In O.M.S. v E.J.S., 2023 SKCA 8, a Saskatchewan father recently tried, and failed, to get a court to order that his 13-year-old daughter be vaccinated against Covid-19. The case illustrates some of the key principles that courts regularly apply when making determinations about medical treatments in the face of disagreements between separated or divorced parents. In this case, the parents had been separated since 2012. The parents had a high conflict relationship with numerous court attendances. Their daughter lived primarily with the mother, and under the terms of the decision-making responsibility (“custody”) arrangement, the mother had final decision-making responsibility over medical matters. The mother was opposed to vaccinations in general and questioned the accuracy of Covid-19 information circulated by public health authorities. She did not want their daughter to receive the Covid-19 vaccine. The daughter was also opposed to receiving the Covid-19 vaccine. The father wanted their daughter to … Read More
How to Set Aside (Cancel) a Separation Agreement: Part 1
Courts generally respect the arrangements negotiated by parties in separation agreements. However, under the Family Law Act, there are several grounds on which a court can “set aside” (cancel) a separation agreement. A party seeking to set aside a separation agreement must show the court their matter falls within one of these grounds and then convince the court to exercise its discretion in their favor and set aside the agreement. A recent case illustrates two of the most common grounds to set aside a separation agreement: (i) if a party did not understand the nature or consequences of the domestic contract; and (ii) where there is duress, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation, or for public policy reasons. Radosevich v Harvey involved an appeal of a lower court decision. The appellant, Ms. Radosevich, had sued her former family law lawyer, Ms. Harvey, for being negligent in the negotiation of her separation agreement. … Read More
Waiving a Contractual Right May Not Be as Easy as You Might Think!
In the recent decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”), Jack Ganz Consulting Ltd. v. Recipe Unlimited Corporation, 2021 ONCA 907, the ONCA set aside the decision of the motion judge which dismissed the plaintiff’s claim on a motion for summary judgment brought by the respondent. The ONCA opined that the motion judge made an error in law by finding that the appellant had waived the auto renewal provision of the consulting agreement that forms the basis of the dispute. The motion judge’s decision stems largely from the appellant’s representative’s email in which he stated “Let this email serve to remove the auto renewal from the contract”. The motion judge found that this email resulted in a waiver of the auto renewal provision of the consulting agreement by the appellant, and that the waiver was accepted by the respondent in a subsequent email. Though the ONCA conceded that a … Read More
Recognition of Foreign Judgments – Supreme Court Leaves Determination of Enforceability of “Ricochet Judgments” for another day – Update on Previous Blog
This is an update on our blog, Recognition of Foreign Judgments – The Ontario Courts will not Recognize Enforcement Orders (a.k.a. “Ricochet Judgments”), regarding the Superior Court decision in H.M.B. Holdings Ltd. v. Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda, 2021 ONSC 2307 (CanLII). That decision has been appealed up to the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”), which has now also rendered its decision. In dismissing the appeal, the SCC agreed with the application judge, and with the Court of Appeal, that Ontario’s Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act (the “Act”) bars the plaintiff (appellant) from registering a default judgment that it obtained in British Columbia to enforce a judgment granted by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The SCC advised that the Act only applies to (1) reciprocating jurisdictions, such as British Columbia, and (2) judgments or orders of a court in a civil proceeding where a sum of money … Read More
It’s not all about Intent! – Court of Appeal Confirms Test for Civil Conspiracy
In the recent decision Mughal v. Bama Inc., 2020 ONCA 704 (CanLII), the Court of Appeal upheld a lower court decision in an action alleging civil conspiracy, among other things. The underlying action involved a plaintiff seeking the return of his investment in a corporation. On appeal, it was alleged that the trial judge applied the wrong legal test for and misapprehended the evidence to find commission of the tort of conspiracy to injure. The appellate court concluded that the trial judge applied the correct test for establishing civil conspiracy to injure as follows: Whether the means used by the defendants are lawful or unlawful, the predominant purpose of the defendants’ conduct is to cause injury to the plaintiff; or, Where the conduct of the defendants is unlawful, the conduct is directed towards the plaintiff (alone or together with others), and the defendants should know in the circumstances that injury … Read More
Dominican Republic Vacation Claim Examined in Di Gregorio v. Sunwing Vacations Inc.
