A.I. Enterprises Ltd. and Alan Schelew (appellants) v. Bram Enterprises Ltd. and Jamb Enterprises Ltd. (respondents) ( CA; 2012 NBCA 33)
|
|
- Amelia Gardner
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 A.I. Enterprises Ltd. and Alan Schelew (appellants) v. Bram Enterprises Ltd. and Jamb Enterprises Ltd. (respondents) ( CA; 2012 NBCA 33) Indexed As: Bram Enterprises Ltd. et al. v. A.I. Enterprises Ltd. et al. Répertorié: Bram Enterprises Ltd. et al. v. A.I. Enterprises Ltd. et al. New Brunswick Court of Appeal Robertson, Bell and Green, JJ.A. April 12, Summary: Résumé: apartment building. The relationship between the parties was regulated by a "syndication agreement". The syndication agreement provided that if the majority decided to sell, the minority would have the right to purchase the building at its appraised value, failing which the property could be marketed to the public. In April 2000, resolutions were passed calling for the sale of the building. A.I. Enterprises, the minority investor, objected, but declined the opportunity to purchase the building at its appraised value of $2.2 million. Nonetheless, Schelew, the president and sole shareholder of A.I. Enterprises, continued to resist any sale of the property on the ostensible ground of the majority's non-compliance with the syndication agreement. Schelew instituted arbitration proceedings, registered documents encumbering the property's title and denied third parties access to the building for inspection purposes. During that time, the majority received and accepted two offers from distinct purchasers, one for $2.58 million and the other for $2.5 million. However, neither transaction closed without either vendor or purchaser being in breach of the underlying agreement of purchase and sale. In 2002, the majority sold the building to the A.I. Enterprises for its most recent appraised value of $2.2 million. The majority investors (Bram Enterprises and Jamb Enterprises) sued Schelew and A.I. Enterprises for damages equal to the difference between what the majority would have received, had the property sold to one of the two prospective purchasers in 2000, and the price which the minority paid. The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, allowed the claim (see 2010 NBQB 245). The court concluded that the tort of unlawful interference with economic relations had been established. Bram Enterprises and Jamb Enterprises were each awarded damages of $183,061, and costs of $14,478. Schelew and A.I. Enterprises appealed. The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Damages - Topic 4044 Interference with economic relations - Interference with business relations - Measure of damages - [See fifth ].
2 Interference with economic relations - Elements of liability - Use of unlawful means - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal discussed the tort of inducing breach of contract (A induces B to breach its contract with C) and the unlawful means tort (A induces B not to contract with C) - The court stated that "While the two torts differ in several respects, one is palpable. The inducement tort must involve a breach of contract. Not so with respect to the unlawful means tort. The interference may simply prevent the formation of a contract or its due performance without resulting in a breach. The second difference is that the inducement tort is not concerned with the means chosen to induce the breach of contract. In short, it matters not whether the means chosen are lawful or unlawful. Obviously, not so with respect to the unlawful means tort, where the task is to properly define 'unlawful means'. Another difference between the two torts lies in the requirement of establishing 'intent'. Under the inducement tort, the claimant must establish the defendant's intent to induce the breach. Under the unlawful means tort, the claimant must establish the defendant's intent to cause the claimant harm" - See paragraph 2. Interference with economic relations - Elements of liability - Use of unlawful means - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal examined the unlawful means tort and the issue of whether the Court should adopt the narrow definition of "unlawful means" articulated in the majority opinion of Lord Hoffmann in OBG Ltd. et al. v. Allan et al. (H.L.) - Therein, "unlawful means" were defined in terms of the defendant's impugned acts being independently actionable by the third party, or would have been had the third party suffered a loss - In short, unlawful interference embraced an actionable civil wrong committed against a third party - The critical issue was whether the independent actionability requirement should be flexible and allow for exceptions, or exceptional categories, which were principled in nature and did not attract the criticism of ad hoc decision making - The court concluded that that question should be answered in the affirmative - See paragraphs 3 to 5. Interference with economic relations - Elements of liability - Use of unlawful means - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal provided an overview of the intentional economic torts dealing with interference of contractual relations as viewed from the analysis offered in OBG Ltd. et al. v. Allan et al. (H.L.) - The court also considered the Canadian framework - The court stated that "This leads me to the point where this Court must isolate the essential tenets of the unlawful means tort. Building upon OBG and the earlier Canadian precedents, including Sagaz, I would offer the following general model which may, with the fullness of time, need refinement. The plaintiff/claimant must establish: (1) the existence of a valid business relationship between the claimant and the third party; (2) the defendant knew or ought to have known of the relationship; (3) the defendant's interference prevented the formation of a contract or its performance in circumstances where there is no breach of an existing contract; (4) the defendant's impugned conduct must qualify as unlawful means or as warranting exceptional treatment; (5) the unlawful means must not be actionable directly by the claimant; (6) the defendant must have intended to cause the claimant harm; and (7) the defendant's conduct must have been the proximate cause of the claimant's loss. From the defendant's perspective, the analytical framework should embrace: (8) the
3 defence of justification" - The court elaborated on the defence of justification - See paragraphs 23 to 59. Interference with economic relations - Elements of liability - Use of unlawful means - apartment building - A "syndication agreement" which regulated the parties' relationship provided that if the majority decided to sell, the minority would have the right to purchase the building at its appraised value, failing which the property could be marketed to the public - In April 2000, resolutions were passed calling for the sale of the building - A.I. Enterprises, the minority investor, objected, but declined the opportunity to purchase the building at its appraised value of $2.2 million - Nonetheless, Schelew, the president and sole shareholder of A.I. Enterprises, continued to resist any sale on the ostensible ground of the majority's non-compliance with the syndication agreement - Schelew instituted arbitration proceedings, registered documents encumbering the property's title and denied third parties access to the building for inspection purposes - During that time, the majority received and accepted two offers from distinct purchasers, one for $2.58 million and the other for $2.5 million - However, neither transaction closed without either vendor or purchaser being in breach of the underlying agreement of purchase and sale - In 2002, the majority sold the building to A.I. Enterprises for its most recent appraised value of $2.2 million - The majority investors sued Schelew and A.I. Enterprises for damages equal to the difference between what the majority would have received, had the property sold to one of the two prospective purchasers in 2000, and the price which the minority paid - The claim was allowed - The trial judge concluded that the tort of unlawful interference with economic relations had been established - Schelew and A.I. Enterprises appealed - The decision in OBG Ltd. et al. v. Allan et al. (H.L.) had not been brought to the trial judge's attention - Applying the definition of "unlawful means" articulated in that case, the appellants argued that the appeal had to be allowed as there was no cause of action upon which the potential purchasers could have sued either Schelew or A.I. Enterprises (the independent actionability requirement) - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The court held that the independent actionability requirement should allow for exceptions, or exceptional categories, which were principled in nature and this case fell within an exceptional category - Although the impugned conduct of Schelew and A.I. Enterprises did not satisfy the requirement of being independently actionable by a third party, the facts of the case were akin to the tort of abuse of process - See paragraphs 6 to 9 and 78 to 83. Interference with economic relations - Elements of liability - Use of unlawful means - apartment building - The trial judge found that the minority investor (A.I. Enterprises) and its president and sole shareholder (Schelew) committed the tort of unlawful interference with economic relations by their conduct in resisting a sale of the property by the majority investors - The majority investors had received and accepted two offers, one from Bloomfield Holdings Ltd. for $2.58 million and the other from Greenarm Development Ltd. for $2.5 million - Both Bloomfield and Greenarm had subsequently withdrawn from
