ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
|
|
- Clyde Bennett
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 CITATION: Thorne v. Hudson, 2016 ONSC 5507 COURT FILE NO.: CV DATE: ONTARIO BETWEEN: Donna Thorne, on her own behalf and as litigation guardian of Breanna Pacquette a minor, Simone Pacquette, a minor and Owen Thorne, a minor, Kyle Thorne, Ryan Thorne and Sarah Thorne and SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Plaintiffs Patricia Hudson, Executrix of the Estate of Maxwell B. Hudson, deceased, Ontario Inc., Ontario Limited carrying on business as Aviation Technical Consultants, Corporate Aircraft Restorations Inc., Maurice Nesbitt, John Bayes, Ontario Limited carrying on business as Canadian Aero Engine & Accessories, Teledyne Continental Motors Inc., and Teledyne Technologies Incorporated Defendants HEARD: June 16, 2016 [no one appearing for the Plaintiffs] Hilary Book and Scott McGrath, for the Defendants Continental Motors Inc., and Teledyne Technologies Inc. Timothy Trembley, for the Defendant Ontario Limited c.o.b. Aviation Technical Consultants Robert Fenn and Ashleigh Tomlinson, for the Defendants, Corporate Aircraft Restorations Inc., and Maurice Nesbitt 2016 ONSC 5507 (CanLII E.M. MORGAN, J. [1] This is a motion for summary judgment brought by the Defendants, Teledyne Continental Motors Inc. and Teledyne Technologies Incorporated (together CMI, on the basis of a limitation period applicable under U.S. law. There are four claims arising from a 2007 airplane crash which remain live actions: Hudson et al. v Teledyne Continental Motors Inc. et al. (Court
2 Page: 2 File No. CV , Hudson et al. v Aviation Technical Consultants et al. (Court File No. CV , Ontario Inc. v Canadian Flight Academy Ltd et al. (Court File No. CV , and Thorne et al. v Hudson et al. (Court File No. CV (collectively, the Related Actions. CMI seeks to have the various claims and cross-claims against it dismissed on the grounds that U.S. law applies to it and the relevant statute contains an ultimate limitation period that has long expired. [2] CMI is the manufacturer of an airplane engine whose malfunction caused a fatal crash in New York State during a flight from Oshawa, Ontario to Wilmington, Delaware in CMI manufactured the engine in Pennsylvania, and originally sold it into the stream of commerce in January CMI has not had contact with the engine since that time, but has periodically published service bulletins and an overhaul manual for repair and maintenance of the engine. [3] The motion is opposed by other Defendants who have cross-claimed against CMI, including the engineering consultants who had inspected the aircraft s engine, Ontario Limited c.o.b. Aviation Technical Consultants ( ATC, and the engineers and maintenance company that serviced the aircraft, Corporate Aircraft Restorations Inc. and Maurice Nesbitt (together CAR ONSC 5507 (CanLII [4] The Plaintiffs are the owners of the aircraft and the family and heirs of the individuals who died when the aircraft crash landed in New York State. The Plaintiffs take no position on the present motion. I. The accident [5] At around 8:30 a.m. on May 17, 2007, a Canadian-registered Beech BE-A55 twin-engine aircraft bearing registration C-FDJP (the Aircraft took off from Oshawa airport. The Aircraft was operated by Max Hudson and Joe Grieco, both of whom were pilots licensed by Transport Canada. Hudson and Grieco co-owned the Aircraft through their company, Ontario Inc. ( 141 Ontario. [6] About 45 minutes after takeoff, one of the pilots reported to air traffic control that the Aircraft was experiencing problems with its left engine, and requested a diversion to Dunkirk, New York. At 9:37 a.m., the Aircraft crashed during the attempted landing at Dunkirk. The individuals aboard the Aircraft were all fatally injured. [7] The evidence in the record establishes that the difficulties with the left engine in the Aircraft were caused by the release of a counterweight within the engine. The counterweight is a component that attaches to the engine s crankshaft, the purpose of which is to dampen vibrations produced in the normal operation of the engine. Apparently, one of the counterweights separated at one of the attachment points, and the loose end thereby struck the crankcase. Over a course of time, the striking of the crankcase by the counterweight made a hole in the crankcase. [8] The evidence likewise establishes that the counterweight separated because a retaining plate designed to keep the counterweight attached to the crankshaft moved, and thereby allowed another attachment accessory, the roller pin, to break away from the attachment assembly. The process of the roller pin moving through the shoulder of the counterweight had begun sometime
3 Page: 3 prior to the date of the accident. It would appear that once that process began, the counterweight was damaged and was no longer serviceable. The counterweight could, however, have been replaced for a cost of $5,000 to $10,000. [9] In 2003, the Aircraft was involved in an incident in which the landing gear remained up during the landing. This necessitated various repairs and inspections, which were performed by ATC in Orillia, Ontario. CMI alleges that ATC failed to properly install the counterweights on the engine crankshaft while performing its tasks in Specifically, CMI claims that ATC should not have re-used the retaining plates when the counterweights were re-installed on the engine following ATC s inspection, and that as a result of re-using the old retaining plates one of them began to spin and eventually migrated through the counterweight. [10] For its part, ATC claims that in performing its engine inspection and re-installation in 2003, it relied on the service bulletins and the overhaul manual published by the engine manufacturer, CMI. The service bulletins and overhaul manual were received and read by ATC personnel at ATC s facility in Orillia. ATC therefore claims contribution or indemnity from CMI for negligent misrepresentation. Specifically, ATC pleads that CMI prescribed and published inadequate or misleading standards, criteria, procedures and instructions for the repair, maintenance and overhaul of the Continental L engine, including the connecting rods, crankshaft and counterweight assembly ONSC 5507 (CanLII [11] The Plaintiffs and CMI likewise allege that as the maintenance company for the Aircraft, CAR is at least partly responsible for the disrepair of the engine and, ultimately, the accident. CAR responds by indicating that by putting its engine into the stream of commerce that ended up with an accident and injury to Ontario plaintiffs, CMI has effectively attorned to Ontario jurisdiction. It points out that the Plaintiffs are for the most part Family Law Act claimants, all of whom are Ontario residents and all of whom suffered their losses in Ontario. II. The legal arguments [12] CMI submits that since the place of the crash was New York and the place of manufacture of the engine and production of the service bulletins and overhaul manuals was Pennsylvania, U.S. law applies to the tort. It further submits that this includes the General Aviation Revitalization Act ( GARA, a United States federal statute enacted in 1994 that imposes an 18-year final limitation period on all civil actions against aviation manufacturers. Given that the engine installed in the Aircraft was some 39 years old at the time of the accident, the limitation under GARA would serve to bar the claims against CMI and put an end to its involvement in the actions. [13] Counsel for ATC and CAR together put forward a number of counter-arguments. In the first place, they argue that GARA is improperly invoked by CMI since the U.S. Congress never intended for this statute to be applied extra-territorially to a Canadian legal action. They further argue that the Plaintiffs are Family Law Act claimants or the Canadian owners of the Aircraft, and so all suffered their losses in Ontario regardless of where the crash took place or where CMI s negligence occurred. As noted above, they also contend that CMI effectively agreed to Ontario jurisdiction it put its product into the stream of commerce that ended up causing loss in Ontario.
