Articles

Following are the summaries of this week’s civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

Following are summaries of this week’s civil decisions of the Court of Appeal of Ontario, including Yaiguaje v Chevron Corporation, in which it appears that the Court has finally put an end to the matter; and Beatty v Wei, in which the Court set aside the application judge’s interpretation of the Illegal Substances Clause commonly used as an additional term in the Ontario Real Estate Association/Toronto Real Estate Board standard form Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

Would you rather count on “good faith” from your boss or know what can lose you your job and what can’t? Sabsay Lawyers recently won a favourable decision at the ON Court of Appeal in the area of contract law, right on the verge of employment law, that brings this question to the forefront.

I would like to congratulate our very own Roger Horst and Rafal Szymanski on successfully representing the respondent in Correct Building Corporation v. Lehman. The Court dismissed the appeal against our client and granted our client’s cross-appeal, resulting in a dismissal of all claims against our client by way of summary judgment.

Following are summaries of this week’s civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, including Ontario Inc. v. Maple Leafs Foods Inc., in which the Court decided Maple Leafs Foods did not have a duty not to harm the reputation or profits of Mr. Sub franchisees who sold Maple Leaf meats; and, on the Criminal Law front, the Court's decision in R. v. Forcillo, in which the appeal from the conviction of the constable for attempted murder was dismissed.

Topics covered this week included two procedural fairness decisions (one relating to interpreting a contract in a way neither party argued, the other relating to the effect of a lengthy adjournment mid-trial), repair and storage liens in the automobile insurance context, the tort of conversion, as well as several short procedural decisions.

In Wallbridge v. Brunning, the Court of Appeal held that whether a law firm can be vicariously liable for defamatory statements made by a lawyer who practices “in association” with it, is an issue of general importance that should be determined at a trial and not on a motion for summary judgment. Other topics covered this week included several wills and estates matters, wrongful dismissal, family law (custody and abduction), limitation periods and some procedural matters.

Topics covered this week included franchise law and rescission, liability for wrongful patent enforcement, the duty to defend in the MVA context, family law (custody and access and breach of court orders), securities class actions, and mortgage enforcement. John Polyzogopoulos

“Like a forest fire in this era of climate change, costs in class proceedings have gotten out of control.” These were the opening words of Justice Perell in his recent costs decision following a successful defence motion to stay the class proceedings in Heller v Uber Technologies Inc, 2018 ONSC 1690.

The intersection of intellectual property law and competition law is an area that gains greater significance with each passing year. Much of the focus in this area recently has been on the appropriate scope of action to take by regulators. Also important, but attracting less attention, is the application of common law doctrines against contracts in restraint of trade to agreements that are based on the enforcement of intellectual property rights.