4 the transaction - Schelew and A.I. Enterprises appealed - They argued that the respondents failed to establish that the appellants' conduct was the proximate cause of the decision of either Bloomfield or Greenarm to withdraw from their respective sales contracts - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal held that the plaintiffs failed to establish that Schelew's actions were the proximate cause of Bloomfield's decision to withdraw from the sale transaction - However, the reason underscoring Greenarm's decision to withdraw was based entirely on Schelew's conduct - The court therefore rejected the appellants' "temporal" and "proximate cause" arguments - See paragraphs 63 to 70 - With respect to damages, the trial judge's decision to assess damages based on the selling price under the Bloomfield agreement ($2.58 million) was justified - While the respondents failed to establish that the appellants were the proximate cause of Bloomfield's decision to withdraw, that did not mean that Bloomfield's offer to pay $2.58 million was not relevant when establishing the fair market value of the property - See paragraph 88. Interference with economic relations - Elements of liability - Use of unlawful means - apartment building - The trial judge found that the minority investor (A.I. Enterprises) and its president and sole shareholder (Schelew) committed the tort of unlawful interference with economic relations by their conduct in resisting a sale of the property by the majority investors - The majority investors had received and accepted offers from two distinct purchasers who had subsequently withdrawn from the transaction - Schelew and A.I. Enterprises appealed - They argued that to establish the requisite intent, a plaintiff had to establish that the defendant knew of the contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the third party - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal rejected the argument - Schelew knew that various persons were negotiating with the majority investors and that was sufficient to satisfy the legal requirement that the defendant have knowledge of the claimant's business relationship with third parties - More importantly, it had not been shown why the identity of the potential purchasers and the terms of any executory contract should impact on the establishment of the tort - See paragraphs 71 to 75. Torts - Topic 5024 Interference with economic relations - Elements of liability - Malice or intent to injure - apartment building - The trial judge found that the minority investor (A.I. Enterprises) and its president and sole shareholder (Schelew) committed the tort of unlawful interference with economic relations by their conduct in resisting a sale of the property by the majority investors - The majority investors had received and accepted offers from two distinct purchasers who had subsequently withdrawn from the transaction - Schelew and A.I. Enterprises appealed - They argued that in order to establish the requisite intent, a claimant had to establish that the unlawful conduct was deliberately targeted with the purpose of inflicting economic injury on the claimant - Correlatively, intent had not been established if the harm was simply an incidental or foreseeable result of the defendant's unlawful conduct - The appellants maintained the present case fell within that framework - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not err - The court stated, inter alia, "one can properly conclude the injury to the respondent investors was the means of
5 attaining the appellants' desired end of preventing any sale of the property and not merely a foreseeable consequence of having done so" - See paragraphs 76 to 77. Torts - Topic 5208 Interference with economic relations - Contracts - Inducing breach of contract - [See first ]. Torts - Topic 5210 Interference with economic relations - Contracts - Interference with contractual rights - [See all ]. Torts - Topic 5215 Interference with economic relations - Contracts - Defences - Justification - [See third ]. Délits civils - Cote 5023 Atteintes aux relations économiques - l ments de responsabilit - Usage de moyens ill gaux - [Voir ]. Délits civils - Cote 5024 Atteintes aux relations économiques - l ments de responsabilit - Malice ou causer intentionnellement un pr judice - [Voir Torts - Topic 5024]. Délits civils - Cote 5208 Atteintes aux relations économiques - Contrats - Incitation à la rupture de contrat - [Voir Torts - Topic 5208]. Délits civils - Cote 5210 Atteintes aux relations économiques - Contrats - Atteintes aux droits contractuels - [Voir Torts - Topic 5210]. Délits civils - Cote 5215 Atteinte aux relations économiques - Contrats - Moyens de défense - Justification - [Voir Torts - Topic 5215]. Dommages-intérêts - Cote 4044 Atteinte aux relations économiques - Atteinte aux relations commerciales - Base d'évaluation des dommages-intérêts - [Voir Damages - Topic 4044]. Cases Noticed: Lumley v. Gye (1853), 118 E.R. 749 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 2]. Allen v. Flood, [1898] A.C. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 2]. OBG Ltd. et al. v. Allan et al., [2007] 4 All E.R. 545; [2007] 1 A.C. 1; 369 N.R. 66; [2007] UKHL 21, consd. [para. 2]. Alleslev-Krofchak et al. v. Valcom Ltd. et al. (2010), 266 O.A.C. 356; 2010 ONCA 557, refd to. [para. 5].
