Canada: Court Of Appeal Summaries (September 29 To October 3)

Last Updated: October 14 2014
Article by John Polyzogopoulos

Hi Everyone. Here Are This Week's OCA Summaries.

Have a nice weekend.

Graydon v. Burton, 2014 ONCA 674 

[Epstein, van Rensburg and Benotto JJ.A.]


No one appearing for the defendant (appellant)

Tudor B. Carsten, for the plaintiff (respondent)

Keywords:  Denial of Adjournment, Absence of Evidence to Support Adjournment Request, Failure to Attend Court


This appeal arises from a decision of the Superior Court granting the respondent's motion to strike the appellant's counterclaim for sexual battery, as well as several factual allegations in the counterclaim. The appeal was adjourned several times at the appellant's request for health reasons.  The appellant requested another adjournment on the September 25 date and did not appear in court that day. The respondent wished that the appeal proceed in the appellant's absence.


(1) Should the appeal be dismissed in the appellant's absence?

Holding:  The appellant's request for an adjournment and her appeal are dismissed. Appellant was ordered to pay $10,000 in costs to the respondent.


(1) Yes. The appellant has not provided any evidence, beyond her emotional problems, to support her request for an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for September 25. The appellant has been provided sufficient time to present evidence in support of an adjournment but has failed to do so. Further, a review of the record and the allegations in the appellant's counterclaim for the tort of sexual battery demonstrate that the appeal has little chance of success.

Wallace v Crate's Marine Sales Ltd., 2014 ONCA 671

[Juriansz, LaForme and Lauwers JJ.A.]


W.E. Pepall and J.T. Akbarali, for the appellants

M. Manning, Q.C., for the respondents

Keywords:  Dismissal for Delay, Rule 24, Rules of Civil Procedure, Inherent Jurisdiction


The appellants started an action in 2003, alleging that the million dollar yacht they had purchased from the respondents was defective. The appellants sought rescission of the purchase contract or alternatively, damages. The pleadings closed in 2004. Discoveries began in December 2005, but were adjourned to allow the appellants to amend their statement of claim. No other steps were taken until August 2011.

On a motion by the respondents, the motion judge dismissed the action for want of prosecution based on both his discretion under Rule 24 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and as an exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction. The motion judge had found that delay, in excess of ten years and including an eight year delay following the expiry of the limitation period, was inordinate and inexcusable.

Issue: Whether the motion judge's finding that the delay was inordinate and inexcusable was correct.

Holding:  Appeal dismissed.


The motion judge's finding that the delay was inordinate and inexcusable was unassailable. Given the motion judge's finding as to the potential significance of testimony dependent upon the witnesses' ability to recall statements and observations, his conclusion that the appellants had not successfully rebutted the presumption of prejudice resulting from the inordinate delay was not unreasonable. Although both parties were to blame for the delay, the appellants failed to fulfill their responsibility in moving the action along. Furthermore, the motion judge properly invoked and exercised his inherent jurisdiction to dismiss the action for delay. Notwithstanding Rule 24, the court retains the inherent power to prevent an abuse of its own process. There was no reason for such inordinate delay in this case.

Astley v. Verdun, 2014 ONCA 668

[Epstein, van Rensburg and Benotto JJ.A.]


M.L. Biggar, for the appellant

Brian N. Radnoff, for the respondent

Keywords: Contempt, Determination of a Fit Sentence


This was an appeal from the judgments of Justice Robert F. Goldstein of the Superior Court of Justice, dated May 23, 2013 and October 29, 2013.


Whether there was any error in the decisions of the motion judge on the finding of contempt or the determination of a fit sentence.

Decision: Appeal dismissed.


The reasons of motion judge in respect of both aspects of the contempt proceeding were clear and correct. He considered, and properly rejected, the arguments the appellant made before the Court.

Solloway v. Klondex Mines Ltd., 2014 ONCA 672

[Epstein, van Rensburg and Benotto JJ.A.]