4 Page: 4 [14] Finally, ATC submits that the negligent misrepresentations by CMI were received and relied upon in Ontario, and since the law of the tort is that of the place of the tort it is Ontario law that governs the claims against CMI. a Does GARA apply? [15] CMI has produced an expert witness, Ann Thornton Field, an experienced U.S.-based aviation lawyer, who answers in the affirmative. Ms. Field s view is that, assuming CMI did not have possession of the engine that it manufactured and did not supply any new parts or components for the engine after it was shipped to its first purchaser in 1968, the claims in the four related actions against CMI are barred by GARA. She states in her report: GARA s eighteen-year statute of repose begins to run on the date the general aviation aircraft or component is delivered to its first purchaser. If more than eighteen years elapse between the date of delivery and the date of the accident, the claim is barred unless one of the exceptions to GARA applies ONSC 5507 (CanLII [16] The statutory exceptions are not relevant to the present analysis, as Ms. Field further points out that none of them apply to the situation at hand. She also opines with authority that the Aircraft in which the engine was installed satisfies the statutory definition of a general aviation aircraft. The Aircraft s engines are considered a component of the Aircraft and are therefore also covered under the GARA definition of applicable aircraft. [17] In view of GARA s relatively clear language and the 39-year lapse in time between the engine s manufacture date and the accident date, it is Ms. Field s conclusion that GARA would bar all claims against CMI relating to alleged defects in the design, manufacture, and distribution of the aircraft s engines. According to Ms. Field s reading of the statute, the policy of bringing finality to the long-tail liability assumed by aircraft manufacturers would apply to the Aircraft regardless of which jurisdiction it ends up in. [18] In response, ATC has produced its own equally experienced U.S. aviation law expert, Christopher Barth, who takes issue with Ms. Field s conclusion. He indicates that under United States law, there is a presumption that statutes are to be applied only within the territorial limits of the country. Clear statutory language is required if the legislative mandate is to be extended to apply extra-territorially. [19] In Mr. Barth s view, the absence of such language is based on the fact that GARA was enacted in order to regulate U.S. domestic litigation, and has no operation outside of the territorial United States. As he put it in his report, Congress was deeply concerned about the enormous product liability costs that our tort system had imposed upon manufacturers of general aviation aircraft. (emphasis added in ATC s factum. In Mr. Barth s reading of the statute, Congress did not act in order to impose limitations on non-u.s. courts. [20] Both experts are right in their own way. [21] Ms. Field is correct in her understanding that GARA applies to the acts of the manufacturer in the United States, regardless of where the aircraft or its component part ends up.
5 Page: 5 As she puts it, assuming that CMI took no further steps on which a claim could be based following the shipping of the engine to its purchaser in 1968, the claims against CMI relating to the Aircraft s engine would be barred by GARA. [22] Mr. Barth is correct in his understanding that GARA does not authorize the extraterritorial application of GARA. Assuming that the matter was being litigated in a United States court after all, as a U.S. federal statute GARA only speaks to U.S. federal courts there would be no statutory basis for that court to apply the federal statute to an aircraft manufacturer outside of the United Sates. In that circumstance, the claims against the manufacturer would not be barred by GARA as they would be aimed at acts that lay outside of the statute s field of operation. [23] The matter is not, however, being litigated in an American court, but rather, from the perspective of the U.S. Congress and its enactment, is being litigated in the court of a foreign country. As Ms. Field points out, and as is obvious given the fundamental principle of the sovereignty of nations, Congress does not address foreign courts one way or another. Rather, foreign courts i.e. this court applies its own choice of law rules in order to decide which jurisdiction s law to apply. This proposition that courts are sovereign within their own jurisdiction has been confirmed by the U.S. courts: 2016 ONSC 5507 (CanLII Congress has no power to tell courts of foreign countries whether they could entertain a suit against an American defendant. It would be up to any foreign court to determine whether it wanted to apply GARA to litigation occurring within its borders. Blazevska v Raytheon Aircraft Co., 522 F. 3d 948 (9 th Cir [24] In Canada, conflicts of law rules have been determined to be national rather than international in character : Castel, Jean-Gabriel and Walker, Janet. Canadian Conflict of Laws (Butterworths, 5th ed., 2004 at 1-1. The United States Congress, in enacting GARA, did not address whether the legislation is applicable in a Canadian court precisely because that question is one of Canadian domestic law. Just as a court in Canada can decide to apply New York contract law or Michigan tort law in the appropriate case notwithstanding that those bodies of American law are silent on extra-territoriality, so this court can decide in accordance with its own conflict rules wither to apply a U.S. federal statute. [25] This local law theory of conflict of laws posits that, judges always apply domestic rules of law, but sometimes create these in accordance with foreign law : Knop, Karen; Michaels, Ralf; Riles, Annelise. International Law in Domestic Courts: A Conflict of Laws Approach, 103 ASIL Proceedings (2009; Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository (Cornell Law Faculty Publications, 2009, at 269, 271. Applying this prevailing theory, the applicability or inapplicability of GARA under the circumstances is a question of Ontario law. Whether the U.S. Congress has authorized it or has not authorized it is of no moment.
6 Page: 6 b The choice of law analysis [26] In Tolofson v Jensen; Lucas v Gagnon, [1994] 3 SCR 1022, the Supreme Court adopted a strict lex locus delicti rule for choice of law in tort. The law of the place where the wrong occurred is the substantive law for tort claims in cases with multijurisdictional facts. Unless this result would cause an injustice beyond ordinary differences between the laws of the forums, Wong v Lee (2002, 58 OR (3d 398, at para 12 (Ont CA, the exercise is a relatively mechanical one; indeed, the Tolofson approach has been characterized as a choice of reform that was extreme in its simplicity : Wai, Robert. In the Name of the International: The Supreme Court of Canada and the Internationalist Transformation of Canadian Private International Law (2009, 39 Can Yb k Int Law 117, 134. Once it is determined where the wrong took place, the law of that jurisdiction applies. [27] More specifically, the law of the place of the wrong provides the applicable limitation period as part of the substantive law. This was reconfirmed by the Supreme Court in Castillo v Castillo, [2005] 3 SCR 870, at para 7, where Major J. indicated that, In Tolofson this Court concluded that limitations law, which in the past had frequently been classified as procedural in common law traditions and substantive in civil law traditions, was, in fact, substantive in nature and must be treated as such. Accordingly, the termination of a claimant s rights due to expiry of a limitation period does not constitute injustice sufficient to support an exception to the lex loci delicti rule : Somers v Fournier (2002, 60 OR (3d 225, at para 42 (Ont CA ONSC 5507 (CanLII [28] There are, of course, cases where locating the place of the tort raises thorny issues, most notably, as La Forest J. stated in Tolofson, where an act occurs in one place but the consequences are directly felt elsewhere. In general, however, it is incumbent on courts applying the lex locus delicti rule to locate the place most substantially affected by the defendant s activities or its consequences : Gulevich v Miller, 2015 ABCA 411, at para 46. [29] Harking back to the Supreme Court s earlier choice of law ruling in Moran v Pyle National (Canada Ltd., [1975] SCR 393, 408, it is apparent that strict invocation of [t]he place of acting and the place of harm theories are too arbitrary and inflexible to be recognized in contemporary jurisprudence. For this reason, neither the fact that the harm to the Family Law Act plaintiffs occurred in Ontario, nor that the alleged misdeeds of CMI occurred in Pennsylvania, is dispositive of the choice of law analysis. [30] Just as there is no actionable wrong without the injury, Leonard v Houle (1997, 36 OR (3d 357 (Ont CA, there is no recoverable injury without the wrongful act. Indeed, it has been suggested that, the basis upon which the locus of the tort is determined varies from tort to tort : North, PM and Fawcett, JJ. Cheshire and North Private International Law (London: Butterworths, 11 th ed, 1987 at 541. Accordingly, one must turn to the specific tort alleged against CMI in order to locate it and to determine which law applies to it. c Where is the lex locus delicti? [31] The crux of the claims and cross-claims against CMI is not negligence in the production of the engine that malfunctioned. After all, the malfunction occurred some 39 years after the engine left CMI s hands and entered the market. Eventually, all machinery, including aircraft
7 Page: 7 engines and their component parts, suffer the wear and tear of time. Rather, the claims against CMI are in the nature of negligent misrepresentation, and take aim at the allegedly faulty instructions issued by CMI from time to time in the form of bulletins and manuals for the repair and overhaul of its engine. [32] In Air Canada v McDonnell Douglas Corp., [1989] 1 SCR 1554, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the location of the tort of failure to warn, which is closely related to negligent misrepresentation. The Court concluded that while the action may be multijurisdictional in nature, the key to an obligation to warn is that it be delivered to the place where it will be effective. As Gonthier J. expressed it, The locus of a failure to warn is the place at which the warning ought to have been received, and that place may be either where the user is located or where the goods are used. [33] Following this logic, in Central Sun Mining Inc. v Vector Engineering Inc., 2013 ONCA 601, at paras 30, 34, the Ontario Court of Appeal applied the point to a claim of negligent misrepresentation: The core of the tort of negligent misrepresentation is that the misrepresentation is received and acted upon The Court went on to affirm that this has been the approach to claims of this nature for some time, and is not a view that is on shaky or novel ground: Indeed, in Ontario Ltd. v Sparkasse Siegan, 2013 ONCA 354 (CanLII, 115 O.R. (3d 241, at para. 31, this court reflected such an approach by saying that the tort of negligent misrepresentation occurs where the misinformation is received or acted upon. It is undisputed that the bulletins and manuals containing the representations by CMI that are identified as actionable by ATC were received by ATC at its offices in Oshawa, Ontario ONSC 5507 (CanLII [34] As Goudge JA. concluded in Central Sun Mining, at para 31, [t]here can be no question that the appellant acted on these studies in Ontario. That is where it relied on the studies to take the decisions about where to locate the mine and how to build and operate it. The same thing applies to ATC s reliance on the repair bulletins and overhaul manuals in re-installing the crankshaft and counterweight after the 2003 engine inspection. The reception and reliance took place in Ontario. To the extent that the materials disseminated by CMI contained negligent misrepresentations, the place of these misrepresentations, and thus the law applicable to them, was Ontario. III. Conclusion [35] There is little, if any, disagreement between the parties to this motion about the relevant facts. The airplane crash has been thoroughly studied, the mechanical cause of the crash appears to be known by all, and the locations of the various events, from manufacture of the engine to servicing of the engine to takeoff of the aircraft to the crash landing, are a matter of record. While the question of fault remains controversial and the details of whether and how the accident might have been avoided will doubtless be among the issues canvassed at trial, the facts relevant to the present motion are all before me in a clear and concise record. [36] Accordingly, I have little trouble concluding that this is an appropriate case in which to make a determination regarding summary judgment under Rule In Hyrniak v Mauldin, [2014] 1 SCR 87, at para 60, the Supreme Court indicated that, [t]here will be no genuine issue requiring a trial if the summary judgment process provides [the motion judge] with the evidence
8 Page: 8 required to fairly and justly adjudicate the dispute and is a timely, affordable and proportionate procedure. The record before me contains more than enough evidence to adjudicate the choice of law and limitation issue raised in the motion, and to determine that this is not a case where CMI deserves judgment based on an application of GARA. [37] CMI s motion is dismissed. The various claims against CMI in the Related Actions will remain intact and will proceed to trial. [38] ATC and CAR deserve their costs of this motion. [39] Counsel for ATC seeks costs in the total amount of $24, Counsel for CAR indicated at the hearing that his client has incurred costs in the range of $24,000. Counsel for CMI has submitted a Bill of Costs indicating that it would seek just over $32,000 for the motion for summary judgment ONSC 5507 (CanLII [40] Costs are discretionary under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act. Under Rule 57.01(1(0.b, I am authorized to take into account, inter alia, the amount of costs that an unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay in relation to the step in the proceeding for which costs are being fixed. Given that the two successful parties have incurred costs that are somewhat less than the unsuccessful one, the amounts requested should not be beyond the reasonable expectations of CMI. [41] CMI shall pay each of ATC and CAR costs in the amount of $24,000, both amounts being inclusive of disbursements and HST. Released: September 7, 2016 Morgan, J.
9 CITATION: CITATION: Thorne v. Hudson, 2016 ONSC 5507 COURT FILE NO.: CV DATE: ONTARIO BETWEEN: SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Donna Thorne, on her own behalf and as litigation guardian of Breanna Pacquette a minor, Simone Pacquette, a minor and Owen Thorne, a minor, Kyle Thorne, Ryan Thorne and Sarah Thorne 2016 ONSC 5507 (CanLII and Plaintiffs Patricia Hudson, Executrix of the Estate of Maxwell B. Hudson, deceased, Ontario Inc., Ontario Limited carrying on business as Aviation Technical Consultants, Corporate Aircraft Restorations Inc., Maurice Neasbitt, John Bayes, Ontario Limited carrying on business as Canadian Aero Engine & Accessories, Teledyne Continental Motors Inc., and Teledyne Technologies Incorporated Defendants REASONS FOR JUDGMENT E.M. Morgan, J. Released: September 7, 2016
ONTARIO 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 informationGARA DOING ITS JOB. By: Bruce R. Wildermuth
GARA DOING ITS JOB By: Bruce R. Wildermuth In the early 1990 s, the lead counsel of a general aviation aircraft manufacturer made the following statement while tort reform legislation was being proposed
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS LARRY A. MITCHELL and ALLISON MITCHELL, a minor by and through her father and next friend Larry A. Mitchell, UNPUBLISHED October 23, 2012 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No.
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1086/15
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1086/15 BEFORE: R. McCutcheon: Vice-Chair HEARING: May 28, 2015 at Toronto Oral hearing Post-hearing activity completed on September 10, 2015
More informationNew South Wales Court of Appeal
BCS Strata Management Pty. Limited t/as Body Corporate Services v. Robinson & Anor.... Page 1 of 10 New South Wales Court of Appeal [Index] [Search] [Download] [Help] BCS Strata Management Pty. Limited
More informationCase Name: CEJ Poultry Inc. v. Intact Insurance Co.
Page 1 Case Name: CEJ Poultry Inc. v. Intact Insurance Co. Counsel: RE: CEJ Poultry Inc., and Intact Insurance Company and The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company [2012] O.J. No. 3005 2012 ONSC
More informationCrafting the Perfect Rule 49 Offer to Settle
Crafting the Perfect Rule 49 Offer to Settle Nathaniel Dillonsmith September 2017 Offers to settle can take a wide range of forms and can involve a variety of terms. However, an offer to settle which is
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO CA-00742
E-Filed Document Mar 9 2017 13:52:14 2016-CA-00742 Pages: 21 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO. 2016-CA-00742 CYNDY HOWARTH, INDIVIDUALLY, WIFE, WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARY, AND AS EXECUTRIX OF
More information- 2 - for contribution and indemnity for any and all claims paid by Air France arising from the aircraft incident. [4] In the related class action ( t
CITATION: SOCIÉTÉ AIR FRANCE v. GREATER TORONTO AIRPORTS AUTHORITY et al, 2010 ONSC 432 COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV-337564PD3 DATE: 2010/01/14 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: SOCIÉTÉ AIR FRANCE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE June 23, 2011 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE June 23, 2011 Session THOMAS PAUL SCOTT v. JAMES KEVIN ROBERSON Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lawrence County No. CC238910 Robert L. Jones, Judge No.
