh Tam Tran (respondent) (A ; 2015 FCA 237)
The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (appellant) v. Thanh Tam Tran (respondent) (A-531-14; 2015 FCA 237) Indexed As: Tran v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
More informationSa Majesté la Reine (appelante) v. Adjudant J.G.A. Gagnon (intimé)
Sa Majesté la Reine (appelante) v. Adjudant J.G.A. Gagnon (intimé) Sa Majesté la Reine (appelante) v. Caporal A.J.R. Thibault (intimé) (CMAC-577; CMAC-581; 2015 CMAC 2; 2015 CACM 2) Indexed As: R. v. Gagnon
More informationRegina (respondent) v. Rajan Singh Mann (appellant) and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (intervenor) (CA040090; 2014 BCCA 231)
Regina (respondent) v. Rajan Singh Mann (appellant) and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (intervenor) (CA040090; 2014 BCCA 231) Indexed As: R. v. Mann (R.S.) British Columbia Court of Appeal
More informationIndexed As: Halifax (Regional Municipality) Pension Committee v. State Street Bank and Trust Co. et al.
The Halifax Regional Municipality Pension Committee (plaintiff) v. State Street Bank and Trust Company and State Street Global Advisors Ltd./Conseillers en Gestion State Street Ltée (defendants) (Hfx.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: Behn v. Moulton Contracting Ltd., 2013 SCC 26 DATE: DOCKET: 34404
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Behn v. Moulton Contracting Ltd., 2013 SCC 26 DATE: 20130509 DOCKET: 34404 BETWEEN: Sally Behn, Susan Behn, Richard Behn, Greg Behn, Rupert Behn, Lovey Behn, Mary Behn,
More informationIndexed As: Infineon Technologies AG et al. v. Option consommateurs et al.
Infineon Technologies AG and Infineon Technologies North America Corp. (appellants) v. Option consommateurs and Claudette Cloutier (respondents) and Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers (intervener)
More informationCindy Fulawka (plaintiff/respondent) v. The Bank of Nova Scotia (defendant/appellant) (C54467; 2012 ONCA 443)
Cindy Fulawka (plaintiff/respondent) v. The Bank of Nova Scotia (defendant/appellant) (C54467; 2012 ONCA 443) Indexed As: Fulawka v. Bank of Nova Scotia Ontario Court of Appeal Winkler, C.J.O., Lang and
More informationHer Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Sheldon Stubbs (appellant) (C51351; 2013 ONCA 514) Indexed As: R. v. Stubbs (S.)
Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Sheldon Stubbs (appellant) (C51351; 2013 ONCA 514) Indexed As: R. v. Stubbs (S.) Ontario Court of Appeal Sharpe, Gillese and Watt, JJ.A. August 12, 2013. Summary:
More informationIndexed As: Canadian National Railway v. Seeley et al. Federal Court Mandamin, J. February 1, 2013.
Canadian National Railway (applicant) v. Denise Seeley and Canadian Human Rights Commission (respondents) and Ontario Human Rights Commission, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communication
More informationIndexed As: Mounted Police Association of Ontario et al. v. Canada (Attorney General)
Mounted Police Association of Ontario/Association de la Police Montée de l'ontario and B.C. Mounted Police Professional Association on their own behalf and on behalf of all members of the Royal Canadian
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Sun-Rype Products Ltd. v. Archer Daniels Midland Company, 2013 SCC 58 DATE: 20131031 DOCKET: 34283 BETWEEN: Sun-Rype Products Ltd. and Wendy Weberg Appellants/Respondents
More informationRichard James Goodwin (appellant) v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) and Attorney General of British Columbia (respondents)
Richard James Goodwin (appellant) v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) and Attorney General of British Columbia (respondents) British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) and Attorney
More informationHer Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Ghassan Salah (appellant) (C46991)
Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Ghassan Salah (appellant) (C46991) Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Randy William Parish (appellant) (C47004) Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Thomas J.
More informationAnd In The Matter of [...] Indexed As: Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, Re. Federal Court Mactavish, J. December 6, 2012.
