Canada Case Law

Herzig v. Golowko

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The plaintiff failed to prove undue hardship or the necessity of additional expert evidence: financial disclosure was insufficient to establish inability to pay or the real sacrifice required, and the proposed non-orthopaedic experts were premature and unnecessary given that recommended treatment (physiotherapy) and diagnostic imaging (MRA) had not been undertaken and the orthopaedic opinion indicated ongoing ability to work and no progressive deterioration; therefore the DEER exclusion and leave under Evidence Act s.12.1 are denied.

Source excerpt

• Disbursements and expert evidence regulation (deer)
• Evidence act s.12.1 leave for additional experts
• Undue hardship test
• Expert evidence limits
• Future wage loss valuation
• Proportionality and 'skin in the game'

Read case analysis

Afolabi v. Law Society of Ontario

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Law Society was fully successful on the motion and is entitled to its reasonable costs on a partial indemnity basis; the moving parties are each severally liable for costs of $200.

Source excerpt

• Costs
• Partial indemnity
• Severally liable

Read case analysis

Williams v. VAC Developments Limited

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The motion judge's public interest balancing was correct: VAC failed to adduce evidence from which a court could infer a likelihood of sufficiently serious harm to outweigh the public interest in protecting Williams' expression, so the counterclaim was properly dismissed under s.137.1; the fresh evidence motion was irrelevant and dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Anti-slapp
• Courts of justice act s.137.1
• Public interest balancing
• Wrongful dismissal
• Damages evidence
• Defence of fair comment

Read case analysis

Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd. v. Sandoz Canada Inc.

Court

Federal Court

Federal Court held that defendants in s 6(1) PM(NOC) actions may counterclaim as of right against non-asserted patent claims, subject to Rule 221 motions.

• Pm(noc) regulations
• Counterclaims against non-asserted patent claims
• Summary judgment
• Motion to strike (rule 221)
• Patent-infringement
• Pmnoc-regulations

Read case analysis

Bauder v. Free Will Public Holdings Inc.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court set aside a default judgment and damages assessment in a claim over allegedly improper dispensing of medication, finding no wilful default and an arguable defence.

• Default judgment
• Setting aside judgment
• Assessment of damages
• Service of process
• Miscarriage of justice
• Default-judgment

Read case analysis

R. v. Sheehan's Truck Centre Inc.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Leave to appeal was granted because the proper interpretation of s.25(1)(c) and s.56 raises significant questions of law central to occupational safety that are essential in the public interest; the motion satisfied the statutory leave standard and was granted on the two grounds in the notice of motion.

Source excerpt

• Statutory interpretation
• Signaller requirement
• Regulatory overbreadth
• Section 25(1)(c) ohs act
• Section 56 industrial establishments regulation

Read case analysis

Mrkonjic v. Darrell Jessome Inc.

Court

Nova Scotia Small Claims Court

The subpoena of ICANS communications was quashed as privileged; the claimant was not qualified as an expert and did not prove negligence or that the $600 plus HST charge was unreasonable; therefore the claim for a refund is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Reasonableness of professional fees
• Privilege of regulatory proceedings
• Admissibility and qualification of expert evidence
• Subpoena quashing/non-suit motion

Read case analysis

McIntyre v. Grigg

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal upheld liability and the 70/30 apportionment against the Griggs and McMaster respectively, affirmed general non-pecuniary damages of $250,000, set aside the separate award for aggravated damages (treating aggravation as part of general damages), reduced punitive damages from $100,000 to $20,000 as disproportionate, and allowed the family members' s.61 claims awarding $15,000 to each parent and $5,000 to the sister; costs apportionment left unchanged.

Source excerpt

• Commercial host liability
• Apportionment of liability
• General damages
• Aggravated damages
• Punitive damages
• Family law act s.61

Read case analysis

Honey v. Star-FM Radio Inc.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Wrongful dismissal claim dismissed; the court upheld the written employment agreement and found no negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation.

• Wrongful dismissal
• Misrepresentation (negligent and fraudulent)
• Collateral contract
• Parol evidence rule
• Accord and satisfaction
• Mitigation of damages

Read case analysis