mt_ignore
Legal Feeds
Canadian Lawyer
jobsinlaw.ca
Supreme Court | Federal Court | Federal Appeal | Ontario Civil | Ontario Criminal | Tax Court

Ontario Civil

Case Law is a sample selection from the weekly summaries of notable unreported civil and criminal court decisions published in Law Times newspaper.

Single or multiple copies of the full text of any case digested in the newspaper or sampled here can be obtained by calling Case Law's photocopy department at:
(905) 841-6472 in Toronto,
(800) 263-3269 in Ontario and Quebec, or
(800) 263-2037 in other provinces.
To request a case online

For more Case Law every week, subscribe to Law Times.

Professions and Occupations

Barristers and solicitors

Negligence

Negligence claim against lawyer was ordered to proceed to trial

Lawyer G represented plaintiffs in settlement of tort and accident benefit claims. Plaintiffs retained lawyer C with respect to issues with retainer of G. Plaintiffs brought claims against C, which were dismissed on summary judgment motion. Motion judge found that plaintiffs retained C to represent them only with respect to assessment of G’s accounts, and that they did not retain C in relation to any possible negligence action against G. Judge found that C advised plaintiffs to seek legal advice on negligence issue. Judge found that C did not owe plaintiffs duty of care to either pursue or provide them with legal advice about possible negligence action, including limitation period. Plaintiffs appealed. Appeal allowed; trial ordered. Judged erred in determining that C met burden to establish that there was no genuine issue for trial on issue of duty of care to advise as to limitation period. Where it is alleged that lawyer’s duty of care arises out of and extends beyond retainer, court must meticulously examine all relevant surrounding circumstances, including form and nature of client instructions and sophistication of client, to determine whether duty is owed beyond four corners of retainer. This was not done in present case. Judge did not explain how she was able to conclude that C did not owe plaintiffs duty to advise about existence of limitation period. There was change over course of C’s assessment retainer of his views about competency of G’s representation; C advised plaintiffs that in assessment proceeding they should allege G had been negligent; and, C advised plaintiffs that they might have negligence claim against G. Judge did not take into account all material facts.
Meehan v. Good (2017), 2017 CarswellOnt 1351, 2017 ONCA 103, Janet Simmons J.A., David Brown J.A., and L.B. Roberts J.A. (Ont. C.A.).

Financial Institutions

Issuance of credit
Miscellaneous

Creditor’s action against bank for declaration that it had priority over funds was dismissed

Overdrafts. Creditor financed its sale of debtor with vendor take back note that was secured by general security agreement covering debtor’s assets. Debtor started using services of bank H after creditor refused to subordinate its security to bank H. Debtor opened two related chequing accounts in different currencies and obtained company credit card. Accounts did not allow overdrafts, but debtor frequently went into overdraft and provided funds to cover overdrafts before cheques were at risk of being dishonoured. After debtor went bankrupt, creditor brought action against bank H for declaration that it had priority over funds in accounts used to pay overdrafts and credit card debt and for payment of amounts alleging owing. Creditor brought motion for summary judgment, and bank brought cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing action. Motion dismissed; cross-motion granted. Creditor had not established bank H had extended credit to debtor by way of overdrafts. Overdrafts were created when bank made decision to cover cheque that put account into negative balance. Under bank H’s system, decision to create overdraft could not be made until day after cheque was posted to account. Until such time as bank H made decision to honour or return cheque, it was not providing any credit to debtor or assuming any risk on debtor’s behalf. Debtor always covered cheques with its own funds before bank H made decision to honour cheque, and interest charges were in nature of penalty rather than proof of loan.
Kari Holdings Inc. v. HSBC Bank Canada (2017), 2017 CarswellOnt 566, 2017 ONSC 437, Conway J. (Ont. S.C.J.).