More informationNO. 45,356-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * Versus * * * * * *
Judgment rendered August 11, 2010. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P. NO. 45,356-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * JUSTISS
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT ROLLS-ROYCE, PLC, a foreign profit corporation, Appellant, v. SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC., a Florida Corporation, ROLLS-ROYCE CORPORATION, a foreign
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Plaintiffs ) ) ) Defendant ) ) DECISION ON MOTION:
CITATION: Rush v. Via Rail Canada Inc., 2017 ONSC 2243 COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-507160 DATE: 20170518 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Yael Rush and Thomas Rush Plaintiffs and Via Rail Canada Inc.
More 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 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 informationA two-stage common law test for deciding adjudicative jurisdiction emerged. 5
Jurisdiction, Forum non conveniens, and Choice of Law July 5, 2005 By Jennifer Stone Analysis: Background - Jurisdiction and Forum Non Conveniens Conflict of laws rules in Canada have developed through
More informationProfessor DeWolf Summer 2014 Torts August 18, 2014 SAMPLE ANSWER TO FINAL EXAM MULTIPLE CHOICE
Professor DeWolf Summer 2014 Torts August 18, 2014 SAMPLE ANSWER TO FINAL EXAM MULTIPLE CHOICE 1. (a) Is incorrect, because from Dempsey s perspective the injury was not substantially certain to occur.
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Plaintiff ) ) ) Defendants RULING RE: ADMISSION OF SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE
CITATION: Wray v. Pereira, 2018 ONSC 4623 OSHAWA COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-91778 DATE: 20180801 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Douglas Wray Plaintiff and Rosemary Pereira and Gil Pereira Defendants
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY. Trial Court No. CI Appellee Decided: December 4, 2009 * * * * *
[Cite as Morris v. Junior Achievement of Northwest Ohio, Inc., 2009-Ohio-6340.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY Zachary C. Morris, et al. Appellants Court of Appeals
More informationHEARD: November 14, 2014, December 17, 2014, February 6, 2015 ENDORSEMENT
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO CITATION: Markoulakis v. SNC-Lavalin Inc., 2015 ONSC 1081 COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-504720 DATE: 20150416 RE: Eftihios (Ed) Markoulakis, Plaintiff, AND: SNC-Lavalin Inc.,
More informationUnftefr j^tate fflcurt ni JVp^^tb
In ike Unftefr j^tate fflcurt ni JVp^^tb No. 14-1965 HOWARD PILTCH, et ah, Plaintiffs-Appellants, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, etal, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
More informationGowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, Mark Siegel and Rosanne Dawson, Defendants. Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton LLP, Third Party
CITATION: Ozerdinc Family Trust et al v Gowling et al, 2017 ONSC 6 COURT FILE NO.: 13-57421 A1 DATE: 2017/01/03 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: Ozerdinc Family Trust, Muharrem Ersin Ozerdinc,
More informationCOURT FILE NO.: 07-CV DATE: SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: A1 PRESSURE SENSITIVE PRODUCTS INC. (Plaintiff) v. BOSTIK IN
COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV-344028 DATE: 20091218 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: A1 PRESSURE SENSITIVE PRODUCTS INC. (Plaintiff) v. BOSTIK INC. (Defendant) Justice Stinson COUNSEL: Kevin D. Sherkin,
More informationIN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Molnar v. BMW Canada Inc., 2017 NSSM 24 REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
BETWEEN: Claim No: SCCH - 461264 IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Molnar v. BMW Canada Inc., 2017 NSSM 24 REBECCA MOLNAR - and - Claimant BMW CANADA INC. Defendant REASONS FOR DECISION
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Tapak v. Non-Marine Underwriters, 2018 ONCA 168 DATE: 20180220 DOCKET: C64205 Hourigan, Roberts and Nordheimer JJ.A. BETWEEN Carrie Anne Tapak, Dennis Cromarty, Faye
More informationNOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL
NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL Applicant: [X] Respondents: [X] and The Workers Compensation Board of Nova Scotia (Board) SECTION 29 APPLICATION DECISION Representatives: [X] Action:
More informationCITATION: CITATION: AACR Inc. v. Lixo Investments Limited, 2017 ONSC 1009 COURT FILE NO.: CV DATE:
CITATION: CITATION: AACR Inc. v. Lixo Investments Limited, 2017 ONSC 1009 COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-515247 DATE: 20170502 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: AACR Inc. o/a Winmar Toronto/Brampton, Plaintiff
More informationCalifornia Bar Examination
California Bar Examination Essay Question: Torts And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question Autos, Inc. manufactures a two-seater
More informationPage: 2 Manufacturing Inc. referred to as ( Stork Craft has brought a motion to enforce the alleged settlement agreement between counsel to discontinu
CITATION: Duong v. Stork Craft Manufacturing Inc., 2011 ONSC 2534 COURT FILE NO.: CV-09-46962CP DATE: 2011/05/12 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: DAVID DUONG, RINKU SINGH and CHRISTINA WOOF Plaintiffs
More information2014 ONSC 4841 Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Cruz v. McPherson CarswellOnt 11387, 2014 ONSC 4841, 244 A.C.W.S. (3d) 720
2014 ONSC 4841 Ontario Superior Court of Justice Cruz v. McPherson 2014 CarswellOnt 11387, 2014 ONSC 4841, 244 A.C.W.S. (3d) 720 Terra Cruz and Carmen Cruz, Plaintiffs and Jason Mcpherson, 546291 Ontario
More informationDisposition before Trial
Disposition before Trial Presented By Andrew J. Heal January 13, 2011 Q: What's the difference between a good lawyer and a bad lawyer? A: A bad lawyer can let a case drag out for several years. A good
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL PORT OF SPAIN BETWEEN AND MYRTLE DOROTHY PARTAP MYRTLE DORTOTHY PARTAP
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL PORT OF SPAIN Civ. App. No. S051 of 2017 CV No. 2013-04212 BETWEEN CRISTOP LIMITED Appellant/Plaintiff AND MYRTLE DOROTHY PARTAP First Respondent/Defendant
More information[4] The defendant is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Ontario carrying on business as a theme water park in Limoges Ontario.
