Appellate lawyer, Carolyn Brandow provides a summary of
Lerners' Top 5 Ontario civil appeals decisions from April,
Stevens v. Stevens - This case dealt with the validity of a
marriage contract entered into during a reconciliation attempt. The
letter sending the contract said one thing and the contract said
another. The respondent argued that there was no meeting of the
minds and sought rectification at trial as an alternative position.
The appellant had resisted rectification at trial, but then sought
it on appeal. The Court of Appeal refuses to grant rectification
with some interesting commentary on rectification and when it can
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Society of Essex v. Windsor (City)
- In this decision, the Court of Appeal considered whether it was
an error by the Divisional Court to refuse to award costs of an
appeal in two class action proceedings when the appellants had
succeeded on the substantive issue they had appealed. The
Divisional Court had sent other substantive issues to the motions
judge and also sent the costs of the appeal to the motions judge.
The nature of an appeal as a separate and distinct step, the costs
of which should generally be determined by the court hearing the
appeal is emphasized in the decision of the Court of Appeal.
Amato v. Welsh - In this case, the Court of Appeal considered
the common law doctrine of absolute privilege in an appeal from a
motion seeking to strike out paragraphs of a statement of claim.
The Court of Appeal reviews in detail the history and current
status of absolute privilege, from its roots in protecting against
defamation claims to instances in other jurisdictions where it has
been used to support lawyers' immunity. The Court of Appeal
commented that the outcome of a competition between the principles
of absolute privilege and a lawyer's duty of loyalty is
"far from certain" in Ontario and dismissed the appeal,
thereby allowing the claims to proceed to trial.
Orfus Estate v. The Samuel and Bessie Orfus Family Foundation --
The Court of Appeal considered whether a grant of summary judgment
in an estate litigation matter was appropriate in this case. Two
sisters were fighting over the estate of their mother. One sister
had been estranged from the mother for some time and argued that
the issue of whether her mother had testamentary capacity and knew
and approved of the contents of her wills and a codicil should be
determined at a trial, not on a motion. Credibility was raised by
the appellant, but rejected by the Court of Appeal as being a
genuine issue. Summary judgment was found to be an appropriate
manner to dispose the issues and the motions judge's decision
Goodwin v. Olupona - In this decision, the deference to jury
verdicts underscores the dismissal of this appeal of a medical
malpractice action. The jury's conclusions were given
significant deference by the Court of Appeal.
It's not often that our little blog intersects with such titanic struggles as the U.S. presidential race – and by using the term "titanic" I certainly don't mean to suggest that anything disastrous is in the future.
J.J. v. C.C., is an interesting case in which the court held that an automotive garage owes a duty to minor children to secure the vehicles on the premises by locking the cars and safely storing the car keys...
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
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).