Canada: Top 5 Civil Appeals From The Court Of Appeal (November 2013)

Last Updated: November 28 2013
Article by Andrew C. Murray

1.  Central Sun Mining Inc. v. Vector Engineering Inc., 2013 ONCA 601 (Goudge, Gillese and Pepall JJ.A.), October 2, 2013 

2.  Bennett Estate v. Iran (Islamic Republic of), 2013 ONCA 623 (Hoy ACJO, Laskin and Tulloch JJ.A.), October 22, 2013 

3.  Arora v. Whirlpool Canada LP, 2013 ONCA 657 (Hoy ACJO, Feldman and Simmons JJ.A.), October 31, 2013 

4.  Lauzon v. AXA Insurance (Canada), 2013 ONCA 664 (MacPherson, Gillese and Hourigan, JJ.A.), October 31, 2013 

5.  Dickerson v. 1610396 Ontario Inc. (Carey's Pub & Grill), 2013 ONCA 653 (MacFarland, Watt and Epstein, JJ.A.), October 31, 2013

1.  Central Sun Mining Inc. v. Vector Engineering Inc., 2013 ONCA 601 (Goudge, Gillese and Pepall JJ.A.), October 2, 2013

Following a major landslide in 2007 at a Costa Rican gold mine, litigation was advanced against the consultants who had completed studies related to the building and operation of the mine, which studies turned out to be badly flawed.  This appeal related to whether Ontario should assume jurisdiction over the action. 

The appellant, Central Sun Mining, brought a claim against the respondent engineering consultants for negligent misrepresentation, negligence and breach of contract in providing services to Central Sun. The U.S.-based respondents moved for an order that the Ontario court should not assume jurisdiction over the action because there was no real and substantial connection to the province.  The motion judge dismissed the action on that basis.   

At issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the motion judge correctly concluded that neither Central Sun's claim for negligent misrepresentation nor its claim for negligence occurred in Ontario. Also at issue was whether the respondents had successfully rebutted the presumption of connection with Ontario if the torts were committed in Ontario. 

Citing the factors outlined in the Supreme Court's decision in Van Breda, the Court found that the negligent misrepresentation – the studies provided by the respondents and relied upon by the appellant - took place in Ontario, at Central Sun's Toronto offices. There was therefore a presumptive connection between the action and Ontario. Moreover, even if the studies had only been received at the Vancouver office, the respondents foresaw that they would have been acted upon in Toronto. Where corporations have various offices in various locations, a defendant cannot escape liability simply because it sent its studies to the plaintiff outside of Ontario.

Since the tort was committed in Ontario, Ontario must take jurisdiction over the entire action unless the respondents could rebut the presumptive connection to the province. The Court rejected the motion judge's finding that the respondents did so by demonstrating the relative weakness of the Ontario connection, holding that it is at the forum conveniens stage that such a comparison is important. At the jurisdiction stage of the analysis, the respondents' task is to show no real relationship or, at most, a weak relationship, and that had not been shown. The Court allowed the appeal and referred the respondents' motion back to the motions court for consideration of the forum conveniens issue.

2.  Bennett Estate v. Iran (Islamic Republic of), 2013 ONCA 623 (Hoy ACJO, Laskin and Tulloch JJ.A.), October 22, 2013

This case relates to a fascinating cross-border and multi-jurisdictional lawsuit.  At the Court of Appeal, the proposed intervenor, Dr. Sherry Wise, successfully appealed the motion judge's dismissal of her motion for leave to intervene as an added party in a proceeding to enforce in Canada a US judgment against Iran.  The underlying subject-matter of the proceeding related to a 1997 terrorist attack in Israel that caused injury and damages.

Dr. Wise commenced an action in British Columbia against the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security for the damages she sustained in the 1997 attack in Israel, pursuant to the 2012 Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (JVTA). The U.S. respondents had already obtained a significant judgment in the United States in 2007 against Iran under American legislation similar to the JVTA. The American legislation was enacted prior to the JVTA; therefore, the U.S. respondents were able to secure a judgment before Dr. Wise could do so.  The U.S. respondents sought to have their judgment recognized in Canada pursuant to s. 4(5) of the JVTA. Iran was noted in default and the Attorney General of Canada was granted intervenor status.

