Canada: Top 5 Civil Appeals From The Court Of Appeal (September 2012)

Last Updated: October 3 2012
Article by Kirk F. Stevens

Taylor v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 ONCA 479 (Doherty, Weiler, Laskin, Sharpe and Armstrong JJ.A.), July 6, 2012

On a special case brought directly to it under rule 22.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court of Appeal again grappled with the knotty issue of when a government regulator owes a prima facie private law duty of care. The parties asked the court to address perceived inconsistencies arising from: Drady v. Canada (Minister of Health), 2008 ONCA 659, 300 D.L.R. (4th) 443, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [2008] S.C.C.A. No. 492, Attis v. Canada (Minister of Health), 2008 ONCA 660, 93 O.R. (3d) 35, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [2008] S.C.C.A. No. 491 and Sauer v. Canada (AG), 2007 ONCA 454, 225 O.A.C. 143, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [2007] S.C.C.A. No. 454. The special case arose out of a motion to decertify a class action on the basis that it is plain and obvious that the statement of claim does not allege a reasonable cause of action. In the result, the court rejected Canada's position that this class action concerning temporomandibular (jaw) joint implants that were manufactured in the United States and sold in Canada is bound to fail.

The representative plaintiff, Taylor, alleged that Health Canada breached a private law duty of care in the exercise of its responsibilities under the Food and Drugs Act R.S.C. 1985, c. F-2to protect her and other class members from unsafe medical devices. The nub of the case is the allegation that Health Canada announced that it had issued a notice of compliance for the implants when, in fact, it had not done so.

In contrast to the claims against Health Canada in Drady and Attis, a five-judge panel, per Doherty J.A., held that it was not "plain and obvious" that the action could not succeed.

Doherty J.A. noted that where the courts have found a prima facie duty of care, the facts have demonstrated a connection between the plaintiff and the regulator that is distinct from and more direct than the relationship between the regulator and members of the public. Drady and Attis are consistent with this approach.  However, the court's treatment of proximity in Sauer, which amounted to a simple reference to the regulator's public statements, is not consistent with the jurisprudence, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's later judgment in R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, 2011 SCC 42, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 45. Thus, to establish proximity, Taylor cannot simply rely on public assurances by Health Canada that it was performing its statutory duties.  

What distinguishes this case from Drady and Attis are the allegations that Health Canada had erroneously stated that it had issued a notice of compliance for the implants and then failed to correct this misrepresentation when it became aware of it. These allegations arguably describe "a relationship between Health Canada and the users of those implants that is different from the relationship that exists between Health Canada and consumers of medical devices at large."

It was at least arguable at this stage of the litigation that the misrepresentations, combined with the failure to correct them "in the face of knowledge of the serious and ongoing risk posed to a clearly definable and relatively small group of consumers" gave rise to a breach of a private law duty of care.

Association of Justice Counsel v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 ONCA 530 (Sharpe, Armstrong, Pepall JJ.A.), August 7, 2012

How far does the constitutional right to freedom of association go to protect the collective bargaining rights of government employees?

This case was the first Charter challenge to the Expenditure Restraint Act, S.C. 2009, c. 2, s. 393 (the "ERA") to reach a Court of Appeal.  The Association of Justice Counsel (the "AJC"), the certified collective bargaining agent representing nearly three thousand lawyers working for the federal government, challenged the ERA provisions that limited increases for federal employees from 2006 to 2011 on the basis of s. 2(d) of the Charter.

The application judge held that all of the impugned provisions violated s. 2(d) because they rendered collective bargaining on salary useless. Moreover, the provisions limiting salaries for 2006-2007 were unconstitutional because they could not be justified under s. 1 of the Charter. However, the provisions governing subsequent years were justified under s. 1 due to the pressing and substantial objective of responding to the global financial crisis of 2008. Both the Attorney General and the AJC appealed.

The Court of Appeal held that no constitutional right was infringed, thus allowing the Attorney General's appeal and dismissing the AJC's appeal.

Writing for the court, Sharpe J.A. applied Ontario (Attorney General) v. Fraser, 2011 SCC 20, [2011] 2 S.C.R. 3 where the Supreme Court of Canada clarified its earlier decision in Health Services and Support - Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia, 2007 SCC 27, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 391. That decision held that s. 2(d) does not require a particular model of bargaining or outcome but, rather, only guarantees a "meaningful process".