Colin Pendrith, for the appellant

Young Park and David Levangie, for the respondent

Keywords: Conflict of laws, Jurisdiction simpliciter, Forum non conveniens, Village Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda

Facts: The appellant sought a determination of his rights under various agreements entered into between the parties. The respondent brought a motion to stay this proceeding because of actions that had been brought in other jurisdictions. The motions judge held that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter over the proceeding; but the disputes in the other actions were relevant to the determination of whether Ontario was the forum non conveniens. Due to the potential impact of the other actions, the motion judge ordered that: (1) the action be temporarily stayed for a period of 60 days; (2) the temporary stay be lifted if the respondent and its subsidiary did not commence an action against the appellant in British Columbia or Nevada within 60 days; and (3) the temporary stay be permanent if the respondent and its subsidiary commenced an action against the appellant in British Columbia or Nevada within the 60 days.

Issue:  Was the motion judge's disposition of the issue of jurisdiction reasonable and fair?

Decision:   Appeal dismissed.

Reasoning: Yes. The motion judge's disposition of the matter was entitled to deference.  The Court considered relevant factors from Village Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda and concluded that the motion judge was correct in inferring that the other proceedings would involve the appellant and were connected to the application at issue.

Coutu Gold Mines Company Limited v Ontario, 2014 ONCA 684

[Doherty, Pepall and Tulloch JJ.A]


Peter W. Coutu, in person

Tom Schreiter, for the respondent

Keywords: Dismissal of Action, Mining Rights, Res Judicata, Abuse of Process, Coutu Gold Mines Limited Act


The appellant sought the return of mining claims and rights forfeited to the Crown in 1974. His 2013 action was seeking the same relief for the same set of underlying facts as found in his 2008 and 2010 actions. The motions judge dismissed the action on the grounds of res judicata, abuse of process, time limitations, and on the language of the Coutu Gold Mines Limited Act.


(1) Did the motions judge err in dismissing the action?

 Holding:  Appeal dismissed.


(1) No, there was no error in the motion judge's decision to dismiss the action. There had been no appeal ever taken from the two previous court orders dismissing the appellant's actions claiming the same relief and raising the same issues as claimed in this new action. Res judicata and abuse of process were properly relied on. The enactment of the Coutu Gold Mines Limited Act had no impact on the outcome because it did not affect rights that had been forfeited after the date of dissolution of the company.

Inter-Leasing, Inc. v. Ontario (Revenue), 2014 ONCA 683 

[Weiler, Hourigan and Pardu JJ.A.]


A. Meghji, M. Biringer, C. D'Elia and A. Hirsh, for the appellant

A.C. Veiga and R. Mak, for the respondent

Keywords: Costs, Reasonable Costs Award, Partial Indemnity, Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure

Facts: This case is a costs endorsement whereby the appellant was successful at trial and appeal and sought almost $1.3 million in costs. The respondent argued that this amount was excessive.


(1) What is a reasonable cost award that should be awarded to the appellant?

Holding:  Costs of the trial and appeal were awarded to the appellant in the total amount of $925,000.


(1) The costs sought by the appellant exceed a fair and reasonable amount that the parties would expect to pay or be awarded. Costs in the amount of 55-60% of a reasonable hourly rate for the appellant's legal fees are appropriate.

Limen Group Ltd. v. Blair, 2014 ONCA 680

[Doherty, Pepall and Tulloch JJ.A.]


Daniel J. Shields and Hendrik T. Nieuwland, for the appellants

Lorne A. Richmond and Charles Sinclair for the respondents Kerry Wilson, the Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada and the Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers

David Bannon and Robert Frank for the respondents John Blair, Masonry Industry Employers' Council of Ontario and the Ontario Masonry Contractor Association – BACU Bargaining Committee

Keywords: Collective Bargaining, Collective Agreement, Memorandum of Agreement, Jurisdiction, Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB)

Facts: In June 2014, the appellants, unionized masonry contractors in the industrial, commercial and institutional ("ICI") sector of Ontario's construction industry, commenced an action against the  respondents. They claim, among other things, that a Memorandum of Agreement and two collective agreements between them are unlawful and void.