Fearing that enforcement of the American judgment against Iran's assets in Canada would leave no funds to satisfy her own potential judgment or the potential claims of other Canadian claimants, Dr. Wise sought leave to intervene in the respondents' motion to recognize the US judgment in Canada.  She wanted the chance to make her own submissions that the JVTA does not suspend the limitation period which normally applies to an action to recognize a foreign judgment and that, as such, the U.S. respondents' action was statute-barred.  The motion judge dismissed Dr. Wise's motion, holding that she had not met any of the three criteria to intervene outlined in Rule 13.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Dr. Wise argued before the Court of Appeal that the motion judge erred in concluding that she had not met any of the criteria outlined in Rule 13.01(1), that granting her intervenor status would result in further delay and that she would not make a useful contribution to the hearing. She submitted that, if her appeal was allowed, she would file a factum by October 25 addressing the limitation period issue, and not seek to alter the October 31 date set for the continuation of the motion. 

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge had mischaracterized the nature of the respondents' interest, therefore erring in concluding that the appellant did not satisfy the criteria in Rule 13.01(1). Until the U.S. respondents succeed in having their judgment recognized in Canada, they were not judgment creditors in Canada. The Court also noted that a person need satisfy only one of the criteria in Rule 13.01(1), not all three, in order to be able to successfully intervene.

The Court found that Dr. Wise satisfied two of the three applicable criteria:  she had a contingent interest in the subject-matter of the proceeding and might be adversely affected by a judgment recognizing the American judgment. The Court also held that Dr. Wise would make a useful contribution to the hearing, as no other party sought to make the arguments that she advanced, notably the limitation period argument. Moreover, these arguments would not necessitate the filing of further evidence and would not cause further delay. The appeal was granted and Dr. Wise was permitted to intervene in the enforcement proceedings. 

3.  Arora v. Whirlpool Canada LP, 2013 ONCA 657 (Hoy ACJO, Feldman and Simmons JJ.A.), October 31, 2013

Sometimes the focus of a case involves the airing of dirty laundry.  In this case, however, it literally involved the dirty laundry machine itself!  To the chagrin of the plaintiffs in this proposed class action, dirty laundry might have yielded a better outcome.  This is the rare example of an unsuccessful certification motion solely on the basis that the claim failed to disclose a cause of action. 

The appellants sought to certify a class action against Whirlpool.  They claimed damages for breach of express and implied warranty, breach of the Competition Act, negligence and waiver of tort. They alleged that Whirlpool's front-loading washing machines were poorly designed, making them vulnerable to a build-up of sludge, soils, mould, fungi, and mildew, collectively called "scrud", and prone to unpleasant odours.  There was no suggestion that the machines were dangerous or could cause injury; the crux of the claim was that the machines were poorly designed, not worth their purchase price.  The design flaws in these front-loading machines were notorious.  The class sought entitlement to damages for their alleged overpayment. The motion judge refused certification, finding that none of the claims disclosed a cause of action.  The Court of Appeal agreed, dismissing each of the four primary grounds of appeal.

The first argument rejected by the Court of Appeal related to breach of express warranty.  The Court held that the motion judge had correctly concluded that it was plain and obvious that the express warranties provided by Whirlpool did not cover the claims advanced by the appellants. The appellants did not sue to correct defects in material or workmanship, only alleged defects in design.

On the claim for breach of implied warranty, the Court again agreed with the motion judge – the claim against Whirlpool for breach of the warranty of fitness for purpose implied under the Sale of Goods Act had no reasonable prospect of success. The remedy under the Sale of Goods Act is against the seller, not the manufacturer, and Whirlpool did not sell the machines directly to consumers.  There was no basis, in this case, to relax the doctrine of privity of contract. 

With respect to the Competition Act claim, the Court held that there was no common express representation pleaded which could convert an omission into a misrepresentation by implication. There was also no duty to disclose.  Thus, it was plain and obvious that a claim for breach of s. 52 of the Competition Act could not succeed.  A failure to disclose an alleged defect is not a representation for the purpose of s. 52 of the Act.