6 Correia v. Canac Kitchens et al. (2008), 240 O.A.C. 153; 91 O.R.(3d) 353; 2008 ONCA 506, refd to. [para. 5]. Total Network SL v. United Kingdom (Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs) (2008), 385 N.R. 310; [2008] UKHL 19, refd to. [para. 5]. Agribrands Purina Canada Inc. v. Kasamekas et al. (2011), 278 O.A.C. 363; 106 O.R.(3d) 427; 2011 ONCA 460, refd to. [para. 5]. SAR Petroleum Inc. et al. v. Peace Hills Trust Co. (2010), 357 N.B.R.(2d) 202; 923 A.P.R. 202; 2010 NBCA 22, refd to. [para. 18]. Carnahan v. McGregor and Whalen (1994), 149 N.B.R.(2d) 342; 381 A.P.R. 342 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21]. Dufferin Real Estate Ltd. v. Giralico, [1989] O.J. No (H.C.J.), refd to. [para. 21]. Reid et al. v. Egg Marketing Board (B.C.), [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. B21; 2007 BCSC 155, refd to. [para. 22]. D.C. Thomson & Co. Ltd. v. Deakin and Others, [1952] 1 Ch. 646 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25]. Rookes v. Barnard, [1964] A.C (H.L.), refd to. [para. 30]. South Wales Miners' Federation v. Glamorgan Coal Co., [1905] A.C. 239 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 35]. RCA Corporation v. Pollard, [1983] Ch. 135 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40]. OBG Ltd. v. Allen, [2005] EWCA Civ. 106, refd to. [para. 42]. Roman Corp. v. Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Co., [1973] S.C.R. 820, refd to. [para. 44]. International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Therien, [1960] S.C.R. 265, refd to. [para. 44]. Canada Cement LaFarge Ltd. et al. v. British Columbia Lightweight Aggregate Ltd. et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 452; 47 N.R. 191, refd to. [para. 44]. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Canada, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 205; 45 N.R. 425, refd to. [para. 44]. Torquay Hotel C. Ltd. v. Cousins and Others, [1969] 1 All E.R. 522 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47] Ontario Ltd. v. Sagaz Industries Canada Inc. et al. (1998), 67 O.T.C. 22 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 49]. Mallard v. Saskatchewan Financial Services Commission et al., [2011] Sask.R. Uned. 30; 2011 SKCA 38, refd to. [para. 52]. Conway et al. v. Zinkhofer, [2008] A.R. Uned. 306; 2008 ABCA 392, refd to. [para. 52]. Reach M.D. Inc. v. Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada et al. (2003), 172 O.A.C. 202 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52]. Lineal Group Inc. v. Atlantis Canadian Distributors Inc., [1998] O.A.C. Uned. 450 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53]. Drouillard v. Cogeco Cable Inc. et al. (2007), 223 O.A.C. 350; 2007 ONCA 322, refd to. [para. 53]. O'Dwyer v. Ontario Racing Commission (2008), 238 O.A.C. 364; 2008 ONCA 446, refd to. [para. 53]. Barber et al. v. Vrozos et al. (2010), 269 O.A.C. 108; 322 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 2010 ONCA 570, refd to. [para. 53]. Print N' Promotion (Canada) Ltd. v. Kovachis et al. (2011), 271 O.A.C. 214; 2011 ONCA 23, refd to. [para. 58]. Doucet et al. v. Spielo Manufacturing Inc. et al. (2011), 372 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 961 A.P.R. 1; 2011 NBCA 44, refd to. [para. 85].
