Articles

This article presents an overview of the powers and duties of municipalities under the Building Code Act and the Ontario Building Code, provides examples of where municipalities can be vulnerable to liability, and discusses the view of the Canadian Courts on municipal liability.

Following are our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of August 26, 2024.

On August 20, 2024, the province of Ontario published the new Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, a province-wide policy instrument that, once in force, will replace both the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. It will come into force on October 20, 2024.

Please find below our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for the week of August 19, 2024.

Municipalities are being kept on their toes with the recent Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) decision in R v Greater Sudbury (City). The SCC held that owners of a construction project fall within the definition of an “employer” under the Occupation Health and Safety Act (“OHSA”) and are subject to the required duties and liabilities of an employer. Moving forward, municipalities will have a difficult time insulating themselves from liability under the OHSA when contracting out services.

Please find below our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for the week of August 12, 2024.

Haider Ashraf, in his paper, "Balancing Security and Rights: Re-evaluating IRPA’s Criminal Inadmissibility Provisions and Charter Compliance” recommends a re-evaluation of IRPA’s inadmissibility provisions to better protect the rights of permanent residents and align Canadian policies with global human rights principles. The author welcomes any comments or conversations from colleagues on the topic.

Two recent BC Court of Appeal decisions revive support for Canadian data breach class actions after the viability of such proceedings was recently stifled by a trio of decisions by the Ontario Court of Appeal.

It is expected that prior to any elective treatment, a physician owes a duty to the patient to provide adequate disclosure of risks. This duty has been expanded over the years to include all advising doctors, even if they are not involved in the treatment directly. It has also been expanded to include “disclosing the nature of the proposed treatment and any material, special, or unusual risks of the treatment." The Ontario Court of Appeal recently applied these duties of care.