Turning to the appellants' claim for economic loss for negligent design, the Court agreed with the motion judge that the appellants did not have a claim for damage to property.  The Court also found that the motion judge was entitled to decide on the certification motion that any duty of care should be negated for policy reasons.  A full factual record after a trial was not required.  The Court upheld the motion judge's conclusion that the negligence claim had no reasonable prospect of success.  The law of negligence would have to be fundamentally altered for the claim to succeed. 

Finally, the Court agreed with the motion judge that there was no predicate wrongdoing on which to base a claim of waiver of tort.

4.  Lauzon v. AXA Insurance (Canada), 2013 ONCA 664 (MacPherson, Gillese and Hourigan, JJ.A.), October 31, 2013

The appeal answers an important question concerning procedural protocols when the Insurance Act appraisal process has been invoked, as it relates to an insurer's request for the attendance by an insured at an examination under oath.

The plaintiff, Daniel Lauzon, who was the appellant before the Court of Appeal, made a claim against his insurer, AXA Insurance, for damage to his property caused by a flood. He provided AXA with a proof of loss for approximately $172,000.00, but did not provide documentation to support the amounts claimed. AXA initiated the appraisal process under s. 128 of the Insurance Act and, when Lauzon refused to attend an examination under oath or to answer any questions relating to the quantum of claimed losses, AXA moved for an order compelling him to be examined on the scope and quantum of his damages and to produce documentation in support of his claim. Lauzon was ordered to produce documentation in support of his claim and to submit to an examination on the scope and quantum of his damages.  AXA was awarded costs of the motion.

Lauzon appealed, submitting that the motion judge lacked jurisdiction to make the order because AXA's invocation of the appraisal process extinguished its right to examine him. Case law existed which confirmed that the initiation of litigation did not oust the obligation to participate in an examination under oath, but there was not a specific prior case dealing with the same question in the appraisal context.

The Court dismissed Lauzon's appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that Lauzon's proof of loss was "substantially deficient" and fell "far short" of what was required. The Court held that AXA's invocation of the appraisal process did not oust its contractual right to compel the appellant to attend to be examined. The Court also denied Lauzon's request for leave to appeal the costs order, finding that he failed to show any error in the motion judge's exercise of his discretion.

5.  Dickerson v. 1610396 Ontario Inc. (Carey's Pub & Grill), 2013 ONCA 653 (MacFarland, Watt and Epstein, JJ.A.), October 31, 2013

This appeal deals with the complicated intersection of judgments for personal injuries and the application of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA).

The respondent, David Radcliffe, was convicted of the criminal charge of aggravated assault against the appellant.  The appellant brought a civil suit against the respondent for damages for personal injury. At trial, a civil jury found that the appellant's injuries were caused or contributed to by deliberate or negligent acts of the respondent and awarded damages in favour of Dickerson of more than $1 million. Radcliffe then filed a proposal under s. 62(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. Dickerson brought a motion seeking declarations that:

  1. s. 69.39 of the BIA does not operate with respect to enforcement of the judgment against the bankrupt;
  2. the damages were awarded in accordance with s. 178(1)(a.1) of the BIA, which applies to an award of damages in a civil proceeding for bodily harm intentionally inflicted; and
  3. the judgment survived the bankruptcy and was not a debt released by an order of discharge.

The motion judge found that the civil judgment obtained against the respondent did not fall within s. 178(1)(a.1)(i) of the BIA and dismissed the motion.  If this section of the BIA applied, a discharge order would not release the bankrupt from the judgment.  

The Court of Appeal agreed with Dickerson's arguments, noting that the intentional infliction of bodily harm falls within the scope of s. 178(1)(a.1)(i). The Court distinguished this case from those in which courts concluded that the provision did not apply by finding that the intent to inflict bodily harm could be proved directly or reasonably inferred from the facts. The respondent had been convicted of aggravated assault and the civil judgment was based on the same assault. The Court held that the motion judge committed a palpable and overriding error in concluding that the respondent did not intentionally injure the appellant. The appeal was allowed.

The decision strikes a fair balance for victims – if you intend to cause physical harm to another, you cannot obtain relief from paying the damages you caused by going bankrupt or making a proposal under the BIA

http://lernersappeals.ca/netletters

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 Mondaq.com.

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

Authors
Andrew C. Murray
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Blaney McMurtry LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Blaney McMurtry LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
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

Mondaq.com (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 www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com 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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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