7 S. & S. Industries Inc. v. Rowell, [1966] S.C.R. 419; 56 D.L.R.(2d) 501, refd to. [para. 86]. Skinner v. Perry (1893), 10 R.P.C. 1, refd to. [para. 86]. Tersigni v. Fagan, [1959] O.J. No. 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 86]. Pete and Martys (Front) Ltd. v. Market Block Toronto Properties Ltd., [1985] O.J. No. 564 (H.C.J.), refd to. [para. 86]. Geo. Cluthe Manufacturing Co. et al. v. ZTW Properties Inc. et al. (1995), 81 O.A.C. 141 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 86]. Schurman v. Covered Bridge Recreation Inc. (2009), 340 N.B.R.(2d) 168; 871 A.P.R. 168; 2009 NBCA 1, refd to. [para. 88]. Authors and Works Noticed: Burns, Peter T., and Blom, Joost, Economic Interests in Canadian Tort Law (2009), [para. 45]. Burns, Peter, Tort Injury To Economic Interests: Some Facets Of Legal Response (1980), 58 Can. B. Rev. 103, p. 141 [para. 46]. Fridman, Gerald Henry Louis, The Law of Torts in Canada (3rd Ed. 2010), [para. 45]. Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed. 1985), vol. 45, para [para. 86]. Klar, Lewis N., Tort Law (4th Ed. 2008), [para. 45]. Osborne, Philip, The Law of Torts (2nd Ed. 2003), p. 238 [para. 83]. O'Sullivan, Janet, Intentional Economic Torts in the House of Lords, [2007] C.L.J. 503, pp. 504 [para. 25]; 505 [para. 27]. O'Sullivan, Janet, Unlawful Means Conspiracy in the House of Lords, [2008] C.L.J. 459, [para. 32]. Prosser, William Lloyd, and Keeton, W. Page, Prosser and Keeton on Torts (5th ed. 1984), p [para. 21]. Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (3rd Ed. 2009), para [para. 65]. Counsel: Avocats: Richard J. Scott, Q.C., and Jennifer D. Snow, for the appellants; Charles A. LeBlond, Q.C., for the respondents. This appeal was heard on November 23, 2011, before Robertson, Bell and Green, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Robertson, J.A., on April 12, Editor: Angela E. McKay Appeal dismissed.
Indexed 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 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 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 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: 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 (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 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 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 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 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 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: 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: 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 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 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: 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: 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: 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 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 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 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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Sportstown B.C. Holdings Ltd. v. British Columbia Soccer Association, 2013 BCSC 2017 Sportstown B.C. Holdings Ltd. and Total Soccer Systems
More informationCommercial Litigation. Update
A P R I L 2 0 1 4 Commercial Litigation Update EDITOR: John Polyzogopoulos 416.593.2953 jpolyzogopoulos@blaney.com This newsletter is designed to bring news of changes to the law, new law, interesting
More informationIndexed As: Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al.
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, High River Limited Partnership, Philip Services Corp. by its receiver and manager, Robert Cumming (plaintiffs/appellants) v. Deloitte & Touche, Deloitte & Touche LLP,
More informationIBM Canada Limited (appellant) v. Richard Waterman (respondent) (34472; 2013 SCC 70; 2013 CSC 70) Indexed As: Waterman v. IBM Canada Ltd.