Sharpe J.A. explained that the question of whether the ERA violates s.2 (d) turns on the impact of the ERA on the process of collective bargaining. By the time the ERA came into force in 2009, the parties had already engaged in a lengthy process of collective bargaining that led to arbitration. The AJC had enjoyed the opportunity to present the wage demands of its members and to have them considered in good faith. Section 2(d) requires the government to afford a meaningful collective bargaining process with good faith exchanges, but it does not require that the parties conclude an agreement. Nor does it guarantee a dispute resolution mechanism in the event of an impasse.

Downey v. Ecore International Inc., 2012 ONCA 480 (Feldman, Simmons and Cronk JJ.A.), July 6, 2012

In this case, the Court of Appeal reiterated its commitment to purposive and commercially realistic interpretations of contractual agreements even where such construction favours a foreign litigant at the expense of an Ontario resident.

Ecore International, a Pennsylvania-based manufacturer, entered into a consulting agreement with CSR Industries Inc., a company whose principal was Paul Downey. At the same time, Ecore and Downey signed a confidentiality agreement which protected Ecore's proprietary information and contained a forum selection clause in favour of Pennsylvania. Downey sued Ecore in Ontario and Ecore unsuccessfully moved to stay or dismiss the action on the basis of the forum selection clause.

The motion judge focused on the fact that a consulting agreement executed in conjunction with the confidentiality agreement was not between Ecore and Downey but rather between Ecore and CSR. Although CSR was obliged under the consulting agreement to execute the confidentiality agreement, Downey signed the confidentiality agreement in his personal capacity. The motion judge determined that Downey never received consideration for executing the confidentiality agreement and was therefore not bound by its terms, including the forum selection clause.

In reasons by Cronk J.A., the Court of Appeal held that the motion judge had disregarded the "factual matrix" and did not accord with sound commercial principles. Indeed, the result below was characterized as "commercially absurd." Both contracts constituted a whole and had to be read together: Salah v. Timothy's Coffees of the World Inc., 2010 ONCA 673. When read together, it was clear that Ecore's proprietary information was to be protected by the person who was to receive that information, namely Downey. Moreover, it was Downey, and not CSR, who committed to performing the consulting services and it was Downey who would ultimately benefit from the relationship. CSR became a party to the transaction only so that Downey could achieve a more favourable tax position.

The court also rejected Downey's assertion, made in the context of a cross-appeal, that the confidentiality agreement was unenforceable against him because he never became an Ecore employee. Cronk J.A. held that s. 5 of the agreement, which provided that the agreement shall apply "during and after" Downey's employment with Ecore, simply confirmed that Downey's confidentiality obligations were to survive the termination of his relationship with Ecore. It is precisely upon the breakdown of the relationship with Downey that Ecore would require protection of its proprietary information. 

Indcondo Building Corporation v. Sloan, 2012 ONCA 502 (Goudge, Sharpe and Juriansz JJ.A.), July 18, 2012

The grinding of the wheels of justice in this dispute has been agonizingly slow.

In 2002, Indcondo obtained a judgment for $8 million against Mr. Sloan. Only then did Incondo learn that Sloan had transferred title in a matrimonial home to his wife, with no apparent consideration, just 45 days before the action was commenced in 1992.

Thus, Indcondo commenced another action (the 2002 action) against the Sloans and Sloan's company, Cave Hill Properties Ltd., to set aside the conveyance as fraudulent. Then, in 2004, Sloan declared bankruptcy. The 2002 action was thus stayed. Sloan listed Indcondo as a creditor for $8.7 million. Indcondo proved its claim in bankruptcy. At a meeting of creditors, Indcondo asked the Trustee in bankruptcy whether it would be pursuing the fraudulent conveyance claim. The Trustee replied that the estate was impecunious and would not do so. As the Trustee advised, Sloan's creditors would have to pursue the claim on their own under s.38 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985 c. B-3 (the "BIA").

In August 2005, Sloan was discharged from bankruptcy. Indcondo opposed the discharge but did not attend the hearing and the Deputy Registrar made no decision relating to the fraudulent conveyance claim. In April 2006, Sloan, his wife, and Cave Hill obtained an order dismissing the 2002 action under s. 178 of the BIA. Indcondo did not attend that hearing. However, the next day, it attended before the Deputy Registrar and obtained an order under s. 38(1) of the BIA authorizing it to bring an action  on behalf of the estate's creditors with respect to the fraudulent conveyance claim.Some months later, Indcondo moved unsuccessfully to set the dismissal order aside, claiming that its failure to attend the dismissal hearing was inadvertent. Sloan moved to set aside the s. 38(1) order but was unsuccessful. In June 2008, Indcondo commenced the present action under the authority of the s. 38(1) order. Sloan, his wife, and Cave Hill ("the defendants") then moved to have that action dismissed as barred by the Limitations Act and as an abuse of process, as well as res judicata and issue estoppel.