In Di Gregorio v. Sunwing Vacations Inc., the appellants purchased a vacation package to attend the Dreams Punta Cana Resort and Spa through their travel agent, Sunwing Vacations Inc. (“Sunwing”). While on vacation, the balcony railing gave way resulting in the appellants sustaining injuries. The motion judge was found to have erred in not conducting a jurisdictional analysis pursuant to Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda. The Court of Appeal stated that the relevant connecting factor is that the claim pleaded was based on an Ontario contract. The alleged tortfeasors do not need to be party to the contract, as all that is required is that a “defendant’s conduct brings it within the scope of the contractual relationship and that the events that give rise to the claim flow from the contractual relationship” as stated in Lapointe Rosenstein Marchand Melancon LLP v. Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP. The Court of … Read More
Popack v. Lipszyc: Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitration Awards – Clarifying the term “binding”
Popack v. Lipszyc appears to be the first Ontario Court of Appeal case on the recognition and enforcement of arbitration awards under the 2017 International Commercial Arbitration Act (“ICAA”). The ICCA includes the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“New York Convention”) and the 2006 amended version of UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (“Model Law”). The appellants used articles 35 and 36 of Model Law to apply for the recognition and enforcement of the international commercial arbitration award they received in August 2013 against the respondents. While the application judge dismissed the application, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The Court of Appeal stated that “in Ontario, a strong “pro-enforcement” legal regime” exists for the recognition and enforcement of international commercial arbitration awards, as grounds for refusal are “to be construed narrowly”. Importantly, the Court, and not the tribunal, is the proper avenue to … Read More
The Supreme Court of Canada On Defence Against the Tort of Conversion (Teva Canada Ltd. v. TD Canada Trust)
In Teva Canada Ltd. v. TD Canada Trust, Teva Canada Ltd. (“Teva”), a pharmaceutical company, “was the victim of a fraudulent cheque scheme implemented by one of its employees”, (para 1). Teva claimed the collecting banks were liable for the tort of conversion. Teva Canada Ltd. v. TD Canada Trust provides insight into the Bills of Exchange Act‘s (“BEA”) section 20(5) defence to the tort of conversion, by clarifying the approach used to determining whether a payee is “fictitious or non-existing”. In the event that a payee is deemed fictitious or non-existing within the meaning of section 20(5) of the BEA, the bill may be treated as payable to the bearer, and thus can be negotiated by simple “delivery” to the bank meaning endorsement is not required, and the defence will succeed (para 5). Justice Abella, writing for the majority, outlined the two-step framework a bank must satisfy to demonstrate that a payee is fictitious or … Read More
Business “One Step Removed” From Tort Liability: Rankin (Rankin’s Garage & Sales) v. J.J.
The neighbour principle derived from Donoghue v. Stevenson that underlies the Anns/Cooper test continues to animate all of tort law. The pendulum continues to swing regarding who we can properly call our “neighbours” for legal purposes. While limiting who qualifies as our neighbours is necessary to prevent indeterminate liability, a balance must be struck to ensure just and fair outcomes. Rankin (Rankin’s Garage & Sales) v. J.J., in a strong 7-2 decision, represents the Court attempting to strike such a balance. In Rankin (Rankin’s Garage & Sales) v. J.J. a 15-year-old Plaintiff, J., suffered a catastrophic brain injury as a result of being the passenger in a car accident that occurred after his 16-year-old friend, C., stole a car from Rankin’s Garage & Sales (paras 1-5). Justice Karakatsanis, writing for the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada, held that there was no duty of care owed in this case by a business that stores vehicles to someone who is injured following the theft of … Read More
Restriction on Use of Summary Judgment Where Key Issues Turn on Credibility
Since the Supreme Court of Canada’s landmark decision in Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, summary judgment has been lauded as an effective tool to enhance access to justice and achieve cost-effective results for litigants. Indeed, in recent years, summary judgment motions have become more common, making trials in civil litigation a rare occurrence. But has the pendulum begun to swing now in the opposite direction? The Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Lesenko v Guerette, 2017 ONCA 522, challenges the limits of summary judgment, and outlines that it may not be appropriate in cases where key issues turn on the credibility of the parties. In Lesenko, a husband, his wife, and his sister decided to sell their respective homes and buy a house together. The sister sold her home, and some of those sale proceeds went to pay for the entire purchase price of the subject property. The sister … Read More