Articles

There were three substantive civil decisions this week. Williams v. Toronto (City), is a class action against the City for negligence by tenants who occupied rooming houses with analysis on the legal test for finding a duty of care in negligence. Thompson v. Ontario (Attorney General) focuses on whether Brian's Law violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Balev v. Baggot concerns the meaning of habitual residence in the Hague Convention.

In a labour law case it was decided that the Expenditure Restraint Act, which capped public service employee wages during the recession arising out of the financial crisis of 2008 and did not allow unions to try and make up those losses at a later date, did not infringe the federal unions’ right to freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter. Other topics include administrative law, securities class actions, mortgagees’ rights as against residential tenants and easements of necessity.

In the recent decision of Sanzone v. Schechter, the Ontario Court of Appeal provided insight regarding the evidentiary burden that a defendant must meet in moving to dismiss an action by way of summary judgment, and in particular what expert evidence may be required.

Summaries of this week’s civil decisions released by the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Topics covered include contracts, summary judgment in the limitation period context, and contempt. John Polyzogopoulos Blaney McMurtry LLP jpolyzogopoulos@blaney.com Tel: 416.593.2953 http://www.blaney.com/lawyers/john-polyzogopoulos

Below are the summaries of this week’s civil decisions released by the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Topics covered include summary judgment in the context of medmal, fraud and debtor-creditor claims, the ability (or lack thereof) to appeal from arbitral decisions on issues of jurisdiction, and a family law decision involving a claim to unequal division of family property. As always, we welcome your comments and feedback.