Fernandes v. Carleton University

Fernandes v. Carleton University

The Court dismissed the appeal because the motion judge properly applied Hryniak and Rule 20: the respondents' affidavits supplied sufficient evidence to resolve factual and credibility issues on summary judgment; there was no evidence tying BCE Inc. to The Source's employment decisions so BCE was not liable and piercing the corporate veil was unwarranted; the conspiracy claim lacked proof of agreement or communications; and the claim against Carleton was an abuse of process as it amounted to re-litigating the university's internal academic appeal. The motions to set aside prior interlocutory orders and to strike affidavits were properly dismissed as abusive or unsupported.

Citation
2016 ONCA 719
Parties
Plaintiff / Appellant: Myles Fernandes; Defendant / Respondent: Carleton University; Defendant / Respondent: BCE Inc.
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Summary Judgment and Related Motions / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal and Motions to Set Aside Prior Interlocutory Orders
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; motions to set aside orders of LaForme J.A. and Hourigan J.A. dismissed; statement of claim against Carleton struck as an abuse of process; claim against BCE Inc. dismissed; conspiracy claim dismissed; respondents awarded costs.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment (rule 20), Abuse of Process, Piercing the Corporate Veil, Wrongful Dismissal, Conspiracy, Defamation, Negligence, Academic Internal Appeal Review, Motions to Strike Affidavits, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Employment Law Tort Law Administrative Law (academic Decisions) Corporate Law Summary Judgment (rule 20) Abuse of Process Piercing the Corporate Veil +7 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Myles Fernandes

Plaintiff / Appellant

Carleton University

Defendant / Respondent

BCE Inc.

Defendant / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Summary Judgment and Related Motions / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal and Motions to Set Aside Prior Interlocutory Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motion judge properly granted summary judgment under Rule 20 and Hryniak
  2. 2 Whether BCE Inc. was liable for employment decisions of The Source or the corporate veil should be pierced
  3. 3 Whether the conspiracy claim was supported by evidence of an agreement or communications between defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the appeal because the motion judge properly applied Hryniak and Rule 20: the respondents' affidavits supplied sufficient evidence to resolve factual and credibility issues on summary judgment; there was no evidence tying BCE Inc. to The Source's employment decisions so BCE was not liable and piercing the corporate veil was unwarranted; the conspiracy claim lacked proof of agreement or communications; and the claim against Carleton was an abuse of process as it amounted to re-litigating the university's internal academic appeal. The motions to set aside prior interlocutory orders and to strike affidavits were properly dismissed as abusive or unsupported.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; motions to set aside orders of LaForme J.A. and Hourigan J.A. dismissed; statement of claim against Carleton struck as an abuse of process; claim against BCE Inc. dismissed; conspiracy claim dismissed; respondents awarded costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Motions to set aside the orders of LaForme J.A. and Hourigan J.A. dismissed