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.]

Counsel:

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

Facts:

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.

Issues:

(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.

Reasoning:

(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.]

Counsel:

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

Facts:

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.

Reasoning:

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.]

Counsel:

M.L. Biggar, for the appellant

Brian N. Radnoff, for the respondent

Keywords: Contempt, Determination of a Fit Sentence

Facts:

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.

Issue:

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.

Reasoning:

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.]

Counsel:

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]

Counsel:

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

Facts:

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.

Issues:

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

 Holding:  Appeal dismissed.

 Reasoning:

(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.]

Counsel:

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.

Issues:

(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.

 Reasoning:

(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.]

Counsel:

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.]

Counsel:

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

Facts:

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.

Issues:

(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.

Reasoning:

(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 Mondaq.com.

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

Authors
John Polyzogopoulos
Events from this Firm
6 Feb 2019, Other, Toronto, Canada

When it comes to class actions, costs regimes vary across Canada. Ontario follows the traditional two-way costs regime while other jurisdictions like British Columbia have adopted a no cost regime.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
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