Criminal Law

Prisons and prisoners
Regulation

Corrections Officer’s negligence caused inmate’s injuries

Plaintiff gang member (inmate) was sent to defendant province’s pre-trial detention facility with policy of distributing members of same gang as evenly as possible throughout facility. Corrections Officer (CO), A, applied policy and housed inmate in unit with R, high-level member of rival street gang who was on trial for alleged crimes committed in altercation with inmate’s gang. Inmate requested protective custody on prior occasion, but not on current occasion. Inmate was attacked, dragged to another area, beaten viciously by several people. Inmate brought successful action against province for damages for negligence. Trial judge held that policy fell squarely within category of policy decisions and was not justiciable, that A’s failure to take circumstances into account while fulfilling policy’s distribution requirement amounted to negligent conduct, that inmate compatibility should have formed part of calculus, that inmate’s failure to request protective custody did not absolve province from liability, that A ought to have known R posed risk to rival gang members, that layout of facility allowed prolonged attack to go undetected, and that inmate’s injuries were direct result of A’s negligence. Province appealed. Appeal dismissed. Read holistically, trial judge’s “duty of care” analysis disclosed no legal error. Trial judge’s findings of breach of that duty and causation of damage disclosed neither “palpable and overriding” error of fact nor error concerning “extricable question of law”. Trial judge did not conflate concepts of direct and vicarious liability or otherwise fail to apply principle that province’s liability had to derive from actionable negligence of specific CO. Trial judge did not hold that institution-level conduct of gathering and sharing information could ground liability but considered inter-institutional knowledge and sharing of information about R within government in support of conclusion that A knew or ought to have known of threat posed to inmate. Any liability of province flowing from these facts flowed through A’s negligence in housing inmate with R. Trial judge’s finding that A breached standard of care had sufficient evidentiary basis. Trial judge’s finding that A should have known not to place inmate in same unit as R did not disclose “palpable and overriding error” justifying court’s intervention. Trial judge did not unreasonably conclude that negligence of COs caused inmate’s injuries.
Walters (Litigation guardian of) v. Ontario (2017), 2017 CarswellOnt 574, 2017 ONCA 53, G.R. Strathy C.J.O., H.S. LaForme J.A., and K. van Rensburg J.A. (Ont. C.A.); affirmed (2015), 2015 CarswellOnt 12001, 2015 ONSC 4855, Gans J. (Ont. S.C.J.).

Conflict of Laws

Enforcement of foreign judgments

Defences

Foreign judgments are not exempt from limitation period under Limitations Act (Ont.)

Plaintiff obtained judgment in United States against defendant, and defendant’s appeal was dismissed. Plaintiff’s application in Ontario to enforce foreign judgment was granted, with dismissal of defendant’s defence arguing that limitation period commenced from date of first-instance judgment and not from dismissal of appeal. Defendant appealed. Appeal dismissed. Class of claims subject to no limitation period under s. 16 of Limitations Act, including in s. 16(1)(b) of Act to enforce order of court, did not include to proceeding on foreign judgment. Debt obligation created by foreign judgment could not be directly enforced as proceeding within province had to be brought first. Term “order of court” referred to order of domestic court, which could only be obtained if underlying cause of action was not time-barred whereas proceeding underlying foreign judgment had not passed any Ontario limitations hurdle. Other claims grouped together in s. 16 of Act were those considered so important that would be no limitation period. It would contrary to purpose of Act to exempt foreign judgments from limitation period, since problems associated with preservation and reliability of evidence were especially pronounced for foreign judgment debtors. Applicable limitation period was basic two-year period from when claim was discovered meaning that commencing proceeding was “appropriate” which meant “legally appropriate”. It was not legally appropriate to commence legal proceeding in Ontario on foreign judgment until time to appeal foreign judgment had expired or all appeal remedies had been exhausted. Plaintiff’s claim based on foreign judgment was discoverable when appeal was dismissed and so proceeding was commenced within limitation period.
Independence Plaza 1 Associates, L.L.C. v. Figliolini (2017), 2017 CarswellOnt 374, 2017 ONCA 44, George R. Strathy C.J.O., G. Pardu J.A., and David Brown J.A. (Ont. C.A.).

Commercial Law

Trade and commerce

Consumer protection

Waiver of liability was read down in accordance with doctrine of notional severance

Plaintiff voluntarily purchased season pass at ski resort and agreed to waiver for recreational use of defendant’s property. Plaintiff brought action for negligence related to injury while skiing at defendant’s ski resort. According to Consumer Protection Act, if consumer signs waiver of liability with supplier that waiver was unenforceable as it related to substantive and procedural rights that were protected by Act. Section 7(1) vitiates waiver of Act rights and returns them to consumer. Plaintiff wanted s. 7 of Act to interpret it in manner so as to vitiate defendant’s entire comprehensive waiver/release of liability which he signed. Plaintiff’s proposed interpretation of s. 7(1) of Act would have effect of eliminating protections afforded to occupiers by virtue of ss. 3(3) and 5(3) of Occupiers Liability Act which allows for waiver of liability for negligence claims. Plaintiff brought motion for judicial determination of question of law concerning application and breadth of s. 7(1) of Consumers Protection Act. Motion granted. Particular right at issue was deemed warranty that consumer shall receive services of reasonably acceptable quality as articulated in s. 9(1) of Consumer Protection Act. By operation of s. 7(1) of Act defendant could not disclaim liability for any breach of deemed warranty contemplated by s. 9(1) of Consumer Protection Act. Defendant’s waiver was read down in accordance with doctrine of notional severance to exclude from its ambit claims that involve protection of substantive and procedural rights contemplated by Act and remainder of waiver remained enforceable. To strike whole waiver, when waiver contemplated more than just consumer protection claims, would be contrary to legislative intent of Consumer Protection Act.
Schnarr v. Blue Mountain Resorts Ltd. (2017), 2017 CarswellOnt 373, 2017 ONSC 114, E.R. Tzimas J. (Ont. S.C.J.).