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,
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 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 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 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 informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
BETWEEN COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Intact Insurance Company v. Kisel, 2015 ONCA 205 DATE: 20150326 DOCKET: C59338 and C59339 Laskin, Simmons and Watt JJ.A. Intact Insurance Company and Yaroslava
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 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 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 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: 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: 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 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: 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 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 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 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 informationCraig T. Lockwood, for the Defendants B.C. Ltd. o/a Canada Drives and o/a GDC Auto and Cody Green REASONS FOR DECISION
CITATION: Kings Auto Ltd. v. Torstar Corporation, 2018 ONSC 2451 COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-551919CP DATE: 20180418 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: KINGS AUTO LTD. and SAPNA INC., Plaintiffs
More informationPolluter Pays Doctrine Underscored: Section 99(2) of the EPA Applied: Some Thoughts on Midwest Properties Ltd. v. Thordarson, 2015 ONCA 819
1 Polluter Pays Doctrine Underscored: Section 99(2) of the EPA Applied: Some Thoughts on Midwest Properties Ltd. v. Thordarson, 2015 ONCA 819 Some Thoughts by the Lawyers at Willms & Shier Environmental
More informationUSE OF EVIDENCE FROM PREVIOUS TRIAL. Rule 263 provides as follows with respect to use of evidence from one trial in another proceeding:
USE OF EVIDENCE FROM PREVIOUS TRIAL By Tell Stephen and Bottom Line Research & Communications Rule 263 provides as follows with respect to use of evidence from one trial in another proceeding: 263. An
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 informationHer 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 informationIs there really any question about the test for part performance in Alberta? by Jonnette Watson Hamilton
Is there really any question about the test for part performance in Alberta? by Jonnette Watson Hamilton G 400 Holdings Ltd. v. Yeoman Development Company Limited, 2008 ABQB 667 http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb%5c2003-%5cqb%5ccivil%5c2008%5c2008abqb0667.pdf
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 informationPRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW SUMMARY 2011
PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW SUMMARY 2011 LAWSKOOL CANADA CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION TO PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW... 5 1.1 WHAT IS PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW?... 5 1.2 TERRITORIAL DIMENSIONS OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL
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 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 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 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 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 informationGood Faith and Honesty: Bhasin v Hrynew
Good Faith and Honesty: Bhasin v Hrynew June 9, 2015 Toronto, Ontario Marc Kestenberg, Partner, Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP Marlo Kravetsky, Senior Counsel, TD Bank Group Deborah Reine, Senior Counsel,
More informationA CHANGING LANDSCAPE IN CONSUMER CLASS ACTIONS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA (AND BEYOND)
A CHANGING LANDSCAPE IN CONSUMER CLASS ACTIONS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA (AND BEYOND) Brad W. Dixon BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP Introduction British Columbia courts continue to grapple with efforts by plaintiffs
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Citation: Gringmuth v. The Corp. of the Dist. of North Vancouver Date: 20000524 2000 BCSC 807 Docket: C995402 Registry: Vancouver IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: AXEL GRINGMUTH PLAINTIFF
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA
Citation: Brar v Brar et al, 2018 MBCA 87 Date: 20180912 Docket: AI17-30-08903 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Madam Justice Freda M. Steel Mr. Justice Christopher J. Mainella Madam Justice Jennifer