In The Matter of an Application by [...] for Warrants Pursuant to Sections 16 and 21 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, R.S.C. 1985, C. C-23 (2012 FC 1437) And In The Matter of [...] Indexed
More informationPage: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL. JOHN McGOWAN and CAROLYN McGOWAN THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA
Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL Citation: McGowan v. Bank of Nova Scotia 2011 PECA 20 Date: 20111214 Docket: S1-CA-1202 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND:
More informationHer Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Ronald Jones (respondent) (C52480; 2011 ONCA 632) Indexed As: R. v. Jones (R.)
Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Ronald Jones (respondent) (C52480; 2011 ONCA 632) Indexed As: R. v. Jones (R.) Ontario Court of Appeal MacPherson, Blair and Epstein, JJ.A. October 11, 2011. Summary:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Sun-Rype Products Ltd. v. Archer Daniels Midland Company, 2013 SCC 58 DATE: 20131031 DOCKET: 34283 BETWEEN: Sun-Rype Products Ltd. and Wendy Weberg Appellants/Respondents
More informationIndexed As: Royal Bank of Canada v. Trang. Ontario Court of Appeal Hoy, A.C.J.O., Laskin, Sharpe, Cronk and Blair, JJ.A. December 9, 2014.
Royal Bank of Canada (plaintiff/appellant) v. Phat Trang and Phuong Trang a.k.a. Phuong Thi Trang (defendants) and Bank of Nova Scotia (respondent) (C57306; 2014 ONCA 883) Indexed As: Royal Bank of Canada
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: R. v. Riesberry, 2015 SCC 65 DATE: DOCKET: 36179
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Riesberry, 2015 SCC 65 DATE: 20151218 DOCKET: 36179 BETWEEN: Derek Riesberry Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent CORAM: Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: R. v. Miljevic, 2011 SCC 8 DATE: DOCKET: 33714
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Miljevic, 2011 SCC 8 DATE: 20110216 DOCKET: 33714 BETWEEN: Marko Miljevic Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent CORAM: McLachlin C.J. and Deschamps, Fish,
More informationIndexed As: Thibodeau v. Air Canada. Federal Court of Appeal Pelletier, Gauthier and Trudel, JJ.A. September 25, 2012.
Air Canada (appellant) v. Michel Thibodeau and Lynda Thibodeau (respondents) and The Commissioner of Official Languages (intervener) (A-358-11; 2012 FCA 246; 2012 CAF 246) Indexed As: Thibodeau v. Air
More informationIndexed As: Ouellette v. Saint-André (Rural Community) New Brunswick Court of Appeal Larlee, Richard and Bell, JJ.A. March 14, 2013.
Gisèle Ouellette (applicant/appellant) v. Saint-André, an incorporated Rural Community (respondent) (89-12-CA; 2013 NBCA 21) Indexed As: Ouellette v. Saint-André (Rural Community) New Brunswick Court of
More informationKhosa: Extending and Clarifying Dunsmuir
Khosa: Extending and Clarifying Dunsmuir Andrew Wray, Pinto Wray James LLP Christian Vernon, Pinto Wray James LLP [awray@pintowrayjames.com] [cvernon@pintowrayjames.com] Introduction The Supreme Court
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 informationA LITIGATOR S GUIDE TO DAMAGES January 17, 2017 CONTRACT DAMAGES. *With special thanks to Lesley Campbell, Student-at-Law OVERVIEW
A LITIGATOR S GUIDE TO DAMAGES January 17, 2017 CONTRACT DAMAGES Harvin D. Pitch / Jennifer J. Lake *With special thanks to Lesley Campbell, Student-at-Law OVERVIEW 1. Specific Performance & Mitigation
More informationProceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992
Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 Dianna Louise Parsons, Michael Herbert Cruickshanks, David Tull, Martin Henry Griffen, Anna Kardish, Elsie Kotyk, Executrix of the Estate of Harry Kotyk,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION : Royal Bank of Canada v. Radius Credit Union Ltd., 2010 SCC 48 DATE : 20101105 DOCKET : 33152 BETWEEN: Royal Bank of Canada Appellant and Radius Credit Union Limited Respondent
More informationIndexed As: Kandola v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Federal Court of Appeal Noël, Mainville and Webb, JJ.A. March 31, 2014.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (appellant) v. Nanakmeet Kaur Kandola by her guardian at law Malkiat Singh Kandola (respondent) (A-154-13; 2014 FCA 85) Indexed As: Kandola v. Canada (Minister
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: Lieberman et al. v. Business Development Bank of Canada, 2005 BCSC 389 Date: 20050318 Docket: L041024 Registry: Vancouver Lucien Lieberman and
More informationEmilian Peter (applicant) v. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (respondent) (IMM ; 2014 FC 1073)
Emilian Peter (applicant) v. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (respondent) (IMM-12508-12; 2014 FC 1073) Indexed As: Peter v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
More informationIndexed As: Reference Re Securities Act
In The Matter Of a Reference by the Governor in Council concerning the proposed Canadian Securities Act, as set out in Order in Council P.C. 2010-667, dated May 26, 2010 (33718; 2011 SCC 66; 2011 CSC 66)
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. Resurfice Corp. Appellant and Ralph Robert Hanke Respondent
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Resurfice Corp. v. Hanke, 2007 SCC 7 DATE: 20070208 DOCKET: 31271 BETWEEN: AND BETWEEN: Resurfice Corp. Appellant and Ralph Robert Hanke Respondent LeClair Equipment Ltd.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Tercon Contractors Ltd. v. British Columbia (Transportation and Highways), 2010 SCC 4 BETWEEN: DATE: 20100212 DOCKET: 32460 Tercon Contractors Ltd. Appellant and Her Majesty
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 informationCoram: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ. The following is the judgment delivered by The Court: I. Introduction [1] Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen,
More informationPage: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL
Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Hubley v. Hubley Estate 2011 PECA 19 Date: 20111124 Docket: S1-CA-1211 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND: DENISE
More informationIndexed As: Iyamuremye et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Federal Court Shore, J. May 26, 2014.
Oscar Iyamuremye, Jean de Dieu Ntibeshya, Jeanine Umuhire et Karabo Greta Ineza (partie demanderesse) v. Le Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'immigration (partie défenderesse) (IMM-5282-13; 2014 CF 494;
More informationCase Name: Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board)
Page 1 Case Name: Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board) Cuddy Chicks Limited, appellant; v. Ontario Labour Relations Board and United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: Breeden v. Black, 2012 SCC 19 DATE: DOCKET: 33900
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Breeden v. Black, 2012 SCC 19 DATE: 20120418 DOCKET: 33900 BETWEEN: Richard C. Breeden, Richard C. Breeden & Co., Gordon A. Paris, James R. Thompson, Richard D. Burt,
More informationThe Supreme Court of Canada and Hate Publications: Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Whatcott
The Supreme Court of Canada and Hate Publications: Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Whatcott Tom Irvine Ministry of Justice, Constitutional Law Branch Human Rights Code Amendments May 5, 2014 Saskatoon
More informationCOURT TRACKER SUMMARY REPORT
COURT TRACKER SUMMARY REPORT SUPREME COURT OF CANADA 2000-2016 PORTIA PROCTOR 08 JANUARY 2017 2 ABOUT THE MANNING CENTRE MANNING CENTRE The Manning Centre s vision is of a freer, stronger, better-governed
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Sriskandarajah v. United States of America, 2012 SCC 70 DATE: 20121214 DOCKET: 34009, 34013 BETWEEN: Suresh Sriskandarajah Appellant and United States of America, Minister
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: Mission Institution v. Khela, 2014 SCC 24 DATE: DOCKET: 34609
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Mission Institution v. Khela, 2014 SCC 24 DATE: 20140327 DOCKET: 34609 BETWEEN: Diane Knopf, Warden of Mission Institution, and Harold Massey, Warden of Kent Institution
More informationIMM FC Hassan Samimifar (Plaintiff) 2006 FC 1301 (CanLII)
IMM-6468-03 2006 FC 1301 Hassan Samimifar (Plaintiff) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Her Majesty the Queen (Defendants) INDEXED AS: SAMIMIFAR v. CANADA (MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
More informationIndexed As: Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. Federal Court Mactavish, J. April 18, 2012.
Canadian Human Rights Commission (applicant) v. Attorney General of Canada, First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, Assembly of First Nations, Chiefs of Ontario, Amnesty International (respondents)
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: R. v. J.F., 2013 SCC 12 DATE: DOCKET: 34284
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. J.F., 2013 SCC 12 DATE: 20130301 DOCKET: 34284 BETWEEN: J.F. Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent - and - British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
More informationA.I. Enterprises Ltd. and Alan Schelew (appellants) v. Bram Enterprises Ltd. and Jamb Enterprises Ltd. (respondents) ( CA; 2012 NBCA 33)
A.I. Enterprises Ltd. and Alan Schelew (appellants) v. Bram Enterprises Ltd. and Jamb Enterprises Ltd. (respondents) (108-10-CA; 2012 NBCA 33) Indexed As: Bram Enterprises Ltd. et al. v. A.I. Enterprises
More informationRecent Developments in the Canadian Law of Contract
Honest Performance and Absolutely Everything Else By Ryan P. Krushelnitzky and Sandra L. Corbett QC Recent Developments in the Canadian Law of Contract Bhasin and Sattva represent important changes and
More informationIndexed As: William v. British Columbia et al. British Columbia Court of Appeal Levine, Tysoe and Groberman, JJ.A. June 27, 2012.
Roger William, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the Xeni Gwet'in First Nations Government and on behalf of all other members of the Tsilhqot'in Nation (respondent/plaintiff) v. Her
More informationIndexed As: Bank of Montreal v. Rogozinsky. Alberta Court of Queen's Bench Judicial District of Edmonton Schlosser, Master December 16, 2014.
Bank of Montreal (plaintiff and defendant by counterclaim) v. Aileen J. Rogozinsky also known as Aileen Janet Rogozinsky (defendant and plaintiff by counterclaim) (1403 09800; 2014 ABQB 771) Indexed As:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Régie des rentes du Québec v. Canada Bread Company Ltd., 2013 SCC 46 DATE: 20130913 DOCKET: 34505 BETWEEN: Régie des rentes du Québec Appellant and Canada Bread Company
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. APPEAL HEARD: March 28, 2017 JUDGMENT RENDERED: December 15, 2017 DOCKET: and. Edward Schrenk Respondent.
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal v. Schrenk, 2017 SCC 62 APPEAL HEARD: March 28, 2017 JUDGMENT RENDERED: December 15, 2017 DOCKET: 37041 BETWEEN: British Columbia
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. The Queen, 2011 SCC 3 DATE: DOCKET: 32987
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. The Queen, 2011 SCC 3 DATE: 20110128 DOCKET: 32987 BETWEEN: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen and Stéphan
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. v. Ontario (Transportation), 2013 SCC 13 DATE: 20130307 DOCKET: 34413 BETWEEN: Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen in
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. LeBel J.
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Graveline, 2006 SCC 16 [2006] S.C.J. No. 16 DATE: 20060427 DOCKET: 31020 BETWEEN: Rita Graveline Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent OFFICIAL ENGLISH
More informationCHRONOLOGY. Margot often told her daughter, Danielle Tuck ( Danielle ) that she believes in an afterlife and is not afraid of dying.
1 CHRONOLOGY 1950s 1960s-70s Nov. 24, 1991 Dec. 1999 The Petitioner, Margot Bentley ( Margot ) graduated as a registered nurse and began working with patients, frequently including those suffering from
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Awashish, 2018 SCC 45 APPEAL HEARD: February 7, 2018 JUDGMENT RENDERED: October 26, 2018 DOCKET: 37207 BETWEEN: Her Majesty The Queen Appellant and Justine Awashish
More informationIMPORTANT EXPLANATORY NOTE:
ELLYNLAW.COM IMPORTANT EXPLANATORY NOTE: The following article was published in 1994 in the National Law Journal http://www.law.com. Although the legal principles in it are still applicable, there has
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And A & G Investment Inc. v. 0915630 B.C. Ltd., 2013 BCSC 1784 A & G Investment Inc. 0915630 B.C. Ltd. Date: 20130927 Docket: S132980 Registry:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Human Resources and Social Development), 2011 SCC 60 DATE: 20111208 DOCKET: 33511 BETWEEN: Attorney General of Quebec Appellant and
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 informationA RE-FORMULATION OF THE INTERJURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITY DOCTRINE
A RE-FORMULATION OF THE INTERJURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITY DOCTRINE Case comment on: Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta 2007 SCC 22; and British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Lafarge 2007 SCC 23. Presented To:
More informationCanadian Systems of Law Contract and Tort Law for Professionals There are two systems of law that operate in Canada: Common Law and Civil Law.