Civil Practice and Procedure

Costs

Scale and quantum of costs

Corporation’s application for determination of rights was dismissed

Corporation R Inc. and taxpayer K entered into minutes of settlement of taxpayers’ employment action. Corporation concluded that its obligation under Income Tax Act was to withhold and remit to Canada Revenue Agency on account of full $1.5 million settlement amount. Corporation brought application for determination of rights, and taxpayer brought motion for summary judgment for minutes to be enforced. Application judge dismissed corporation’s application and partially granted taxpayer’s motion, and awarded taxpayer costs of $28,565. Court of Appeal allowed corporation’s appeal from judgment granting taxpayer’s motion for summary judgment but dismissed corporation’s appeal of dismissal of its application as moot. Corporation was awarded costs of appeal in amount of $15,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes. Parties made submissions on costs of original application and motion. Corporation was awarded costs of $28,565 for court below. Corporation’s offer to settle was of no relevance since it was made to settle corporation’s own application, which was dismissed. Result on appeal, and as consequence, in court below, was mixed because appeal was allowed on basis of motion. Amount of $57,031 sought by corporation as partial indemnity costs was excessive. In court below, taxpayer, who had initially been successful on application and motion, received costs of $28,565. Reasonable amount of costs in court below was same amount as originally awarded to taxpayer.
RJM56 Investments Inc. v. Kurnik (2017), 2017 CarswellOnt 197, 2017 ONCA 19, E.A. Cronk J.A., Paul Rouleau J.A., and Grant Huscroft J.A. (Ont. C.A.); additional reasons (2016), 2016 CarswellOnt 17210, 2016 ONCA 821, Cronk J.A., Rouleau J.A., and Huscroft J.A. (Ont. C.A.).

Construction Law

Statutory regulation

Building permits

Municipality was liable for damages for negligence and negligent misrepresentation

Plaintiffs purchased former group home in defendant municipality with intention of opening tourist oufitting business serving Algonquin Park. Plaintiffs intended to convert home into business with overnight residential space for tourists using their services. Municipality was supportive and Chief Building Officer (“CBO”) S issued building permit requiring new windows, doors, and fire escape signage. New CBO H replaced S and made substantial additional demands for upgrades and lowered permitted occupancy rates to below economically viable level. Plaintiffs attempted to list property for sale but H’s replacement was told by municipality not to inspect property so it could not be sold. Plaintiffs successfully brought action for damages for negligence and negligent misrepresentation. Municipality appealed. Appeal dismissed. Duty to mitigate required that plaintiffs take reasonable steps to mitigate damages. Duty to mitigate, however, did not require injured party to spend money that it did not have, especially when it was conduct of tortfeasor that has left injured party without funds. Court would not interfere with damages award.
Carson v. Kearney (Town) (2016), 2016 CarswellOnt 20128, 2016 ONCA 975, Doherty J.A., E.E. Gillese J.A., and Grant Huscroft J.A. (Ont. C.A.); leave to appeal refused (2016), 2016 CarswellOnt 6693, 2016 ONSC 2836, E.J. Koke J. (Ont. S.C.J.). (Ont. C.A.); affirmed (2016), 2016 CarswellOnt 6694, 2016 ONSC 1940, E.J. Koke J. (Ont. S.C.J.).
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
Page 1 of 60

  • Access to Justice
    Access to Justice The Action Group on Access to Justice (TAG) strives to inform the public on the importance of the people having access to legal resources and…
  • Legal Aid lawyers rally for collective bargaining rights
    Legal Aid lawyers rally for collective bargaining rights Legal Aid Ontario lawyers held three protests in July to push the provincial government to support their attempts to unionize. The lawyers have been in…
  • Jane-Finch community gets employment law help
    Jane-Finch community gets employment law help Osgoode Hall Law School's Community Legal Aid Services Programme recently opened an employment law division for Toronto's Jane-Finch community.Phanath Im, review counsel for the division,…
More Law Times TV...

Law Times poll

Law Times reports that lawyers are expressing concerns over the timing of the rollout of extensive draft regulations by the provincial government to amend the Condominium Act. Do you feel this will leave little time to bring clients up to speed?
Yes, the government expects the first phase of legislation to be implemented later this year, and this leaves little lead time for lawyers.
No, the changes leave appropriate time for lawyers to digest all the regulations and help clients understand them.