The motion judge stayed the appellant's action on the basis that the essential character of the parties' dispute was one of labour relations over which the Ontario Labour Relations Board ("OLRB") has exclusive jurisdiction. He ordered that the action be stayed. He also concluded that notwithstanding that the court retained its inherent jurisdiction to grant injunctive and interim relief, he declined to exercise his discretion in that regard.

Issue(s): Did the motion judge err in staying the appellant's action for absence of jurisdiction?

Held: No. Appeal dismissed.

Reasoning: The court found that the essential character of the parties' dispute clearly falls within the OLRB's exclusive jurisdiction – the anchor of the appellants' action is the  illegality of the Memorandum of Agreement and the two collective agreements.

The appellants' complaint that the Labour Relations Act ("LRA") contemplates one seamless provincial collective agreement, and that one of the respondents owes no duties or obligations to the appellants since they are not formally a designated bargaining agency under the LRA, does not alter the essential character of the dispute.

Moreover, the court concluded that the appellants have avenues available within the labour relations regime to challenge the validity of the Memorandum of Agreement and the collective agreements, and there is no deprivation of the ultimate remedy sought by the appellants.

While noting that the motion judge was correct to find that the court had jurisdiction to award injunctive relief, the court, without further reasons, also agreed in its decision to refuse to grant it.

Murray v. Ceruti ,2014 ONCA 679

[Simmons, Rouleau and Hourigan JJ.A.]


G. S. Joseph and R.M. Kniznik, for the appellant

C. Mancia, for the respondent

Keywords:  Conflict of Laws, Custody and Access, Jurisdiction, Forum Non Conveniens


The respondent, a Canadian citizen, moved to Indiana to live with the appellant. Within two months, they got married and the respondent became pregnant. They separated after one month of marriage and the respondent moved back to Ontario.

Both parties commenced proceedings in Indiana dealing with dissolution of their marriage: the appellant filed a petition for divorce and the respondent filed a petition for annulment, which was abandoned. The respondent participated in the Indiana divorce action in which the judge ruled that Indiana had jurisdiction over the parties' unborn child.

The respondent gave birth one week after the ruling on Indiana's jurisdiction. The following week, the respondent brought an ex parte motion in the Ontario Superior Court for temporary custody, which was granted. The respondent then filed an application in the Ontario Superior Court for full custody.

The appellant brought a motion for a stay of proceedings based on the grounds that Ontario did not have jurisdiction, or alternatively, that Indiana was forum conveniens. The motion judge determined that Ontario had jurisdiction over custody and access of the child pursuant to paragraph 22(1)(b) of the Children's Law Reform Act ("CLRA"), and refused to decline the exercise of jurisdiction. He held that, although the respondent attorned to Indiana's jurisdiction for the purpose of the equalization claim and corollary relief, she did not attorn in relation to the issues of custody and access.

Further, the motion judge determined that subsection 41(1) of the CLRA did not require an Ontario court to recognize the Indiana order. He found the Indiana Court did not have jurisdiction under section 22 of the CLRA to make the order had the situation been the reverse and Ontario had been the father's home jurisdiction, as the child was unborn and had never been present in Indiana.


(1) Did the motion judge err in holding that Ontario had jurisdiction over the custody and access issues?

(2) Did the motion judge err in failing to decline jurisdiction?

Holding: Appeal dismissed.


(1) No. The criteria in paragraph 22(1)(b) of the CLRA, which governs the assumption of jurisdiction where the child is not habitually resident in Ontario, were met in this case. Although the respondent did not provide authority for the proposition that one can attorn to only part of a proceeding, attornment is at most a factor to consider under paragraph 22(1)(b) and section 25 of the CLRA, and is by no means dispositive of the issue of jurisdiction.

(2) No. The motion judge found there was substantial evidence located in Ontario concerning the best interests of the child. The motion judge was further mindful of the policy objectives of the custody, access and guardianship sections of the CLRA. This was not a case of forum shopping, as both the respondent and the child have more ties to Ontario. Although the existence of parallel proceedings are unfortunate, it is not incumbent on a Canadian court to decline to exercise jurisdiction that is properly assumed just because there is another proceeding pending in another jurisdiction.

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.

John Polyzogopoulos
In association with
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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.