The motion judge granted the defendants' motion on the basis of findings that the action was a collateral attack (and thus an abuse of process)on the orders discharging Sloan from bankruptcy and dismissing the 2002 action. She also held that Sloan's discharge from bankruptcy discharged the underlying $8 million judgment debt.

The defendants then moved unsuccessfully for security for costs of the appeal against Indcondo's lawyers on the basis that they were retained pursuant to a contingency fee arrangement. Armstrong J.A. dismissed the motion. A motion to review his decision and the appeal on the merits came on for hearing at the same time.

Writing for the court, Goudge J.A. agreed with Armstrong J.A. that ordering counsel acting on contingency to post security would "chill the very access to justice that is a main objective of the contingency fee regime." He dismissed the respondents' motion and then allowed the appeal. He explained that the motion judge's reasoning rested on the erroneous premise that the plaintiff was advancing claims identical to those it advanced in the earlier action. Unlike the 2002 action which Indcondo brought on its own behalf, the current action was brought pursuant to s. 38(1) of the BIA and the claim was that of the Trustee. Goudge J.A. cited Shaw Estate (Trustee of) v. Nicol Island Development Inc., 2009 ONCA 276, 51, C.B.R. (5th), in which Cronk J.A. stated:

A creditor obtaining a s. 38 order advances not his or her own cause of action but, rather, the trustee's cause of action. [...] The proceeding authorized by a s. 38 order is brought on the basis that the trustee in bankruptcy has the right to bring the action, and the creditor with a s. 38 order is taking the action as if the creditor were the trustee. [...] This accords with the intended purpose of s. 38(1) of the Act, namely, to ensure that the bankrupt's assets are preserved for the benefit of all creditors.

Moreover, the action was not a collateral attack on the discharge order because Indcondo was standing in the place of the Trustee, which is indifferent to the discharge order. Finally, the release of the original judgment debt by Sloan's discharge from bankruptcy did not affect the Trustee's claim based on the alleged fraudulent conveyance.

Sobeski v. Mamo, 2012 ONCA 560 (Winkler C.J.O., Armstrong and LaForme JJ.A.), August 28, 2012

Does the deemed undertaking rule prevent a lawyer from using documents given to him or her by a client for production in a proceeding to defend himself or herself in an action brought against the lawyer by the opposing litigant in the previous proceeding against the client?

Mamo, a London lawyer, found himself in this unenviable position. He had acted for Ms. Sobeski in a matrimonial proceeding. Her former husband then sued him for defamation.

Mamo moved for an order pursuant to rule 30.1.01(8) of the Rules of Civil Procedure that the deemed undertaking did not apply. The motion judge found that the rule did cover some of the documents and that Juman v. Doucette, 2008 SCC 8, [2008] 1 S.C.R. precluded granting relief because the circumstances were not sufficiently exceptional. This, the motion judge recognized, created a dilemma for Mamo because he was obliged to disclose the documents upon which he relied to defend himself in his affidavit of documents. Accordingly, the motion judge proposed an "escape route": Mamo would return Ms. Sobeski's documents, allowing him to bring a later motion under rule 30.10 for non-party production. Mamo was thus ordered to return all of Ms. Sobeski's documents to her. Mamo successfully appealed.

Writing for the court, Armstrong J.A. first considered whether the deemed undertaking rule applied, noting that rule 30.1.01(2) restricts the deemed undertaking to evidence obtained under rule 30.1.01(1). While the documents were provided to Mamo by Ms. Sobeski in connection with the matrimonial proceedings, they were not obtained under rule 30.1.01(1)(a). Armstrong J.A. cited Kitchenham v. AXA Insurance (Canada), 2008 ONCA 877, 94 O.R. (3d) 276, which held that "the Rule exists to protect the privacy interest of the party compelled by the rules of disclosure to provide that information to another party to the litigation." Having found that the deemed undertaking rule does not apply, he did not find it necessary to determine whether relief from compliance should be granted. Armstrong J.A. agreed with Mamo that the motion judge should not have devised a remedy on his own accord.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions