ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REASONS FOR DECISON

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REASONS FOR DECISON"

Transcription

1 CITATION: Lapierre v. Lecuyer, 2018 ONSC 1540 COURT FILE NO.: /19995/16 DATE: 2018/04/10 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: MARTINE LaPIERRE, AMY COULOMBE, ANTHONY MICHAEL COULOMBE and PHILLIPE COULOMBE by their Litigation Guardian Martine LaPierre and CLAIRE LECUYER and Plaintiffs/Respondents Defendant/Moving Party JENNIFER COULOMBE, MICHELINE MAILLE and MICHEL JACOB and CLAIRE LECUYER Plaintiffs/Respondents Defendant/Moving Party Joseph and Christopher Obagi, for the Plaintiffs/Respondents Pasquale Santini, Samantha A. Iturregui, for the Defendant/Moving Party Patrick J. Poupore, for the Plaintiffs/Respondents Pasquale Santini, Samantha A. Iturregui, for the Defendant/Moving Party HEARD: February 7, ONSC 1540 (CanLII REASONS FOR DECISON R.L. Maranger J.

2 Page: 2 Introduction: [1] This was a motion brought by the defendant for a summary judgment. The moving party requests that two separate actions brought in the province of Ontario that arise as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Ontario on September 18, 2014 be dismissed by reason that the plaintiffs are prohibited from recovering damages under the law of the province of Québec, which they argue is the applicable substantive law ONSC 1540 (CanLII Summary judgment motions: [2] Rule (3 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, stipulates that [a] defendant may, after delivering a statement of defence, move with supporting affidavit material or other evidence for summary judgment dismissing all or part of the claim in the statement of claim. The court is mandated to grant summary judgment if it is satisfied that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial respecting a claim or defence. [3] Rule (2.1 provides that: In determining under clause (2(a whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial, the court shall consider the evidence submitted by the parties and, if the determination is being made by a judge, the judge may exercise any of the following powers for the purpose, unless it is in the interest of justice for such powers to be exercised only at a trial: 1. Weighing the evidence. 2. Evaluating the credibility of a deponent. 3. Drawing any reasonable inference from the evidence.

3 Page: 3 [4] The Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87, set out the governing principles to be applied by trial judges respecting the determination of rule 20 summary judgment motions. At paras and 66, Justice Karakatsanis indicated the following: [49] There will be no genuine issue requiring a trial when the judge is able to reach a fair and just determination on the merits on a motion for summary judgment. This will be the case when the process (1 allows the judge to make the necessary findings of fact, (2 allows the judge to apply the law to the facts, and (3 is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result ONSC 1540 (CanLII [50] These principles are interconnected and all speak to whether summary judgment will provide fair and just adjudication. When a summary judgment motion allows the judge to find the necessary facts and resolve the dispute, proceeding to trial would generally not be proportionate, timely or cost-effective. Similarly, a process that does not give a judge confidence in her conclusions can never be the proportionate way to resolve a dispute. It bears reiterating that the standard for fairness is not whether the procedure is as exhaustive as a trial, but whether it gives the judge confidence that she can find the necessary facts and apply the relevant legal principles so as to resolve the dispute. [51] Often, concerns about credibility or clarification of the evidence can be addressed by calling oral evidence on the motion itself. However, there may be cases where, given the nature of the issues and the evidence required, the judge cannot make the necessary findings of fact, or apply the legal principles to reach a just and fair determination. [66] On a motion for summary judgment under Rule 20.04, the judge should first determine if there is a genuine issue requiring trial based only on the evidence before her, without using the new fact-finding powers. There will be no genuine issue requiring a trial if the summary judgment process provides her with the evidence required to fairly and justly adjudicate the dispute and is a timely, affordable and proportionate procedure, under Rule 20.04(2(a. If there appears to be a genuine issue requiring a trial, she should then determine if the need for a trial can be avoided by using the new powers under Rules 20.04(2.1 and (2.2. She may, at her discretion, use those powers, provided that their use is not against the interest of justice. Their use will not be against the interest of justice if they will lead to a fair and just result and will serve the goals of timeliness, affordability and proportionality in light of the litigation as a whole. [Emphasis in original.]

4 Page: 4 Proper case for a summary judgment motion or preliminary ruling on a point of law: [5] At the outset of the hearing counsel representing the plaintiffs suggested that this motion was more in the nature of a preliminary ruling on a point of law than a summary judgment motion. Whether it is called a summary judgment motion or a motion for a preliminary ruling on a point of law makes little practical difference. The fundamental issue raised by the motion will result in either the dismissal of the two actions or their continuation; this determination does not require a trial. The decision depends upon a legal analysis where the applicable facts are 2018 ONSC 1540 (CanLII undisputed; they are as follows: On September 18, 2014 Sylvain Coulombe and Claire Lecuyer were involved in a motor vehicle accident. The accident happened in the province of Ontario, more specifically in North Glengarry Township. Mr. Coulombe died of injuries he sustained in the accident. Mr. Coulombe and Ms. Lecuyer were both residents of the province of Québec at the time of the accident. Two separate actions were brought as a result of the motor vehicle accident: one action involves four plaintiffs, being Mr. Coulombe s wife and three children, who are all resident in the province of Québec, and a second action involves three plaintiffs, being Mr. Coulombe s mother, the spouse of his mother, and his sister, who are all resident in the province of Ontario. The plaintiffs from Québec have received compensation from the SAAQ pursuant to its no-fault system of automobile insurance. The plaintiffs from Ontario are not entitled to any compensation from Québec. All of the plaintiffs bring their action as derivative claimants, pursuant to section 61 (1 of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3 ( FLA.

5 Page: 5 The position of the defendant/moving party: [6] The defendant advances the position that despite the fact that the motor vehicle accident occurred in the province of Ontario, it is the law of the province of Québec that should apply. That law precludes bringing an action resulting from a motor vehicle accident, as Québec has a no-fault motor vehicle accident regime. Since there can be no action, nor can there be any derivative claims including those involving residents of the province of Ontario. [7] The thrust of the moving party s argument is as follows: 2018 ONSC 1540 (CanLII a The substantive law is a set of laws that governs how individuals in a society behave; it may be codified or exist through precedent in common law. The defendant proposes that the substantive law of the province of Québec applies to these parties and to this action. b While the general rule of tort law in Canada is that the law to be applied is that of the place where the tort was committed (lex loci delicti, in this case, because all of the persons involved were residents of Québec, a statutory or codified exception to the rule exists despite the car accident having occurred in Ontario. c The defendant submits that article 3126 of the Civil Code of Québec applies to the facts of this case. Article 3126 provides: The obligation to make reparation for injury caused to another is governed by the law of the State where the act or omission which occasioned the injury occurred. However, if the injury appeared in another State, the law of the latter State is applicable if the author should have foreseen that the injury would manifest itself there. In any case where the author and the victim have their domiciles or residences in the same State, the law of that State applies. The defendant adds that furthermore, section of the Québec Automobile Insurance Act, C.Q.L.R. c. A-25, precludes the plaintiff from recovering damages from the defendant. Section provides: Compensation under this title stands in lieu of all rights and remedies by reason of bodily injury and no action in that respect shall be admitted before any court of justice. d The defendant further submitted that the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision of Tolofson v. Jensen, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1022, allows for this

6 Page: 6 interpretation. Because Québec has a Civil Code and is not a common law province, they can and have created a statutory exception to the lex loci delicti rule. The following excerpts from Tolofson were referenced as supporting this proposition: Para. 45: There may be room for exceptions but they would need to be very carefully defined. It seems to me self-evident, for example, that State A has no business in defining the legal rights and liabilities of citizens of State B in respect of acts in their own country, or for that matter the actions in State B of citizens of State C, and it would lead to unfair and unjust results if it did. The same considerations apply as between the Canadian provinces. What is really debatable is whether State A, or for that matter Province A, should be able to do so in respect of transactions in other states or provinces between its own citizens or residents ONSC 1540 (CanLII Para. 62 in part: But when all parties are from another state, the likelihood is that the lawsuit will take place in their home jurisdiction. There is some merit to allowing judges in this situation to apply their own law. This factor is, however, of less concern in matters arising within Canada. The laws of our common law provinces, at least, are not that different from each other that their application would give our judges and lawyers significant difficulty. Para. 66: On the whole, I think there is little to gain and much to lose in creating an exception to the lex loci delicti in relation to domestic litigation. This is not to say that an exception to the lex loci delicti such as contained in the Hague Convention is indefensible on the international plane, particularly since it is enshrined in a convention that ensures reciprocity. A similar reciprocal scheme might well be arranged between the provinces. As I noted, however, a rule along the lines of the Hague Convention is not without its problems and does not appear to afford this country most of the advantages that Europeans may gain from it. I note that Quebec has adopted a rule along the same lines in its new Civil Code, but the appropriateness of a judicially created rule seems questionable, especially given the additional matters that require consideration in a federation. To these federal issues I now turn. e The Québec Court of Appeal decision of Giesbrecht c. Succession de Nadeau, 2017 QCCA 386, at para. 48, was cited as interpreting article 3126 in this manner. The case concerned a plane crash in Ontario where the victims were residents of British Columbia and Québec. A spouse of a Québec victim sued the pilot s estate in Québec because he was a resident of Québec. In that case the Court of Appeal went on to say that had some of the victims not been from British Columbia then article 3126 of the code would apply to make Québec law apply despite the accident occurring in Ontario.

7 Page: 7 f It was also submitted that the principle of comity has application to the circumstances of this case in the sense that there should be a mutual respect for a province s right to govern its own residents, particularly in a Federation where common law provinces and a civil law province co-exist. g Furthermore, the statutory no-fault insurance scheme created in the province of Québec, while precluding any of the plaintiffs from suing for damages, has already compensated those plaintiffs who are residents of Québec under their no-fault regime. Martine Lapierre, the spouse of the deceased, received $248,400 and the 3 children of the deceased received the following amounts: $49,613, $51,265 and $56,229. Consequently, the defendant submitted that to award further compensation arising from a lawsuit in the province of Ontario for the same tort would constitute an injustice, in that the plaintiffs would unjustly be the beneficiaries of a double recovery ONSC 1540 (CanLII h Finally, the defendant submitted that under section 61 (1 of the FLA, claimants are limited to Ontario residents. It was submitted that a provincial statute in the nature of that specific Act should be read down to limit its jurisdiction to the persons, property, undertakings and events in Ontario. The deceased and the defendant were residents of Québec and thus derivative claimants, and as a consequence should not have access to section 61(1 of the FLA. Citing as authority for this proposition are excerpts from the cases of Arnold v. Hicks, (1990, 75 OR (2d 191 (H.C., and Detroit (City v. Sandwich West (Township, [1970] S.C.R The position of the plaintiffs/responding parties: [8] Counsel for the plaintiffs from Ontario and from Québec each filed factums. Their position is that there is nothing that precludes any of the plaintiffs from continuing the action in Ontario; there is no statutory exception. The correct application of the lex loci delicti rule and the proper interpretation of the Tolofson case require the dismissal of this motion. [9] The thrust of the plaintiffs/responding parties arguments can be summarized as follows: a The primary argument of both plaintiffs is that the rule of lex loci delicti applies to the facts of this case. The location of the tort is what matters; it triggers the applicable substantive law, not the residents of the parties. That is the law in Canada and it applies to all provinces. That is the appropriate and correct interpretation of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Tolofson. There is no statutory or codified exception.