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20180914 Docket: CI 13-01-85087 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Paterson et al. v. Walker et al. Cited as: 2018 MBQB 150 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA B E T W E E N: SHARRON PATERSON AND ) RUSSELL
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 informationDRUNKENNESS AS A DEFENCE TO MURDER
Page 1 DRUNKENNESS AS A DEFENCE TO MURDER Criminal Law Conference 2005 Halifax, Nova Scotia Prepared by: Joel E. Pink, Q.C. Joel E. Pink, Q.C. & Associates 1583 Hollis Street, Ste 300 Halifax, NS B3J 2P8
More informationTort Law (Law 1060) Bora Laskin Faculty of Law Lakehead University
Tort Law (Law 1060) Bora Laskin Faculty of Law Lakehead University 2015-2016 Julian N. Falconer, Falconers LLP julianf@falconers.ca Asha James, Falconers LLP ashaj@falconers.ca Overview This is a compulsory
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 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 informationINDEPENDENT FORENSIC AUDITS RE S By V.A. (Bud) MacDonald, Q.C. and Bottom Line Research. Overview
INDEPENDENT FORENSIC AUDITS RE EMAILS By V.A. (Bud) MacDonald, Q.C. and Bottom Line Research Overview On some files your opponent may be taking the position that there are no relevant emails in addition
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: 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 informationCampbell v. Royal Bank of Canada [1964] S.C.R. 85
Osgoode Hall Law Journal Volume 3, Number 3 (October 1965) Article 13 Campbell v. Royal Bank of Canada [1964] S.C.R. 85 G. W. D. McKechnie Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed August 5, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01289-CV WEST FORK ADVISORS, LLC, Appellant V. SUNGARD CONSULTING SERVICES, LLC AND SUNGARD
More informationIngles v. The Corporation of the City of Toronto Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada dated March 2, 2000
Ingles v. The Corporation of the City of Toronto Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada dated March 2, 2000 (City Council at its regular meeting held on October 3, 4 and 5, 2000, and its Special Meetings
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 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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Walter Energy Canada Holdings, Inc. (Re), 2018 BCSC 1135 Date: 20180709 Docket: S1510120 Registry: Vancouver In the Matter of the Companies Creditors
More informationExamining the current law relating to limitation and causes of action (tortious and contractual) within a construction context
Examining the current law relating to limitation and causes of action (tortious and contractual) within a construction context Received (in revised form): 11th September, 2005 Sarah Wilson is an associate
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Court File No. CV-12-444388 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: EPOCH S GARAGE LIMITED, COOK SCHOOL BUS LINES LIMITED, 678928 ONTARIO INC. and ROBERT DOUGLAS AKITT O/A DOUG AKITT BUS LINES - and
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 informationI. ZNAMENSKY SELEKCIONNO-GIBRIDNY CENTER LLC V.
(Press control and right arrow for the same effect) (Press control and left arrow for the same effect) znamensky X Français English Home > Ontario > Superior Court of Justice > 2009 CanLII 51197
More informationTABLE OF CONTENTS. Preface...P-1 Table of Cases... TC-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface...P-1 Table of Cases... TC-1 INTRODUCTION IN:10 IN:20 IN:30 IN:40 IN:50 IN:60 IN:70 Overview... INT-1 What is Defamation?... INT-3 What is the Difference Between Libel and Slander?...
More informationIndexed As: Doucet et al. v. Spielo Manufacturing Inc. et al. New Brunswick Court of Appeal Deschênes, Robertson and Green, JJ.A. May 12, 2011.
Yves Doucet and Peter Dauphinee (appellants) v. Spielo Manufacturing Incorporated and Jon Manship (respondents) (102-09-CA; 2011 NBCA 44) Indexed As: Doucet et al. v. Spielo Manufacturing Inc. et al. New
More informationA CLASS ACTION BLUEPRINT FOR ALBERTA
A CLASS ACTION BLUEPRINT FOR ALBERTA By William E. McNally and Barbara E. Cotton 1 2 Interesting things have been happening in Alberta recently regarding class action proceedings. Alberta is handicapped
More informationIN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES ACT R.S.O. 1990, C. S.5, AS AMENDED - AND. IN THE MATTER OF DAVID CHARLES PHILLIPS and JOHN RUSSELL WILSON
Ontario Commission des 22 nd Floor 22e 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 THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES
More informationIndexed As: Dow Chemical Co. et al. v. Nova Chemicals Corp. Federal Court O'Keefe, J. September 5, 2014.
The Dow Chemical Company, Dow Global Technologies Inc. and Dow Chemical Canada ULC (plaintiffs) v. Nova Chemicals Corporation (defendant) (T-2051-10; 2014 FC 844) Indexed As: Dow Chemical Co. et al. v.
