Canada: Court Of Appeal Summaries (July 3 – 6)

Last Updated: July 12 2018
Article by John Polyzogopoulos

As expected at this time of year, it was a quiet week at the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

There were only two substantive civil decisions. In Da Silva v Gomes, the motion judge had dismissed, by way of summary judgment, a claim against a soccer club, its representatives, and its governing association for allegedly failing to prevent a player from assaulting another player during a game. The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, as there was no evidence to suggest that the assault was reasonably foreseeable. Supervising authorities are not legally responsible for sudden, unexpected events that occur during an acceptable and safe activity.

In Manorgate Estate Inc. v Kirkor Architects and Planners, a builder entered into a design agreement with an architect that contained an entire agreement clause. The builder alleged that it entered into the agreement on the basis of misrepresentations by the architect as to the anticipated costs of the project. The project exceeded budget and the builder sued the architect. The motion judge dismissed the claim by way of summary judgment on the basis of the entire agreement clause, which excluded claims in respect of any representations not contained in the agreement. The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision and dismissed the appeal.

There were several criminal decisions released this week, together with an Ontario Review Board decision and a decision quashing an appeal in a child custody case for want of jurisdiction.

Table of Contents

Da Silva v Gomes, 2018 ONCA 610

Keywords:  Torts, Negligence, Occupiers Liability, Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Occupiers Liability Act,RSO 1990, c 0 2

Manorgate Estates Inc. v Kirkor Architects and Planners, 2018 ONCA 617

Keywords: Contracts, Misrepresentation, Entire Agreement Clauses,  Contratual Interpretation, Standard of Review, Sattva Capital Corp. v Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53, Ledcor Construction Ltd. v Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., 2016 SCC 37

For short civil decisions click here

For criminal decisions click here

Da Silva v Gomes, 2018 ONCA 610

[Epstein, Lauwers and van Rensburg JJA]

Counsel:

D D'Urzo, for the appellants

K Kwinter, for the respondents other than BG

Keywords:  Torts, Negligence, Occupiers Liability, Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Occupiers Liability Act,RSO 1990, c 0 2

Facts:

In the course of a soccer game, BG punched MDS. BG was criminally convicted for the assault. MDS was injured and he and his family brought their claims under the Family Law Act, RSO 1990, c F 3, against BG, the Hamilton Sparta Sports Club for which BG played, the Ontario Soccer Association Incorporated, under whose auspices the game was played, and several other associated individuals.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action against the respondents other than BG. The plaintiffs appealed.

Issues:

(1) Did the motion judge err in finding that the respondents were not negligent in their supervision of the game, and breached several standards of care, including the standard for coaches, for on-field supervision and for player conduct?

(2) Did the motion judge err in finding that the respondents were not liable under the Occupiers Liability Act,RSO 1990, c 02 for failing to ensure that the playing field was safe?

(3) Did the motion judge err in finding that these arguments on the evidence did not raise genuine issues requiring a trial?

Holding: Appeal dismissed.

Reasoning:

(1) No. The appellants have not shown that the motion judge made any palpable and overriding errors. The appellants' case rests on proving the claim that BG's previous conduct showed a risk that he would commit violence against an opposing player and that his coach, his team and the Association were negligent in permitting him to play. The motion judge rejected this claim at para 74: "Based on the material before the court, there is no evidence that BG acted in a physically aggressive or violent manner during a soccer game prior to the [incident date]".

On the issue of the standard of care, the motion judge noted that the appellants had not proven their case at para 78: "BG's evidence was that he knew he was not to punch other players. His evidence was that he assaulted MDS impulsively. Based on BG's evidence, even if there was a code of conduct and even if he was made aware of it, it would not have prevented him from engaging in behaviour that was so beyond the realm of what is reasonable. He assaulted MDS and was convicted of an offence which resulted in a suspension from the league."

With respect to the issue of causation, the motion judge found, at para 94:

Based on the evidence, I am unable to conclude that the lack of or improper discipline would have deterred BG such that the assault upon MDS would not have occurred. BG's evidence was that he knew he could not punch another player but did so anyways. His evidence was that the assault was not premeditated and, in fact, was an unprovoked and impulsive act.