8 Page: 8 b The only possible and very rare exception is where an injustice occurs. The Ontario Court of Appeal in the case of Wong v. Lee (2002, 58 O.R. (3d 393 (C.A., at para. 16, stated: Every difference in the laws of the two forums is going to benefit one side or the other and be perceived as unjust to the one not benefiting. Because La Forest J. anticipated the exercise of discretion being necessary only in a very unusual case, an injustice that would require a court to exercise the discretion must be something beyond ordinary differences between the laws of the forums. c In fact, a later decision the Court of Appeal said that there were no exceptions to the rule. Soriano (Litigation Guardian of v. Palacios (2005, 255 D.L.R. (4th 359 (Ont. C.A., at para. 14, stated: 2018 ONSC 1540 (CanLII Again I think there is a definitive answer. In the leading case of Tolofson v. Jensen, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1022, after detailed analysis, La Forest J. for the majority decided not only that the substantial law to be applied in tort cases is generally the law of the place where the activity occurred, but that in domestic litigation, where the activity occurred in another province, there can be no exceptions to the application of the lex loci delicti. This court has clearly reiterated this principle in the number of cases. d The plaintiffs suggested that in the alternative, even if the court is to consider the Civil Code of Québec, then the proper interpretation of the Québec Court of Appeal decision of Giesbrecht supports the proposition that the correct law to apply to this case would be that of Ontario. The interpretation they suggested was the following: In Giesbrecht the claim involved a plane crash that occurred in Ontario. All of the occupants of the plane were from Québec. The basic fact situation in that case was that the plaintiffs were all relatives of the late Y. Fournier who died in the crash. The defendant was a pilot from the province of Québec. The family status of the various plaintiffs and their residency was as follows: the spouse and children were Québec residents; the father, mother and siblings were also Québec residents; and the deceased s in-laws were residents of British Columbia. The analysis in Giesbrecht can be divided into two parts: (1 the interpretation and application of article 3126 of the Civil Code of Québec to the above fact situation, and (2 the application of article 3082 of the Civil Code of Québec to the above fact situation.

9 Page: 9 A reading of paras. 30, 31 and 37 of the decision would indicate that the Court of Appeal of Québec ruled that because there were plaintiffs/parties who were not residents of Québec, the lex loci delicti rule would have applied. The court then went on to interpret article 3082, which provides an exception to the rule stated in article 3126 and gives the court discretion to set aside those rules. It provides in part: Exceptionally, the law designated by this Book is not applicable, if in the light of all attendant circumstances, it is clear that the situation is only remotely connected with that law and is much more closely connected with the law of another State. At paragraph 35 of the decision, relying on Tolofson, the Québec Court of Appeal stated that, if the tort was committed in Canada, the discretion provided in article 3082 should only be used in extremely rare and extraordinary circumstances. The case they were dealing with was such a case, because the plaintiffs who were the in-laws of the deceased were not allowed to recover any compensation in the province of Ontario, but would be entitled to compensation in the provinces of Québec and British Columbia. The court stated that it would be incongruous to rule that Ontario law applied because some of the plaintiffs were non-québec residents when those very plaintiffs have no cause of action in Ontario, therefore utilizing the article 3082 exception. In short, they say the case stands for the proposition that the exception stipulated in article 3082 is what triggered the application of Québec law and not article ONSC 1540 (CanLII e With respect to the argument concerning the possible injustice occasioned by a double recovery, the plaintiffs submitted that any benefits that have already been paid out to a given plaintiff could be the subject matter of a set-off in the action being litigated in the province of Ontario. There is no guarantee of double recovery. In any event, if Québec law was to apply to the facts of this case, the consequence would be a more egregious injustice against some of the plaintiffs. The effect would be that the plaintiffs who are residents of Ontario would be denied the right to claim anything at all, as they would be disentitled by residency from any benefits whatsoever under the province of Québec s no-fault automobile insurance regime. f Finally, as to the argument concerning the FLA only applying to residents of the province of Ontario, the counterargument was that an event occurring in a province was sufficient to engage a provincial statute to govern the rights and

10 Page: 10 obligations of an individual or individuals involved therein. The proper application of the Supreme Court of Canada decision of Tolofson allows for no other possible interpretation. Analysis and decision: [10] The facta filed by counsel representing the two groups of plaintiffs/respondents when read together were almost 60 pages in length. They contained a comprehensive and detailed analysis on the issues of: the proper interpretation of the Giesbrecht case, the principle of comity, public policy considerations, the issue of choice of law, and that the Québec automobile 2018 ONSC 1540 (CanLII insurance act overrides article [11] My reading and interpretation of the Giesbrecht case mirrors that of counsel for the plaintiff/respondents. Furthermore, I accept much of the argument on the various issues put forward in their facta. That being said, in my estimation the determination of the defendant s motion does not require a detailed review or analysis of those arguments. This is because my interpretation, analysis and understanding of the Tolofson case, together with the leading Ontario Court of Appeal cases on the subject, have led me to the inescapable conclusion that the motion should be dismissed, and that the lawsuits instituted by all of the plaintiffs, including those who are Québec residents, should be allowed to continue. [12] It seems to me that the success or failure of this motion depends upon whether one can conclude that the current state of Canadian law is that a province can create a legislative exception to the lex loci delicti rule. I find that it cannot and that such an interpretation runs contrary to the fundamental reasoning and principles to be taken from the Tolofson decision and to our Ontario Court of Appeal s interpretation of that decision.

11 Page: 11 [13] I would summarize the reasoning and essential principles as follows: a In domestic litigation in Canada, the substantive law to be applied in tort cases is the law of the place where the activity occurred: lex loci delicti. b The reasoning for this general rule is to allow for certainty and predictability. People should expect their activities to be governed by the law of the place where they happen to be at any given point in time, together with the rights and obligations that arise under that law. c The application of the rule will not only promote certainty, but also avoid delay and prolonged litigation and promote settlement. d In the end, the analysis in its entirety offered by Justice La Forest in Tolofson, concerning the province of Québec and their being the only Civil Code province in a Federation of common-law provinces, does not by inference or otherwise create the prospect of a provincial legislative exception to the fundamental rule. In Canada, if you are involved in a tort in a given province, it is the law of that province that applies and it does not matter that you or the other person involved in that tort comes from another province ONSC 1540 (CanLII e The only exception possible to the lex loci delicti rule is the very rare situation where an injustice would arise. See Hanlan v. Sernesky (1997, 35 O.R. (3d 603 (Gen. Div., at para. 30; Wong v. Lee, at para. 12. (Query whether there is any exception at all to lex loci delicti given the strong and unequivocal language used by Justice Goudge in Soriano (Litigation Guardian of v. Palacios, at para. 14: in domestic litigation, where the activity occurred in other province, there can be no exceptions to the application of the lex loci delicti. [14] With respect to the issue of the non-application of section 61 (1 of the FLA to the Québec plaintiffs, I disagree with the analysis provided by the defendant. The law of the province applies, meaning that if you get into a car accident in the province of Ontario you are entitled to rely upon and also be subject to all of the laws that govern that province. This would include their eligibility to sue under section 61 (1 of the FLA. [15] With respect to the issue of an injustice occasioned by the possible double recovery by the plaintiffs who come from the province of Québec, I would not categorize this as an injustice.

