Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal in a loan default and guarantee case, upholding summary judgment for the bank and awarding costs of $7,500.
The appeal is allowed because the Athletic Commissioner Act and its regulations do not, expressly or by implication, create a private law duty of care to individual athletes, and SFU's amended third party notice fails to plead the material facts necessary to establish proximity (the key basis for a novel duty). Bare allegations that the regulator knew or ought to have known of contraventions are insufficient; therefore the third party notice is plain and obvious to fail and must be struck (without prejudice to SFU applying to refile if material facts are available).
Source excerpt
Appeal dismissed: trial judge's factual findings and credibility assessments were supported by the evidence and not palpably overriding; Ndax met any applicable standard of care by providing multiple warnings, personal inquiries and independent risk analysis, and appellant failed to prove causation; fresh evidence excluded for lack of due diligence and lack of material bearing on decisive issues.
Source excerpt
Trail is a recreational trail (LOD-1) under the OLA and WDTAC; defendant assessor's March 2018 visual inspection was reasonable under WDTAC and the assessor legitimately concluded the Incident Tree was not a danger (leaning away); absence of contemporaneous documentation of a tree assessed as non-dangerous does not constitute reckless disregard under s.3(3)(b) OLA; core-policy immunity bars challenges to resource allocation but does not shield operational failures; on balance plaintiffs did not prove defendants acted with reckless disregard, therefore defendants not liable.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal struck down Daniel Hartman’s negligence and misfeasance claims over Canada’s approval and promotion of the COVID-19 vaccine and dismissed the appeal.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an estate trustee’s appeal from summary judgment, holding the respondent lawyer owed no duty or fiduciary duty and the claim was time-barred.
The court held that claims brought on behalf of the deceased for non-pecuniary loss are barred by WESA and therefore those portions of the NOCC must be struck; conversely, it is not plain and obvious that Mr. Dwyer's personal claims — including as substitute decision-maker and for negligent infliction of mental distress related to the defendants' alleged failure to respect an advance directive and MRA — have no prospect of success, so those claims may proceed and the plaintiff is granted leave to amend; the Rule 9-6 summary dismissal application was refused as premature pending amendment.
Source excerpt
Defendants owed a duty of care to their client sellers (the McNallys) but not to the non-client buyers (the Kirbys) because no proximate relationship was established; the applicable standard of care in October 2020–March 2021 permitted seller identity verification up to completion consistent with FINTRAC/CREA practices then in force, the particular email impersonation fraud was not a known industry risk at the time, the defendants met the standard, causation was not established on the plaintiffs' case, negligent misrepresentation failed for lack of a special relationship and actionable false…
Source excerpt
The occupier failed to demonstrate a reasonable regime of inspection and maintenance for the planter bed adjacent to the pharmacy entrance, resulting in an unmarked lip of about one inch that foreseeably caused the plaintiff's fall; defendant liable but plaintiff contributorily negligent to 25%, so defendant bears 75% of liability.
Source excerpt
Appeal allowed and claim dismissed because it is a foundational rule that a party cannot recover the costs of the same proceeding as tort damages and there is no principled basis or pleaded category of recoverable pure economic loss to justify an exception; the chambers judge erred in failing to apply this rule and the restrictive principles governing pure economic loss.
Source excerpt
Explore more
