Articles

Hello everyone. Below are summaries of this week’s Ontario Court of Appeal civil decisions (non-criminal). Topics covered include family law, construction liens, constructive dismissal, insurance law in relation to the calculation of the amount of a subrogated claim by OHIP in a personal injury action and in the reduction of benefits under an LTD policy upon receipt of CPP payments, and a motion to strike for no cause of action and the right to amend pleadings in that context.

Should independence and impartiality be considered at the threshold admissibility stage, or only in the weight given to the evidence?

In Bernstein v. Poon, 2015 ONSC 2125, Justice Mew had an opportunity to deal with some of the most frustrating aspects of a case that "isn't about the money". The decision was a costs endorsement concerning two rival weight loss gurus engaged in a defamation action.

Below are summaries of this week’s OCA civil decisions (non-criminal). Topics covered include certification of a copyright class action brought by land surveyors against Teranet Inc for providing access to their plans, reasonable notice of termination of employment, stay of proceedings in both the creditor-debtor and immigration law context, and franchise law.

A recent decision by the Court of Appeal for Ontario sharply curtails the potential for parties to be caught off guard at trial through the use of surreptitiously recorded video surveillance.

A recent Ontario decision distinguished the reasonableness standard of review recently set by the SCC in Sattva and applied a correctness standard of review to an arbitration involving parties subject to an inherent power imbalance.

Topics include the recovery by an insurer of overpayments of Long-Term Disability benefits, constructive dismissal, occupiers’ liability and bank fraud. There is also an interesting summary judgment decision on the rescission of a Franchise Agreement in accordance with the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000.

The Court of Appeal's recent decision in Mallory v. Werkmann Estate serves as a reminder to all counsel: never lose sight of who you act for.

In its recent decision in Gutowski v. Clayton, the Court of Appeal rejected a liberal approach to Rule 21.01(1)(a) that would allow novel issues of law to be determined on such a motion.