12 Page: 12 In all likelihood, a set-off of those benefits already received from Québec against any recovery obtained in this province will be an issue for consideration at trial. [16] Ironically, the only injustice that could have occurred here would have arisen had the defendant s motion succeeded, this because all of the plaintiffs from the province of Ontario would have been denied any possible recovery, as they are not permitted to seek benefits in the province of Québec. [17] Therefore, for all of the above reasons, the motion is dismissed ONSC 1540 (CanLII [18] With respect to the issue of costs, if the parties cannot resolve the issue of costs, brief written submissions of not more than two pages, with attachments including a detailed Bill of Costs, are to be provided within 15 days from each of the plaintiffs. The defendant shall have 7 days thereafter to respond with a right of reply within a further 5 days thereafter. Released: April 10, 2018 The Honourable Robert. L. Maranger

13 CITATION: Lapierre v. Lecuyer, 2018 ONSC 1540 COURT FILE NO.: /19995/16 DATE: 2018/04/10 B E T W E E N: BETWEEN: ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE MARTINE LaPIERRE, AMY COULOMBE, ANTHONY MICHAEL COULOME and PHILLIPE COULOMBE by their Litigation Guardian Martine LaPierre 2018 ONSC 1540 (CanLII and Plaintiffs/Respondents CLAIRE LECUYER and Defendant/Moving Party JENNIFER COULOMBE, MICHELINE MAILLE and MICHEL JACOB and CLAIRE LECUYER Plaintiff/Respondents Defendant/Moving Party MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Maranger J. Released: April 10, 2018

Case Name: CEJ Poultry Inc. v. Intact Insurance Co.

Case 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 information

A two-stage common law test for deciding adjudicative jurisdiction emerged. 5

A 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 information

HEARD: November 14, 2014, December 17, 2014, February 6, 2015 ENDORSEMENT

HEARD: 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 information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

COURT 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 information

ENDORSEMENT months' compensation in lieu of notice; damages equal to the value of his employment benefits; and

ENDORSEMENT 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 information

Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, Mark Siegel and Rosanne Dawson, Defendants. Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton LLP, Third Party

Gowling 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 information

NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL

NOVA 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 information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ) ) ) ) Defendants ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION

ONTARIO 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 information

ONTARIO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Applicant. Respondents REASONS FOR DECISION

ONTARIO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Applicant. Respondents REASONS FOR DECISION CITATION: Kee Kwok v. State Farm Mutual, 2016 ONSC 7339 COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-559520 DATE: 20161202 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: KEE KWOK, by his Litigation Guardian Grace Kwok and Applicant

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 955/09

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 955/09 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 955/09 BEFORE: J. Josefo: Vice-Chair HEARING: May 13, 2009 at Ottawa Oral DATE OF DECISION: June 16, 2009 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2009 ONWSIAT 1450

More information

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA Date: 20181121 Docket: CI 16-01-04438 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Shirritt-Beaumont v. Frontier School Division Cited as: 2018 MBQB 177 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA BETWEEN: ) APPEARANCES: ) RAYMOND

More information

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA Date: 20180705 Docket: CI 14-01-87274 CI 17-01-10191 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Outland Camps Inc. v. M&L General Contracting Ltd. et al. Cited as: 2018 MBQB 112 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA BETWEEN:

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

COURT 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 information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CITATION: Thorne v. Hudson, 2016 ONSC 5507 COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-437408 DATE: 20160907 ONTARIO BETWEEN: Donna Thorne, on her own behalf and as litigation guardian of Breanna Pacquette a minor, Simone Pacquette,

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 194/16

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 194/16 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 194/16 BEFORE: S. Martel: Vice-Chair HEARING: January 21, 2016 at Toronto Oral DATE OF DECISION: March 23, 2016 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2016 ONWSIAT

More information

CHEYENNE SANTANA MARIE FOX, DECEASED, JOHN GRAHAM TERRANCE FOX, ESTATE TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF CHEYENNE SANTANA MARIE FOX

CHEYENNE SANTANA MARIE FOX, DECEASED, JOHN GRAHAM TERRANCE FOX, ESTATE TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF CHEYENNE SANTANA MARIE FOX SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO CITATION: Fox v. Narine, 2016 ONSC 6499 COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-526934 DATE: 20161020 RE: CHEYENNE SANTANA MARIE FOX, DECEASED, JOHN GRAHAM TERRANCE FOX, ESTATE TRUSTEE

More information

2014 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 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 information

Conflict of Laws: Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

Conflict 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 information

CITATION: 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 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 information

Thomas Gorsky and C. Chan, for the Defendant ENDORSEMENT

Thomas 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 information

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW OF STAY OF PROCEEDINGS. Brandon Jaffe Jaffe & Peritz LLP

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW OF STAY OF PROCEEDINGS. Brandon Jaffe Jaffe & Peritz LLP RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW OF STAY OF PROCEEDINGS Brandon Jaffe Jaffe & Peritz LLP 1 SECTION 69 OF THE BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY ACT ( BIA ) 2 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE BIA STAY PROVISIONS 1 Since

More information

Page 2 [2] The action arose from a motor vehicle accident on October 9, The plaintiff Anthony Okafor claimed two million dollars and the plainti