Canadian Systems of Law Contract and Tort Law for Professionals There are two systems of law that operate in Canada: Common Law and Civil Law. Common Law operates in all Canadian Provinces and territories
More informationHer Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Z. (A.A.) (young person/accused/appellant) (AY ; 2013 MBCA 33) Indexed As: R. v. A.A.Z.
Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Z. (A.A.) (young person/accused/appellant) (AY 11-30-07655; 2013 MBCA 33) Indexed As: R. v. A.A.Z. Manitoba Court of Appeal Scott, C.J.M., Hamilton and Beard, JJ.A.
More informationIndexed As: Iamkhong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al. Federal Court Noël, J. March 24, 2011.
Suwalee Iamkhong (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (respondents) (IMM-3693-10; 2011 FC 355) Indexed As: Iamkhong v.
More informationFD: FD: DT:D DN: 357/93 STY:Ontario Hydro v. Frontier Hydraulics Ltd. PANEL: Faubert; M. Cook; Ronson DDATE: ACT: *10(12) KEYW: Right to sue
FD: FD: DT:D DN: 357/93 STY:Ontario Hydro v. Frontier Hydraulics Ltd. PANEL: Faubert; M. Cook; Ronson DDATE:220793 ACT: *10(12) KEYW: Right to sue (third party claims); Damages, contribution or indemnity.
More informationTHE REALITY OF TENDERING WHY REAL ESTATE LAWYERS GIVE FUEL FOR LITIGATORS TO SUE THEM
THE REALITY OF TENDERING WHY REAL ESTATE LAWYERS GIVE FUEL FOR LITIGATORS TO SUE THEM Safeguarding the transaction-the old school rules Much has been written about tendering and the hows and whys of doing
More informationHer Majesty the Queen v. Augustus Roderick Hancock (2015 NLPC 1313A00983) Indexed As: R. v. Hancock (A.R.)
Her Majesty the Queen v. Augustus Roderick Hancock (2015 NLPC 1313A00983) Indexed As: R. v. Hancock (A.R.) Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court Gorman, P.C.J. March 2, 2015. Summary: The accused
More informationA.M.R.I. (applicant/respondent on appeal) v. K.E.R. (respondent/appellant on appeal) (C52822; 2011 ONCA 417) Indexed As: A.M.R.I. v. K.E.R.
A.M.R.I. (applicant/respondent on appeal) v. K.E.R. (respondent/appellant on appeal) (C52822; 2011 ONCA 417) Indexed As: A.M.R.I. v. K.E.R. Ontario Court of Appeal Cronk, Gillese and MacFarland, JJ.A.
More informationR. v. H. (S.) Defences Automatism Insane and non-insane
88 [Indexed as: R. v. H. (S.)] Her Majesty the Queen, Appellant and S.H., Respondent Ontario Court of Appeal Docket: CA C56874 2014 ONCA 303 Robert J. Sharpe, David Watt, M.L. Benotto JJ.A. Heard: January
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 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 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 information% AND: FACTUM OF THE INTERVENOR COUNCIL OF FOREST INDUSTRIES. No. CA Vancouver Registry COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN:
No. CA024761 Vancouver Registry COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: AND: CHIEF COUNCILLOR MATHEW HILL, also known as Tha-lathatk, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the Kitkatla Band, and KITKATLA
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Alberta v. Elder Advocates of Alberta Society, 2011 SCC 24 DATE: 20110512 DOCKET: 33551 BETWEEN: Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Alberta Appellant and Elder Advocates
More informationCourt of Appeal on Smith v. Inco: Rylands v. Fletcher Revisited By Michael S. Hebert and Cheryl Gerhardt McLuckie*
Court of Appeal on Smith v. Inco: Rylands v. Fletcher Revisited By Michael S. Hebert and Cheryl Gerhardt McLuckie* In October 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its much anticipated decision in
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
BETWEEN CITATION: Abou-Elmaati v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 ONCA 95 DATE: 20110207 DOCKET: C52120 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Sharpe, Watt and Karakatsanis JJ.A. Ahmad Abou-Elmaati, Badr Abou-Elmaati,
More information2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Br...
Page 1 of 7 COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Brokers), 2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation and Keith
More information