As for the applicable law, the motion judge relied on the school board cases. The law is clear that supervising authorities are not legally responsible for "a sudden unexpected event in the midst of an acceptable, safe activity": Patrick v St. Clair Catholic District School Board[2013] OJ No 6216, at para 266.

(2) No. The motion judge made no palpable or overriding error in her finding that there was (a) no evidence of "any site safety issues or that the playing field was not safe" and (b) no evidence that the respondents were in breach of any obligation owed under the Act (para. 65).

(3) No. The motion judge made no error in the consideration and application of the test for summary judgment. The appellants' case foundered on the absence of evidence, that the case was not complex and the key facts were not in dispute, and that there were no credibility issues to resolve.

Manorgate Estates Inc. v Kirkor Architects and Planners, 2018 ONCA 617

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

Counsel:

Michael Simaan, for the appellants

Charles Simco and Matthew Urback, for the respondent

Keywords: Contracts, Misrepresentation, Entire Agreement Clauses,  Contratual Interpretation, Standard of Review,Sattva Capital Corp. v Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53, Ledcor Construction Ltd. v Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., 2016 SCC 37

Facts:

The appellants ("Manorgate") build residential homes. The respondent ("Kirkor") is an architectural consulting firm retained by Manorgate to assist with a construction project. Manorgate entered into an agreement (the "First Agreement") with Kirkor under which Kirkor agreed to provide design services for a project involving the construction of 12 townhouses (the "smaller project").

After the First Agreement was executed, the City of Toronto advised Manorgate that it would prefer a higher density development at the planned location. The proposed project was then changed to 24 townhomes (the "larger project"). Manorgate's principal met with a senior partner of Kirkor to discuss this new concept. After this meeting, the parties entered into a design agreement with respect to the larger project (the "Second Agreement").

Both agreements contained a clause precluding Manorgate from suing Kirkor based on any pre-contractual representations (the "Entire Agreement Clause").

Manorgate says that at the meeting, Kirkor's representative represented to Manorgate's representative that the larger project would cost approximately $130 per square foot (the "Alleged Negligent Misrepresentation"). Manorgate alleges that the actual cost per square foot of the larger project turned out to be significantly higher than $130, such that the larger project was no longer financially viable.

Manorgate claimed that it entered into the Second Agreement in reliance on the Alleged Negligent Misrepresentation. It therefore brought this proceeding based on the Alleged Negligent Misrepresentation for approximately $530,000.

Kirkor denied the representation. In the alternative, Kirkor relied on the Entire Agreement Clause in the Second Agreement to preclude liability for any pre-contractual representations. Kirkor moved for summary judgment.

The motion judge found that it was not necessary to decide whether Kirkor made the Alleged Negligent Misrepresentation. She granted summary judgment dismissing the action, concluding that the Entire Agreement Clause in the Second Agreement operated as a complete defence to Manorgate's claim.

Issues:

  1. Did the motion judge err in giving effect to the entire agreement clause?

(a)  In that regard, did the motion judge err in determining that the Entire Agreement Clause was broad enough to exclude the Alleged Negligent Misrepresentation?

  1. Did the motion judge err in her interpretation of the provision of the Second Agreement excluding detailed estimates of construction costs from the services provided?
  2. Did the motion judge err in failing to find a triable issue as to whether the Entire Agreement Clause should be unenforceable on the basis that it was unconscionable and against public policy?
  3. Did the motion judge err in failing to enforce a duty of good faith between the parties?

Holding: Appeal dismissed.

Reasoning:

  1. The court stated that critical to the motion judge's conclusion was her finding that the Second Agreement was not a continuation of the First Agreement but an entirely new agreement. It followed that the Entire Agreement Clause contained in the Second Agreement superseded the Alleged Negligent Misrepresentation, with the effect that Manorgate was not entitled to rely on the representation even if it had been made by Kirkor.

The court stated that while correctly identifying the substantive requirements for the formation of a valid contract is an issue of law, applying those requirements to a given fact scenario and interpreting the language of two apparent agreements raises questions of mixed law and fact: Sattva Capital Corp. v Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53, at paras. 49-51, 53.  The court found that the motion judge's determination that the First Agreement and Second Agreement were two separate contracts was a finding of mixed law and fact based on the record before her, and that the finding is entitled to deference on appeal.