More informationNEGLIGENT INVESTIGATION & POLICE LIABILITY
NEGLIGENT INVESTIGATION & POLICE LIABILITY Canadian Association of Police Boards Annual Conference August 21, 2010 Jennifer Freund Pat Knoll Introduction Negligent Investigation By Police What Is It? What
More informationDevelopments in the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Canada
Developments in the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Canada - 2009 Igor Ellyn, QC, CS and Evelyn Perez Youssoufian, both of the Ontario, Canada Bar ELLYN LAW LLP Business Litigation & Arbitration Lawyers
More informationVANCOUVER AUG
VANCOUVER AUG 0 2 2011 COURT OF APPEAL REGISTRY Court of Appeal File No. CA44448 COURT OF APPEAL ON APPEAL FROM the Order of the Honourable Madam Justice Fitzpatrick of the Supreme Court of British Columbia,
More informationCase Name: Ontario Ltd. v. Acchione
Case Name: 1390957 Ontario Ltd. v. Acchione Between 1390957 Ontario Limited, applicant (appellant), and Valerie Acchione and Royal LePage Real Estate Services Ltd., respondents (Valerie Acchione, respondent
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL. and RYAN OLLIVIERRE
SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES CIVIL APPEAL NO.27 OF 2001 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: SYLVANUS LESLIE and RYAN OLLIVIERRE Appellant/Plaintiff Respondent/Defendant Before: The Hon. Sir Dennis Byron
More informationIn the Court of Appeal of Alberta
In the Court of Appeal of Alberta Citation: Canadian Natural Resources Limited v Arcelormittal Tubular Products Roman S.A., 2013 ABCA 87 Date: 20130306 Docket: 1201-0336-AC 1201-0337-AC Registry: Calgary
More informationIn the Court of Appeal of Alberta
In the Court of Appeal of Alberta Citation: R v Precision Diversified Oilfield Services Corp, 2017 ABCA 47 Between: Her Majesty the Queen Date: 20170208 Docket: 1603-0251-A Registry: Edmonton Applicant
More informationClaimant illegality as a defence to negligence: Gray v Thames Trains and others
Claimant illegality as a defence to negligence: Gray v Thames Trains and others WILLIAMS, K. Available from Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive (SHURA) at: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/1003/ This document
More informationThe Contractor s building defects liability in England and Wales
The Contractor s building defects liability in England and Wales We discuss in this paper in what circumstances can a contractor be found liable for defects discovered by the building occupier several
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: 1688782 Ontario Inc. v. Maple Leaf Foods Inc., 2018 ONCA 407 Date: 20180430 DOCKET: C63107 BETWEEN Sharpe, Rouleau and Fairburn JJ.A. 1688782 Ontario Inc. and Plaintiff
More informationIndexed As: Lockridge et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Environment) et al.
Ada Lockridge and Ronald Plain (applicants) v. Director, Ministry of the Environment, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as Represented by the Minister of the Environment, the Attorney General
More informationEmployment Bill [HL]
Employment Bill [HL] EXPLANATORY NOTES Explanatory notes to the Bill, prepared by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, are published separately as HL Bill 13 EN. EUROPEAN CONVENTION
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 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 informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Xela Enterprises Ltd. v. Castillo, 2016 ONCA 437 DATE: 20160603 DOCKET: C60470 Weiler, LaForme and Huscroft JJ.A. BETWEEN In the matter of Xela Enterprises Ltd. and
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Wamboldt Estate v. Wamboldt, 2017 NSSC 288
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Wamboldt Estate v. Wamboldt, 2017 NSSC 288 Date: 20171107 Docket: Bwt No. 459126 Registry: Bridgewater Between: Michael Dockrill, in his capacity as the executor
More informationSUPREME COURT OF YUKON
SUPREME COURT OF YUKON Citation: Yukon Human Rights Commission v. Yukon Human Rights Board of Adjudication, Property Management Agency and Yukon Government, 2009 YKSC 44 Date: 20090501 Docket No.: 08-AP004
More informationOn December 14, 2011, the B.C. Court of Appeal released its judgment
LIMITATION PERIODS ON DEMAND PROMISSORY NOTES: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF MAKING THE NOTE PAYABLE A FIXED PERIOD AFTER DEMAND By Georges Sourisseau and Russell Robertson On December 14, 2011, the B.C. Court of
More information