Blaneys Court of Appeal Summaries (September 26 - 30, 2016) 03 octobre 2016 Chad Kopach There were seven substantive civil decisions released this week, and three of note: 407 ETR Concession Company Limited v. Day; Trillium Motor World Ltd. v. General Motors of Canada Limited; and Enerzone Inc. v. Ontario (Revenue). In particular, in 407 ETR Concession Company Limited v. Day, the Court approved the contractual extension of the limitation period in the 407 transponder lease agreements.
Blaneys Court of Appeal Summaries (September 19 – 23, 2016) 27 septembre 2016 John Polyzogopoulos There were several substantive civil decision released this week. They included a priority dispute in the receivership, a motion to stay a Superior Court order pending the determination of a leave application to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, and an option to purchase a property and a question as to the ensuing rent owed.
Blaneys Court of Appeal Summaries (September 12-16, 2016) 27 septembre 2016 Lea Nebel 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.
Blaneys Court of Appeal Summaries (Sept 5 - 9, 2016) 27 septembre 2016 John Polyzogopoulos The only decision released this week was the US Steel CCAA proceeding in which the Court of Appeal agreed with the CCAA judge below that he did not have the jurisdiction under the CCAA to grant the remedy of equitable subordination.
Court of Appeal Rules that Defendants Require Expert Evidence in Moving for Summary Judgment to Dismiss a Medical Malpractice Claim 11 août 2016 Matthew Gray and George Wray 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.
Blaneys Court of Appeal Summaries (July 11 – July 15) 18 juillet 2016 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.
Blaneys Court of Appeal Summaries (July 4 – July 8) 18 juillet 2016 John Polyzogopoulos Summaries of this week’s civil decisions released by our Court of Appeal. Areas of law covered include Municipal Law, Civil Procedure, Administrative Law, Contracts, Family Law, Crown Liability, Condominium Law, and Real Property Law.
Blaneys Court of Appeal Summaries (June 27-June 30 18 juillet 2016 John Polyzogopoulos Happy Canada Day to all of you! The Court of Appeal released several decisions this week, most of them yesterday afternoon. The most notable decision of the week was in the Trinity Western case in which the Court upheld the Law Society’s decision denying TWU’s application for accreditation as a law school.
Blaneys Court of Appeal Summaries (June 20-24, 2016) 30 juin 2016 John Polyzogopoulos Topics covered this week included family law, municipal law, contractual interpretation, reasonable apprehension of bias, and costs against a lawyer personally. Perhaps the most notable decision is Grant v Equifax Canada regarding credit scores. The Court of Appeal confirmed in that case that you cannot compel a credit bureau to remove reference in your credit score to debts that are more than two years old for which no claim has been brought. Have a nice weekend.
$125-Million Pharmaceutical Damages Award Undone by Hearsay Rule 22 juin 2016 J. Bradley White and Nathaniel Lipkus Over the past several years, Canadian courts have considered claims for damages by generic drug companies kept off the market due to patents asserted by brand-name drug companies under Canada’s pharmaceutical patent regulatory scheme. The Court’s May 31st judgment in Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Teva Canada Limited, 2016 FCA 161, signals a renewed attention to rigorous application of the rules of evidence, and is expected to have wide implications on the conduct of proceedings in the Federal Court.