Canada Case Law

Valley Traffic Systems Inc. v. Hanna

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Because the trial judge found and the Court of Appeal upheld that the three defendants engaged in a common design, hid payments behind a sham profit‑sharing agreement, and were equally complicit in a coordinated, malicious defamation campaign, there is no basis to differentiate their degrees of fault; accordingly Hanna must contribute and indemnify one third of the amounts paid (equal apportionment).

Source excerpt

• Common design
• Apportionment of liability
• Default judgment
• Assessment of damages
• Indemnity and contribution
• Aggravated and punitive damages

Read case analysis

British Columbia v. McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Supreme Court of British Columbia certified a government class action against McKinsey over alleged opioid consulting, finding common issues and preferability were met.

• Certification
• Opioid damages
• Negligent misrepresentation
• Negligent failure to warn
• Fraudulent misrepresentation
• Conspiracy

Read case analysis

The Jean Coutu Group (PJ) Inc. v. British Columbia

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed appeals challenging territorial competence in an opioid class action, holding that jurisdiction was established under the CJPTA.

• Territorial competence
• Real and substantial connection
• Common design
• Duty of care
• Forum non conveniens
• Evidence – hearsay exclusion

Read case analysis

Cline v. Gymnastics Canada

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court allowed a pre-certification territorial competence challenge to proceed, but adjourned final determination on the Ex Juris Québec gymnasts pending limited further submissions.

• Territorial competence
• Jurisdiction
• Real and substantial connection
• Common issues
• Certification
• Assumed jurisdiction

Read case analysis

Rovi Guides, Inc. v. BCE Inc.

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed Bell Mediakind’s appeal from an order refusing to strike Rovi’s patent claim and related allegations of common design and agency.

• Motion to strike
• Particulars
• Common design
• Agency
• Inducement
• Standard of review

Read case analysis

Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Videotron Ltd.

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed Videotron’s Rule 51 appeal, upholding the case management judge’s refusal to strike pleadings on common design and attribution in a patent case.

• Common design
• Attribution
• Motion to strike (rule 221)
• Particulars (rule 174, rule 181)
• Standard of review on rule 51 appeals
• Vicarious liability

Read case analysis

Malak v. Hanna

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to Jackman, Paine and Valley Traffic Systems after they achieved substantial success on appeal, and refused Sanderson and Bullock orders against Hanna.

• Appeal
• Costs on appeal
• Sanderson order
• Bullock order
• Vicarious liability
• Common design

Read case analysis

Malak v. Hanna

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court granted leave to amend a defamation claim to add allegations tied to a BC Hydro contingency agreement and a remedy of disgorgement of profits.

• Waiver of tort
• Disgorgement of profits
• Amendment of pleadings
• Prejudice and delay
• Vicarious liability
• Common design

Read case analysis

R. v. Mizen

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal upheld convictions for extortion and assault against Anderson, but set aside the extortion conviction involving Kachur for insufficient evidence of party liability.

• Extortion
• Assault
• Party liability
• Common design
• Appeal from conviction
• Standard of review

Read case analysis

R. v. Lauzon

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court upheld the conviction because Alston's out-of-court statement was admissible under the principled approach due to sufficient indicia of reliability and necessity; the trial judge's limiting instructions were adequate despite one ambiguous passage; evidence of refusal to provide samples and rinsing the cup was properly admitted as after-the-fact conduct and was properly charged; omission of a specific instruction limiting after-the-fact conduct to distinguishing murder from manslaughter did not cause a miscarriage; even if errors existed the appellate proviso applied given overwhelmi…

Source excerpt

• Hearsay
• Principled approach to hearsay
• Past recollection recorded
• After the fact conduct
• Consciousness of guilt
• Common design

Read case analysis