Page 2 [2] The action arose from a motor vehicle accident on October 9, The plaintiff Anthony Okafor claimed two million dollars and the plainti CITATION: OKAFOR v. MARKEL INSURANCE & KROPKA, 2010 ONSC 2093 COURT FILE NO.: C42087/97 DATE: 2010-06-01 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: JUNE OKAFOR AND ANTHONY OKAFOR Plaintiffs - and

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL 2003 ONWSIAT 1955 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 234/03 [1] This right to sue application was heard in London on February 4, 2003, by Vice-Chair M. Kenny. THE RIGHT TO SUE

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1086/15

WORKPLACE 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Geller v. Sable Resources Ltd., 2014 BCSC 171 Date: 20140203 Docket: S108380 Registry: Vancouver Between: And Jan Geller Sable Resources Ltd. Plaintiff

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT SACHS, NORDHEIMER & PATTILLO JJ. ) ) ) ) Respondent )

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT SACHS, NORDHEIMER & PATTILLO JJ. ) ) ) ) Respondent ) CITATION: Riddell v. Apple Canada Inc., 2016 ONSC 6014 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-15-895-00 (Oshawa DATE: 20160926 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT SACHS, NORDHEIMER & PATTILLO JJ.

More information

PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW SUMMARY 2011

PRIVATE 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 information

Early Stage Claim Construction: Should it be Implemented in Canada?

Early Stage Claim Construction: Should it be Implemented in Canada? Early Stage Claim Construction: Should it be Implemented in Canada? November 4, 2016 Your Panel Moderator: The Hon. Justice George R. Locke Panelists: Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark, U.S. District Court,

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Plaintiff ) ) ) Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REASONS FOR DECISION

ONTARIO 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 information

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Hannem v. Stilet, 2015 NSSC 341

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Hannem v. Stilet, 2015 NSSC 341 SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Hannem v. Stilet, 2015 NSSC 341 Date: 20151126 Docket: Hfx No. 429723 Registry: Halifax Between: Mark Wesley Hannem Plaintiff v. Daniel Marvin Stilet, Shannon Lynne

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. Plaintiff ) Defendants ) ) HEARD: March 3, 2017 DECISION ON THRESHOLD MOTION

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. Plaintiff ) Defendants ) ) HEARD: March 3, 2017 DECISION ON THRESHOLD MOTION CITATION: Pupo v. Venditti, 2017 ONSC 1519 COURT FILE NO.: 4795/12 DATE: 2017-03-06 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: Deano J. Pupo Christopher A. Richard, for the Plaintiff Plaintiff -

More information

Introductory Guide to Civil Litigation in Ontario

Introductory 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 information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Plaintiff ) ) ) Defendants RULING RE: ADMISSION OF EXPERT EVIDENCE OF DR. FINKELSTEIN

ONTARIO 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 information

Commercial Litigation. Update

Commercial 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 information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs ) Defendant ) DECISION ON COSTS

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs ) Defendant ) DECISION ON COSTS BROCKVILLE COURT FILE NO.: 05-0083 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: DUSKA BARKLEY, PEYTON BARKLEY, Jonathan A. Schwartzman, for the Plaintiffs MARATHA BARKLEY, by their Litigation Guardian,

More information

Disposition before Trial

Disposition 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN 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 information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants ) ) ) ) ) REASONS FOR DECISION ON MOTION

ONTARIO 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 information

IN THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL (ON APPEAL FROM THE DIVISIONAL COURT)

IN THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL (ON APPEAL FROM THE DIVISIONAL COURT) Court of Appeal Number: C61116 Divisional Court File No.: 250/14 IN THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL (ON APPEAL FROM THE DIVISIONAL COURT) B E T W E E N: TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY and BRAYDEN VOLKENANAT Applicants

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Plaintiffs ) ) ) Defendant ) ) DECISION ON MOTION:

ONTARIO 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 information

Part 1 Interpretation

Part 1 Interpretation The New Limitation Act Explained Page 1 Part 1 Interpretation This Part defines terms and provides some general principles of interpretation for the new Limitation Act ( new Act ). Division 1 Definitions

More information

SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FEDERAL COURT AND IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL. A Discussion Paper of the Rules Subcommittee on Summary Judgment

SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FEDERAL COURT AND IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL. A Discussion Paper of the Rules Subcommittee on Summary Judgment 1 SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FEDERAL COURT AND IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL A Discussion Paper of the Rules Subcommittee on Summary Judgment I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of summary judgment is to dispose

More information

IN THE MATTER OF the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.i.8, as amended, AND IN THE MATTER OF the Arbitration Act, S.O. 1991, c.17

IN THE MATTER OF the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.i.8, as amended, AND IN THE MATTER OF the Arbitration Act, S.O. 1991, c.17 IN THE MATTER OF the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.i.8, as amended, AND IN THE MATTER OF the Arbitration Act, S.O. 1991, c.17 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ING INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA

More information

IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, SECTION 268 and REGULATION 283/95 OF THE ACT

IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, SECTION 268 and REGULATION 283/95 OF THE ACT IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, SECTION 268 and REGULATION 283/95 OF THE ACT AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c. 17, as amended; AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

More information

Constitutional Practice and Procedure in Administrative Tribunals: An Emerging Issue

Constitutional Practice and Procedure in Administrative Tribunals: An Emerging Issue Constitutional Practice and Procedure in Administrative Tribunals: An Emerging Issue David Stratas Introduction After much controversy, 1 the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that tribunals that have

More information

Order F14-44 WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL. Elizabeth Barker, Adjudicator. October 3, 2014

Order F14-44 WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL. Elizabeth Barker, Adjudicator. October 3, 2014 Order F14-44 WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL Elizabeth Barker, Adjudicator October 3, 2014 Quicklaw Cite: [2014] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 47 CanLII Cite: 2014 BCIPC 47 Summary: The applicant, on behalf of

More information

ONTARIO. ) ) Daniel R. McDonald, for the Defendant BAUSCH & LOMB CANADA INC. ) ) ) ) Defendant )