(a) No.  The court stated that Manorgate's argument hinged on its position that the two agreements are standard form contracts and therefore the motion judge's finding is to be reviewed on a standard of correctness. The court found that although the agreements were not amended prior to signature, they were not standard form agreements of the nature contemplated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Ledcor Construction Ltd. v Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., 2016 SCC 37. On Manorgate's evidence, the agreements were open to being amended prior to signing. The court stated that the motion judge's interpretation that the Second Agreement, specifically the Entire Agreement Clause, was broad enough to apply to the Alleged Negligent Misrepresentation, is an exercise in contractual interpretation entitled to deference: Ledcor, at para. 21.

  1. The court stated that the motion judge referred to a provision in rejecting the argument made before her that preliminary costing was part of the services Kirkor was to perform. She stated, at para 44: I reject the plaintiff's argument that the use of the word "detailed" implies that preliminary or high level costing forms part of the contract. Nothing else in the contract supports such an interpretation. The court found no error.
  2. The court stated that the motion judge made no error in failing to find a triable issue as to whether the Entire Agreement Clause should be unenforceable on the basis that it was unconscionable and against public policy.
  3. The court rejected Manorgate's argument concerning the motion judge's failure to enforce a duty of good faith between the parties, stating that it was not properly raised at first instance on appeal.

Criminal, Provincial Offences, and Ontario Review Board Decisions

R v MP, 2018 ONCA 608

[Watt, Brown and Huscroft JJA]

Counsel:

Jonathan Shime, for the appellant

Andrew Hotke, for the respondent

Keywords:  Criminal Law, Publication Ban, Sexual Assault, Evidence, Admissibility, Criminal Code, s 271, s 686(1)(b)(iii), R v W(D), [1991] 1 SCR 742

R v Sadikov, 2018 ONCA 609

[Lauwers, van Rensberg and Nordheimer JJA]

Counsel:

Dirk Derstine and Karen Heath, for the appellant

Amber Pashuk and Amanda Hauk, for the respondent

Keywords: Criminal Law, Drug Trafficking, Possession of a Firearm, Sentencing, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 8, R v Keinapple, [1975] 1 SCR 729, R v Teskey, 2007 SCC 25, R v Willaroman, 2016 SCC 33

Caron (Re), 2018 ONCA 613

[Doherty, Rouleau and Fairburn JJA]

Counsel:

Ian McCuaig, for the appellant

Joe Hanna, the Attorney General of Ontario

Jacquie Dagher, for the respondent

Keywords: Criminal Law, Ontario Review Board, NCR, Threat to Cause Bodily Harm, Threat to Cause Death, Supervised Access

Short Civil Decisions

Williams v. Young, 2018 ONCA 611

[Feldman, Hourigan and Brown JJA]

Counsel:

Benjamin Nielsen, for the moving party/respondent

Shawn Philbert, for the responding party/appellant

Keywords: Family Law, Custody, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Jurisdiction, Courts of Justice Act, s 21.9.1

R v DA, 2018 ONCA 612

[Sharpe, Brown and Paciocco JJA]

Counsel:

Peter Copeland, for the appellant

Michael Perlin, for the responding respondent

Keywords: Criminal Law, Sexual Assault, Evidence, Criminal Code, s. 271, R v W(D), [1991] 1 SCR 742, R v JJRD(2006), 218 OAC 37

R v Laverdure, 2018 ONCA 614

[Doherty, Rouleau and Fairburn JJA]

Counsel:

Jodie-Lee Primaeu, for the appellant

Elana Middlekamp, for the respondent

Keywords:Criminal Law, Dangerous Driving Causing Death, Actus Reus, Mens Rea, Criminal Code, S. 249, R v Beatty, [2008] 1 SCR 49

R v Richards, 2018 ONCA 618

[Doherty, MacPherson and Rouleau JJA]

Counsel:

Najma Jamaldin, for the appellant

Deborah Krick, for the respondent

Keywords: Criminal Law, First Degree Murder, Criminal Code, S. 231(5)(e), Evidence, R v Kimberley(2001), 56 OR (3d) 18 (CA)

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
29 Sep 2018, Speaking Engagement, Toronto, Canada

Blaneys Partner Diane Brooks will present her paper, 'Dealing with the Issues that Can Arise During the Ongoing Operation of a Private Company' at The Law Society of Ontario's Practice Gems: Essentials of the Privately Held Company forum on September 29.

 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
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