The Supreme Court of Canada refused leave to appeal this week in a number of cases that are likely to be of interest to Canadian businesses and professions.
In Mark Oppenheim, et al. v. 2963-0456 Québec Inc ., 2013 QCCA 234, the QCCA and QCCS had characterized certain "cut-through agreements" — entered into in the context of a film-production partnership — as enforceable suretyship contracts.
In Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company , 2013 QCCA 446, the QCCA and QCCS had rejected attempts by one insurer — following a warehouse collapse — to rely on exclusions in primary and umbrella policies. The exclusions related to work done by the insured and to the performance of professional services.
In Laus Holdings Ltd., et al. v. Pacifica Mortgage Investment Corporation , 2013 BCCA 95, commercial mortgagors sought to contest a foreclosure action by alleging that the mortgagees had acted unreasonably, and also by asserting that they had been misled by their mortgage broker. The BCCA and BCSC had rejected these arguments.
In James Pankiw v. Chiropractors' Association of Saskatchewan, 2013 SKCA 36, the SKCA and SKQB had found the disciplined chiropractor to be out of time to commence an appeal (other than as to penalty) from the ruling of the provincial Chiropractors' Association. The Association owed no duty to alert a member to the relevant time limit.
To view original article, please click here.
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.