CITATION: CYR v. CALYPSO PARC INC. 2016 ONSC 2683 COURT FILE NO.: 12-54440 DATE: May 11, 2016 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: FRANCINE CYR Plaintiff AND: CALYPSO PARC INC. Defendant BEFORE: COUNSEL:
More informationBy Garth W. Aubert Michael A. Hession. The GARA s plead with specificity requirement
TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS: THE GENERAL AVIATION REVITALIZATION ACT By Garth W. Aubert Michael A. Hession The General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (the GARA ) created a statute of repose that bars
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Plaintiff ) ) ) Defendants RULING RE: ADMISSION OF EXPERT EVIDENCE OF DR. FINKELSTEIN
CITATION: Wray v. Pereira, 2018 ONSC 4621 OSHAWA COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-91778 DATE: 20180801 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Douglas Wray Plaintiff and Rosemary Pereira and Gil Pereira Defendants
More 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 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 informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ) ) ) ) Defendants ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
ONTARIO CITATION: Leis v. Clarke, 2017 ONSC 4360 COURT FILE NO.: 2106/13 DATE: 2017/08/08 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: Lauren Leis Plaintiff - and - Jordan Clarke, Julie Clarke, and Amy L.
More informationStrict Liability and Product Liability PRODUCT LIABILITY WARRANTY LAW
Strict Liability and Product Liability PRODUCT LIABILITY The legal liability of manufacturers, sellers, and lessors of goods to consumers, users and bystanders for physical harm or injuries or property
More informationIN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. and LAMBERT JAMES-SOOMER. and LAMBERT JAMES-SOOMER
SAINT LUCIA IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM NO.: SLUHCV 2003/0138 BETWEEN (1) MICHELE STEPHENSON (2) MAHALIA MARS (Qua Administratrices of the Estate of ANTHONY
More informationPage 2 [2] The action arose from a motor vehicle accident on October 9, The plaintiff Anthony Okafor claimed two million dollars and the plainti
CITATION: OKAFOR v. MARKEL INSURANCE & KROPKA, 2010 ONSC 2093 COURT FILE NO.: C42087/97 DATE: 2010-06-01 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: JUNE OKAFOR AND ANTHONY OKAFOR Plaintiffs - and
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 0:15-cv AOR
Case: 16-15491 Date Filed: 11/06/2017 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 16-15491 D.C. Docket No. 0:15-cv-61734-AOR CAROL GORCZYCA, versus
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT. SWINTON, THORBURN, and COPELAND JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CITATION: Movati Athletic (Group Inc. v. Bergeron, 2018 ONSC 7258 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-18-2411 DATE: 20181206 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT SWINTON, THORBURN, and COPELAND
More informationCITATION: Nogueira v Second Cup, 2017 ONSC 6315 COURT FILE NO.: CV DATE: SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
CITATION: Nogueira v Second Cup, 2017 ONSC 6315 COURT FILE NO.: CV-17-569192 DATE: 20171020 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: ANNABELLE NOGUEIRA, Plaintiff AND THE SECOND CUP LTD., Defendant BEFORE:
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS KIMBERLY DENNEY, Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF MATTHEW MICHAEL DENNEY, FOR PUBLICATION November 15, 2016 9:05 a.m. Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 328135 Kent Circuit
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 informationVIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SOUTHWESTERN COUNTY 1
VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SOUTHWESTERN COUNTY 1 SMOOTH RIDE, INC., Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 1234-567 IRONMEN CORP. d/b/a TUFF STUFF, INC. and STEEL-ON-WHEELS, LTD., Defendants. PLAINTIFF SMOOTH
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. Reasons for Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Re: Section 29 of the Court Order Enforcement Act and the Registration of a Foreign Judgment Against John Tolman, Mrs. John Tolman, Bob Alpen and Mrs. Bob Alpen
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 informationBY SHEILA A. SUNDVALL, CHRISTOPHER F. ALLEN, & SUSAN E. JACOBY. I. Introduction. Background
Russell v. SNFA: Illinois Supreme Court Adopts Expansive Interpretation of Personal Jurisdiction Under a Stream of Commerce Theory in the Wake of McIntyre v. Nicastro BY SHEILA A. SUNDVALL, CHRISTOPHER
More informationFILED: NIAGARA COUNTY CLERK 02/15/ :54 PM INDEX NO. E157285/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2017
STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT: COUNTY OF NIAGARA MARTINE JURON vs. Plaintiff, GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, GENERAL MOTORS HOLDING CORPORATION, COMPLAINT GENERAL MOTORS LLC, SATURN OF CLARENCE, INC., now known
More informationThomas Gorsky and C. Chan, for the Defendant ENDORSEMENT
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO CITATION: CHRISTMAS v. FORT McKAY, 2014 ONSC #373 COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-461796 DATE: 20140128 RE: BERND CHRISTMAS, Plaintiff AND FORT McKAY FIRST NATION, Defendant BEFORE:
More informationContract and Tort Law for Engineers
Contract and Tort Law for Engineers Christian S. Tacit Tel: 613-599-5345 Email: ctacit@tacitlaw.com Canadian Systems of Law There are two systems of law that operate in Canada Common Law and Civil Law
More informationSTRICT LIABILITY. (1) involves serious potential harm to persons or property,
STRICT LIABILITY Strict Liability: Liability regardless of fault. Among others, defendants whose activities are abnormally dangerous or involve dangerous animals are strictly liable for any harm caused.
More information6.1 Part not to apply in certain cases (16.1, PD 16) (1) Subject to paragraph (2), this Part, except (a) rules 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.9 and 6.
PART 6 : CHAPTER 1: STATEMENTS OF CASE GENERAL 6.1 Part not to apply in certain cases (16.1, PD 16) (1) Subject to paragraph (2), this Part, except rules 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.9 and 6.11, rule 6.19(1) and (2),
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 informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Carol J. Rodriguez, Administratrix of the Estate of Aurelio Rodriguez, Deceased, Appellant v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation v. No.
More informationCircuit Court for Baltimore County Case No. C UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2017
Circuit Court for Baltimore County Case No. C-16-4972 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 534 September Term, 2017 BARBARA JONES v. SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP., et al. Wright, Leahy,
More informationCase Name: Gnanasegaram v. Allianz Insurance Co. of Canada
Page 1 Case Name: Gnanasegaram v. Allianz Insurance Co. of Canada Between Karla Gnanasegaram, plaintiff/appellant, and Allianz Insurance Company of Canada, defendant/respondent [2005] O.J. No. 1076 251
More informationPresent: Dickson C.J. and Beetz, McIntyre, Lamer and La Forest JJ. in effect when accident occurred--statutes barring action repealed before action
angus v. sun alliance insurance co., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 256 Sun Alliance Insurance Company v. Diane Hart Angus Appellant Respondent and Owen Hart and James Angus Respondents INDEXED AS: ANGUS v. SUN ALLIANCE
More informationENDORSEMENT months' compensation in lieu of notice; damages equal to the value of his employment benefits; and
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO CITATION: Holmes v. Hatch Ltd., 2017 ONSC 379 COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-553456 DATE: 20170202 RE: Paul Holmes, Plaintiff AND: Hatch Ltd., Defendant BEFORE: Pollak J. COUNSEL:
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Plaintiff ) ) ) Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REASONS FOR DECISION
CITATION: Boyadjian v. Durham (Regional Municipality, 2016 ONSC 6477 OSHAWA COURT FILE NO.: 74724/11 DATE: 20161101 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: LUCY BOYADJIAN Plaintiff and THE REGIONAL
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between KERRON MOE. And GARY HARPER
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No CV 2012-03569 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Between KERRON MOE And Claimant GARY HARPER BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PETER A. RAJKUMAR APPEARANCES Mr. St.
More informationIntroductory Guide to Civil Litigation in Ontario
Introductory Guide to Civil Litigation in Ontario Table of Contents INTRODUCTION This guide contains an overview of the Canadian legal system and court structure as well as key procedural and substantive
More informationChodowski v. Huntsville Professional Building Inc. et al. [Indexed as: Chodowski v. Huntsville Professional Building Inc.]
Chodowski v. Huntsville Professional Building Inc. et al. [Indexed as: Chodowski v. Huntsville Professional Building Inc.] 104 O.R. (3d) 73 2010 ONSC 4897 Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Wood J. September
More informationAPPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL CREDIT ACCOUNT TRADING TERMS AND CONDITIONS
APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL CREDIT ACCOUNT TRADING TERMS AND CONDITIONS These Trading Terms and Conditions are to be read and understood prior to the execution of the Application for Commercial Credit Account.
More informationCITATION: Maxrelco Immeubles Inc. v Jim Pattison Industries Ltd ONSC 5836 COURT FILE NO.: DATE: 2017/09/29 ONTARIO
CITATION: Maxrelco Immeubles Inc. v Jim Pattison Industries Ltd. 2017 ONSC 5836 COURT FILE NO.: 10-49174 DATE: 2017/09/29 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: Maxrelco Immeubles Inc. Plaintiff
More informationQuestion 1. Under what theory or theories might Paul recover, and what is his likelihood of success, against: a. Charlie? b. KiddieRides-R-Us?
Question 1 Twelve-year-old Charlie was riding on his small, motorized 3-wheeled all terrain vehicle ( ATV ) in his family s large front yard. Suddenly, finding the steering wheel stuck in place, Charlie
More informationCase: 5:06-cv KSF-REW Doc #: 1686 Filed: 03/05/08 Page: 1 of 12 - Page ID#: <pageid>
Case: 5:06-cv-00316-KSF-REW Doc #: 1686 Filed: 03/05/08 Page: 1 of 12 - Page ID#: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON CIVIL ACTION (MASTER FILE) NO.
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 informationCase 2:17-cv GJP Document 9 Filed 12/11/17 Page 1 of 11
Case 2:17-cv-02582-GJP Document 9 Filed 12/11/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DANIEL S. PENNACHIETTI, v. Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-02582
More informationPresent: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Agee, JJ., and Russell, S.J.
Present: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Agee, JJ., and Russell, S.J. SHERMAN DREHER, ET AL. v. Record No. 052508 OPINION BY JUSTICE CYNTHIA D. KINSER September 15, 2006 BUDGET RENT-A-CAR
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
BETWEEN: CITATION: Patel v. Kanbay International Inc., 2008 ONCA 867 DATE: 20081223 DOCKET: C48699 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Winkler C.J.O., Moldaver and Goudge JJ.A. Shiraz Patel Plaintiff (Respondent)
More informationLimitations Act 2002: A huge reform of existing law
Limitations Act 2002: A huge reform of existing law by Graeme Mew Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP On December 9, 2002, the Ontario legislature passed Bill 213 - the Justice Statute Law Amendment Act - by
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiffs,
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 DOMINIC FONTALVO, a minor, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, TASHINA AMADOR, individually and as successor in interest in Alexis Fontalvo, deceased, and TANIKA LONG, a minor, by and
More informationLocating Torts: Where Can a Defendant be Sued Under Canadian Law? By Kevin O Brien and Waleed Malik
Locating Torts: Where Can a Defendant be Sued Under Canadian Law? By Kevin O Brien and Waleed Malik Table of contents INTRODUCTION 3 1. The role of the location of a tort in determining jurisdiction 4
More informationCase 2:13-cv DDP-VBK Document 864 Filed 08/01/16 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:36038 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-ddp-vbk Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #:0 O UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 VICTORIA LUND, individually and as successor-in-interest to WILLIAM LUND, deceased;
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIAL LIST. IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c.
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIAL LIST Court File No. CV-15-10832-00CL IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, AS AMENDED AND IN THE MATTER OF A PLAN
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS AJAX PAVING INDUSTRIES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED July 1, 2010 APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION August 31, 2010 9:10 a.m. v No. 288452 Wayne Circuit
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM OPINION
Case 4:16-cv-01127-MWB Document 50 Filed 12/21/17 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA HEATHER R. OBERDORF, MICHAEL A. OBERDORF, v. Plaintiffs. No. 4:16-CV-01127
More informationCITATION: Cadieux v. Cadieux, 2016 ONSC 4446 COURT FILE NO.: DATE: July 6th, 2016 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
CITATION: Cadieux v. Cadieux, 2016 ONSC 4446 COURT FILE NO.: 12-54183 DATE: July 6th, 2016 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: KALOB CADIEUX by his litigation guardian LUCIE COURTEMANCHE, et.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED October 30, 2003 v No. 240571 Ottawa Circuit Court CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY, LC No. 99-035674-NZ Defendant-Appellee.
More informationINDIVISIBLE INJURIES
INDIVISIBLE INJURIES Amelia J. Staunton February 2011 1 CONTACT LAWYER Amelia Staunton 604.891.0359 astaunton@dolden.com 1 Introduction What happens when a Plaintiff, recovering from injuries sustained
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 10-879 In the Supreme Court of the United States GLORIA GAIL KURNS, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF GEORGE M. CORSON, DECEASED, ET AL., Petitioners, v. RAILROAD FRICTION PRODUCTS CORPORATION, ET AL. Respondents.
More informationCourt Appealed From: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division (G) G1143 (2014 NLTD(G) 131)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Tuck v. Supreme Holdings, 2016 NLCA 40 Date: August 4, 2016 Docket: 14/96 BETWEEN: TANYA TUCK APPELLANT AND: SUPREME HOLDINGS
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONROE COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONROE COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA DANIEL LEE HOKE, as Administrator of The Estate of Justin Lee Hoke, and in his individual capacity as the natural father of Justin Lee Hoke, BRENDA
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
REL: 07/12/2013 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
Grant and Opinion Filed February 21, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01646-CV IN RE GREYHOUND LINES, INC., FIRST GROUP AMERICA, AND MARC D. HARRIS, Relator On
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MICHAEL P. HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED October 26, 2010 v No. 293354 Mackinac Circuit Court SHEPLER, INC., LC No. 07-006370-NO and Defendant-Appellee, CNA
More information2014 PA Super 128. Appellee No. 192 MDA 2013
2014 PA Super 128 FAYE M. MORANKO, ADMIN. OF THE ESTATE OF RICHARD L. MORANKO, DECEASED IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant DOWNS RACING LP, D/B/A MOHEGAN SUN AT POCONO DOWNS v. Appellee No.
More informationTHE SIX-MINUTE Environmental Lawyer
TAB 1 THE SIX-MINUTE Environmental Lawyer The Latest on Damages for Continuing Nuisance Bryan Buttigieg, C.S. Miller Thomson LLP October 20, 2016 Six-Minute Environmental Lawyer 2016 The Law Society of
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Gosselin v. Shepherd, 2010 BCSC 755 April Gosselin Date: 20100527 Docket: S104306 Registry: New Westminster Plaintiff Mark Shepherd and Dr.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Weir s Construction Limited v. Warford (Estate), 2018 NLCA 5 Date: January 22, 2018 Docket: 201601H0092 BETWEEN: WEIR S CONSTRUCTION
More informationConflict of Laws: Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
Conflict of Laws: Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 1 Conflict of laws is a complex topic that touches on practically every area of law. Although mastering any part of it is a daunting task,
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 informationCITATION: Wilken v. Sun Life Assurance Company, 2017 ONSC 3609 COURT FILE NO.: DATE: 2017/06/12 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO
CITATION: Wilken v. Sun Life Assurance Company, 2017 ONSC 3609 COURT FILE NO.: 205-2015 DATE: 2017/06/12 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: ROBERT WILKEN And: SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY Justice
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS KIRK HANNING, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED May 20, 2008 v No. 278402 Oakland Circuit Court MARTY MILES COLLEY and DUMITRU LC No. 2006-076903-NF JITIANU, Defendants-Appellees.
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT FERRIER, SWINTON & LEDERER JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Applicant.
CITATION: St. Catharines (City v. IPCO, 2011 ONSC 346 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 351/09 DATE: 20110316 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT FERRIER, SWINTON & LEDERER JJ. B E T W E E N: THE
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiffs, Defendant.
0 0 STARLINE WINDOWS INC. et. al., v. QUANEX BUILDING PRODUCTS CORP. et al., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiffs, Defendant. Case No.: :-cv-0 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS
More informationPage: 2 [2] The plaintiff had been employed by the defendant for over twelve years when, in 2003, the defendant sold part of its business to Cimco Ref
COURT FILE NO.: 68/04 DATE: 20050214 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT LANE, MATLOW and GROUND JJ. 2005 CanLII 3384 (ON SCDC B E T W E E N: Patrick Boland Appellant (Plaintiff - and -
More information