Appellate lawyer, Jasmine Akbarali provides
a summary of Lerners' Top 5 Ontario civil appeals decisions
from July and August , 2013.
Ramdath v. George Brown College- This was an appeal of a common
issues trial brought by a class of students from George Brown
against the College. The students were students of the
College's International Business Management program. They
alleged that the course calendar negligently represented that, upon
completion of the program, they could apply for three industry
designations when in reality, they had to take additional courses
in order to be eligible. The trial judge found they reasonably
relied on the course calendar. The Court of Appeal agreed and
dismissed the appeal.
Barclays Bank PLC v. Devonshire Trust -- This appeal involved asset
backed commercial paper and two credit swap agreements. Each party
to the agreement reported to terminate the agreement early.
Barclays alleged that it could terminate agreement early on the
basis of Devonshire's insolvency when Barclay's had caused
the insolvency by failing to make liquidity payments. The trial
judge found that Barclays breached its obligation of good faith.
The Court of Appeal agreed with trial judge and found that
liquidity payment defeated the objective of agreement and Barclays
acted in bad faith. The Court of Appeal found in favour of
Sferruzzi v. Allan- This case involved the proposed relocation of
the custodial parent of a special needs child. Mason was an
autistic child who needed constant care. He lived with his father;
his mother had regular access. The father had suffered from the
stress of looking after Mason. The father was in a relationship
with a woman who lived in Pickering with their son. He wanted to
move to Pickering with Mason and the mother opposed the move. The
motion judge agreed with the mother. The Court of Appeal disagreed.
It considered the fact that by moving to Pickering, Mason would
benefit from being part of a blended family and having a happier,
more stable custodial parent. In addition, although his access
visits would be less frequent, the total time he would spend with
his mother would remain the same. The court allowed the
Sabourin and Sun Group of Companies v. Laiken- This appeal
concerned the duties of a solicitor representing a client who was
subject to a Mareva injunction. The motion judge found the
solicitor in contempt for breaching the order and then subsequently
set aside that finding, concluding he had not breached the order
deliberately. The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge should
not have reversed her findings. The order had breached, and it was
not necessary that the breach be deliberately contumacious. The
Court of Appeal accepted that the solicitor's conduct was an
error in judgment and concluded that the appropriate sanction was
for the solicitor to pay the costs of the proceeding.
Henry v. Gore Mutual Insurance Company: Henry was left a paraplegic
after a car accident. His mother took an unpaid leave of absence
from work in order to care for him. The issue on the appeal was
whether Henry had incurred an expense for attendant care beyond the
hours of paid employment that his mother had given up. The insurer
argued that the hours of paid employment that Henry's mother
had given up were a measure of the attendant care costs that Henry
had incurred. The Court of Appeal disagreed. It held that that
economic loss was not a measure of reasonable and necessary
attendant care benefits but was a threshold for entitlement to
those benefits. The amount payable by the insurer was not reduced;
it was responsible for the reasonable and necessary attendant care
costs of looking after Henry.
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).