ONTARIO. ) ) Daniel R. McDonald, for the Defendant BAUSCH & LOMB CANADA INC. ) ) ) ) Defendant ) CITATION: Ballim v. Bausch & Lomb Canada Inc., 2016 ONSC 6307 COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-548534 DATE: 20161013 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: SAMINA BALLIM Stan Fainzilberg, for the Plaintiff Plaintiff

More information

CONFLICT OF LAWS E S S ENTIAL S OF C ANAD I AN LAW 'IRTATIN I STEPHEN G A PITEL NICHOLAS S RAFFERTY. Faculty of Law, Western University

CONFLICT OF LAWS E S S ENTIAL S OF C ANAD I AN LAW 'IRTATIN I STEPHEN G A PITEL NICHOLAS S RAFFERTY. Faculty of Law, Western University E S S ENTIAL S OF C ANAD I AN LAW CONFLICT OF LAWS S ECOND EDITION STEPHEN G A PITEL Faculty of Law, Western University NICHOLAS S RAFFERTY Faculty of Law, University of Calgary 'IRTATIN I LA C. THE

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: Lieberman et al. v. Business Development Bank of Canada, 2005 BCSC 389 Date: 20050318 Docket: L041024 Registry: Vancouver Lucien Lieberman and

More information

AMENDMENTS TO THE ONTARIO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

AMENDMENTS TO THE ONTARIO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Toll-free 1.877.262.7762 www.virtualassociates.ca AMENDMENTS TO THE ONTARIO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE This chart is updated as of July 1, 2017. This table is intended as a guideline only. The statutory

More information

DIVISIONAL COURT, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE CAPITAL ONE BANK (CANADA BRANCH) APPELLANT S FACTUM I. STATEMENT OF THE APPEAL

DIVISIONAL COURT, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE CAPITAL ONE BANK (CANADA BRANCH) APPELLANT S FACTUM I. STATEMENT OF THE APPEAL Divisional Court File No. DC-12-463-00 DIVISIONAL COURT, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: CAPITAL ONE BANK (CANADA BRANCH) -and- Plaintiff (Appellant) LAURA M. TOOGOOD aka LAURA MARIE TOOGOOD aka

More information

A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE FEDERAL CROWN

A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE FEDERAL CROWN A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE FEDERAL CROWN Martin C.Ward Introduction: The Crown could not be sued at common law. The Courts were creations of the Crown and as such it could not be compelled

More information

Page: 2 Manufacturing Inc. referred to as ( Stork Craft has brought a motion to enforce the alleged settlement agreement between counsel to discontinu

Page: 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 information

IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Cite as: Custom Clean Atlantic Ltd. v. GSF Canada Inc., 2016 NSSM 17 PRELIMINARY RULING ON JURISDICTION

IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Cite as: Custom Clean Atlantic Ltd. v. GSF Canada Inc., 2016 NSSM 17 PRELIMINARY RULING ON JURISDICTION Claim No. SCCH-449291 IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Cite as: Custom Clean Atlantic Ltd. v. GSF Canada Inc., 2016 NSSM 17 BETWEEN: CUSTOM CLEAN ATLANTIC LTD. Claimant - and - GSF CANADA INC.

More information

Morguard at the Millennium: A Survey of Change

Morguard at the Millennium: A Survey of Change Osgoode Hall Law School of York University Osgoode Digital Commons All Papers Research Papers, Working Papers, Conference Papers 2000 Morguard at the Millennium: A Survey of Change Janet Walker Osgoode

More information

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Court File No. A-145-12 FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA APPELLANT - and- CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, FIRST NATIONS CHILD AND FAMILY CARING SOCIETY, ASSEMBLY OF FIRST

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT J. WILSON, KARAKATSANIS, AND BRYANT JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ONTARIO 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 information

Chodowski 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.] 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 information

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT. SWINTON, THORBURN, and COPELAND JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

SUPERIOR 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 information

CARDINAL HEALTH CANADA INC., Defendant ENDORSEMENT. [2] The plaintiff s motion for summary judgment is dismissed.

CARDINAL HEALTH CANADA INC., Defendant ENDORSEMENT. [2] The plaintiff s motion for summary judgment is dismissed. CITATION: ANDERSON v. CARDINAL HEALTH, 2013 ONSC 5226 COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-471868-0000 DATE: 20130815 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: LILLIAN ANDERSON, Plaintiff AND CARDINAL HEALTH CANADA INC.,

More information

The Current State and Trajectory of U.S. Conflict of Laws

The Current State and Trajectory of U.S. Conflict of Laws The Current State and Trajectory of U.S. Conflict of Laws Czech Society for International Law March 28, 2013 Outline Sources of law for conflict of laws Today only choice of law and recognition and enforcement

More information

Charlene Kruse Tribunal Applications RESPONSE ARGUMENT TO SUBMISSIONS WITH RESPECT TO COSTS

Charlene Kruse Tribunal Applications RESPONSE ARGUMENT TO SUBMISSIONS WITH RESPECT TO COSTS Huu-ay-aht Tribunal Application Hearings Huu-ay-aht Tribunal Applications: 2013-002, 2013-005 Hearing Date: June 10-11, 2014 Charlene Kruse Tribunal Applications RESPONSE ARGUMENT TO SUBMISSIONS WITH RESPECT

More information

Fortress Real Developments Inc., Fortress Real Capital Inc., Jawad Rathore and Vince Petrozza, Plaintiffs ENDORSEMENT

Fortress Real Developments Inc., Fortress Real Capital Inc., Jawad Rathore and Vince Petrozza, Plaintiffs ENDORSEMENT CITATION: Fortress Real Developments Inc. v. Rabidoux, 2017 ONSC 167 COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-546813 DATE: 20170111 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: Fortress Real Developments Inc., Fortress Real Capital

More information

COURT 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 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 information

Case Brief: Lornson v. Siddiqui

Case Brief: Lornson v. Siddiqui DePaul Journal of Health Care Law Volume 11 Issue 2 Spring 2008 Article 7 Case Brief: Lornson v. Siddiqui Pablo A. Godoy Follow this and additional works at: http://via.library.depaul.edu/jhcl Recommended

More information

Present: Dickson C.J. and Beetz, McIntyre, Lamer and La Forest JJ. in effect when accident occurred--statutes barring action repealed before action

Present: 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 information

Case Name: Hunter v. Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Case 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 information

NOTICE OF CERTIFICATION, OBJECTION PROCESS AND SETTLEMENT APPROVAL HEARING LONG FORM NOTICE

NOTICE OF CERTIFICATION, OBJECTION PROCESS AND SETTLEMENT APPROVAL HEARING LONG FORM NOTICE NOTICE OF CERTIFICATION, OBJECTION PROCESS AND SETTLEMENT APPROVAL HEARING LONG FORM NOTICE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF THE EI SICKNESS BENEFITS CLASS ACTION Did you apply for, and were denied, a conversion

More information

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Walcott v. Walcott, 2017 NSSC 327 LIBRARY HEADING

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Walcott v. Walcott, 2017 NSSC 327 LIBRARY HEADING SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Walcott v. Walcott, 2017 NSSC 327 Date: 20170926 Docket: File No. 460559 Registry: Sydney Between: Rita Walcott and Gerald Walcott v. Georgina Walcott and Joseph

More information

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL PRACTICE MANUAL

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL PRACTICE MANUAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL PRACTICE MANUAL (revised July 2016) 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.00 The Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal 1.10 Introduction 1.11 Definitions 1.20 Role of the Tribunal

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1806/09

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1806/09 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1806/09 BEFORE: J. P. Moore : Vice-Chair HEARING: June 17, 2010 at Toronto Oral DATE OF DECISION: July 27, 2010 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2010 ONWSIAT

More information

RECENT STATEMENTS BY THE COURTS OF ONTARIO ON THE LAW OF COSTS. by Roseanna R. Ansell-Vaughan

RECENT STATEMENTS BY THE COURTS OF ONTARIO ON THE LAW OF COSTS. by Roseanna R. Ansell-Vaughan RECENT STATEMENTS BY THE COURTS OF ONTARIO ON THE LAW OF COSTS by Roseanna R. Ansell-Vaughan In the last year, the Courts of Ontario have delivered a cluster of decisions on costs that speak to various

More information

Getting Out Early: Motion Techniques for Early Resolution of Claims. Jay Skukowski

Getting Out Early: Motion Techniques for Early Resolution of Claims. Jay Skukowski Getting Out Early: Motion Techniques for Early Resolution of Claims Jay Skukowski 416-593-1221 jskukowski@blaney.com What is a Motion? A motion is an oral or written application requesting a court to make

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT ) ) ) HEARD in writing. REASONS FOR DECISION (Motion for Leave to Appeal)

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT ) ) ) HEARD in writing. REASONS FOR DECISION (Motion for Leave to Appeal) CITATION: Babcock v. Destefano 2017 ONSC 276 COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-458641 DATE: 20170113 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT BETWEEN: REGGIE BABCOCK Respondent/Plaintiff/ and ANGELO DESTEFANO

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL LIANNU LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BY ITS GENERAL PARTNER M&M ENGINEERING LIMITED

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL LIANNU LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BY ITS GENERAL PARTNER M&M ENGINEERING LIMITED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Liannu Limited Partnership v. Modspace Financial Services Canada Ltd., 2016 NLCA 15 Date: April 8, 2016 Docket: 201501H0030 BETWEEN:

More information

Guide. Applying for Compensation for a Death. Social Justice Tribunals Ontario. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board

Guide. Applying for Compensation for a Death. Social Justice Tribunals Ontario. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board Social Justice Tribunals Ontario Providing fair and accessible justice Criminal Injuries Compensation Board Guide Applying for Compensation for a Death 0311E (2018/02) Disponible en français Page 1 of

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

COURT 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 information

Epstein s This Week in Family Law

Epstein s This Week in Family Law FAMLNWS 2016-15 Family Law Newsletters April 18, 2016 Epstein s This Week in Family Law Philip Epstein Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its Licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Drescher v. Drescher Estate, 2007 NSSC 352. Docket: SH. No

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Drescher v. Drescher Estate, 2007 NSSC 352. Docket: SH. No Page 1 of 7 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Drescher v. Drescher Estate, 2007 NSSC 352 Docket: SH. No. 278018 Date: 20071121 Registry: Halifax Between: Gisela Drescher, by her attorney Alex

More information

THE REALITY OF TENDERING WHY REAL ESTATE LAWYERS GIVE FUEL FOR LITIGATORS TO SUE THEM

THE REALITY OF TENDERING WHY REAL ESTATE LAWYERS GIVE FUEL FOR LITIGATORS TO SUE THEM THE REALITY OF TENDERING WHY REAL ESTATE LAWYERS GIVE FUEL FOR LITIGATORS TO SUE THEM Safeguarding the transaction-the old school rules Much has been written about tendering and the hows and whys of doing

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO. Crljenica, T., Counsel for Perth Insurance Company/Responding Party REASONS FOR DECISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO. Crljenica, T., Counsel for Perth Insurance Company/Responding Party REASONS FOR DECISION RE: BEFORE: COUNSEL: CITATION: Charway v. TD General Insurance Company et al., 2017 ONSC 4593 COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-511937 MOTION HEARD: 11042017 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO Jessica Charway, Plaintiff/Moving

More information

The Royal Court Civil Rules, 2007

The Royal Court Civil Rules, 2007 O.R.C. No. IV of 2007 The Royal Court Civil Rules, 2007 ARRANGEMENT OF RULES Rule PART I The overriding objective 1. Statement and application of overriding objective. PART II Service of documents 2. Service

More information

RE: The Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers Marketing Board, Andy J. Jacko, Brian Baswick, Ron Kichler and Arpad Dobrentey (Plaintiffs)

RE: The Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers Marketing Board, Andy J. Jacko, Brian Baswick, Ron Kichler and Arpad Dobrentey (Plaintiffs) CITATION: The Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers Marketing Board v. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges, Inc., 2014 ONSC 3469 COURT FILE NO.: 64462 CP DATE: 2014/06/30 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO RE: The Ontario

More information

TULANE LAW REVIEW ONLINE

TULANE LAW REVIEW ONLINE TULANE LAW REVIEW ONLINE VOL. 91 MAY 2017 Juneau v. State ex rel. Department of Health and Hospitals Killed by the Calendar: A Seemingly Unfair Result But a Correct Action I. OVERVIEW... 43 II. BACKGROUND...

More information

CITATION: 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.: 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 information

Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL

Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Hubley v. Hubley Estate 2011 PECA 19 Date: 20111124 Docket: S1-CA-1211 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND: DENISE

More information

Houlden & Morawetz On-Line Newsletter

Houlden & 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 information

Submitted by: Joseph Frank Adam [represented by counsel]

Submitted by: Joseph Frank Adam [represented by counsel] HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Adam v. Czech Republic Communication No. 586/1994* 23 July 1996 CCPR/C/57/D/586/1994 VIEWS Submitted by: Joseph Frank Adam [represented by counsel] Alleged victim: The author State

More information

Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards in Canada

Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards in Canada McCarthy Tétrault LLP PO Box 48, Suite 5300 Toronto-Dominion Bank Tower Toronto ON M5K 1E6 Canada Tel: 416-362-1812 Fax: 416-868-0673 Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards in Canada DAVID I. W.

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIAL LIST

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIAL LIST ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIAL LIST IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, AS AMENDED Court File No. CV-13-10279-00CL BETWEEN: AND IN THE MATTER OF

More information

WIFRED PAUL HUSTON, aka WILFRED PAUL HUSTON, Defendant. COUNSEL: Carlin McGoogan and Christopher Du Vernet, for the Plaintiff ENDORSEMENT

WIFRED PAUL HUSTON, aka WILFRED PAUL HUSTON, Defendant. COUNSEL: Carlin McGoogan and Christopher Du Vernet, for the Plaintiff ENDORSEMENT SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO CITATION: Barbulov v. Huston, 2010 ONSC 3088 COURT FILE NO.: CV-09-378669 DATE: 20100528 RE: DRAGO BARBULOV, Plaintiff AND: WIFRED PAUL HUSTON, aka WILFRED PAUL HUSTON,

More information

THE USE OF PEDIATRIC LIFE CARE PLANS PRIOR TO TRIAL AND BEYOND

THE USE OF PEDIATRIC LIFE CARE PLANS PRIOR TO TRIAL AND BEYOND BACK TO SCHOOL with Thomson, Rogers in collaboration with Toronto ABI Network THE USE OF PEDIATRIC LIFE CARE PLANS PRIOR TO TRIAL AND BEYOND SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 STACEY L. STEVENS, Partner Thomson, Rogers

More information

Affidavits in Support of Motions

Affidavits in Support of Motions Affidavits in Support of Motions To be advised and verily believe or not to be advised and verily believe: That is the question Presented by: Robert Zochodne November 20, 2010 30 th Civil Litigation Updated

More information

Leoppky v. Meston, 2008 ABQB 45

Leoppky v. Meston, 2008 ABQB 45 Two cases concerning the Statute of Frauds (1677, U.K.) by Jonnette Watson Hamilton Leoppky v. Meston, 2008 ABQB 45 http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/2003-/qb/family/2008/2008abqb0045.ed1.pdf Wasylyshyn

More information

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Fawson Estate v. Deveau, 2015 NSSC 355

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Fawson Estate v. Deveau, 2015 NSSC 355 SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Fawson Estate v. Deveau, 2015 NSSC 355 Date: 20150917 Docket: Hfx No. 412751 Registry: Halifax Between: James Robert Fawson, James Robert Fawson, as the personal

More information

FD: FD: DT:D DN: 211/88 STY: GREEN FOREST LUMBER LTD. et al. v. FORSTER et al and one other action PANEL: Newman; Cook; Apsey DDATE: ACT: 15;

FD: FD: DT:D DN: 211/88 STY: GREEN FOREST LUMBER LTD. et al. v. FORSTER et al and one other action PANEL: Newman; Cook; Apsey DDATE: ACT: 15; FD: FD: DT:D DN: 211/88 STY: GREEN FOREST LUMBER LTD. et al. v. FORSTER et al and one other action PANEL: Newman; Cook; Apsey DDATE: 040688 ACT: 15; 8(9) KEYW: Section 15 application; Independent operator;

More information

2013 ONSC 5288 Ontario Superior Court of Justice. S&R Flooring Concepts Inc. v. RLC Stratford LP

2013 ONSC 5288 Ontario Superior Court of Justice. S&R Flooring Concepts Inc. v. RLC Stratford LP 2013 ONSC 5288 Ontario Superior Court of Justice S&R Flooring Concepts Inc. v. RLC Stratford LP 2013 CarswellOnt 12254, 2013 ONSC 5288, 232 A.C.W.S. (3d) 95, 31 C.L.R. (4th) 89 S&R Flooring Concepts Inc.,

More information

TYPES OF MOTIONS Jennifer Griffiths and Marni Miller

TYPES OF MOTIONS Jennifer Griffiths and Marni Miller TYPES OF MOTIONS Jennifer Griffiths and Marni Miller A motion provides the mechanism for a party in litigation to obtain the court s direction on a limited issue prior to trial. Motions can be used to

More information

SECURITY FOR COSTS MOTIONS

SECURITY FOR COSTS MOTIONS SECURITY FOR COSTS MOTIONS Introduction Motions for security for costs provide a means for a defendant to ensure, before litigation proceeds too far, that there is a fund of money in place to pay the defendant's

More information

MEETING NOTICE REQUIREMENTS

MEETING NOTICE REQUIREMENTS NUTS&BOLTS BY GILLIAN MAYS MEETING NOTICE REQUIREMENTS Introduction The 10-day notice periods prescribed by the Municipal Act, 20011 and the City of Toronto Act, 2006,2 have been judicially referred to

More information