3 total
The court set aside an arbitration award because a mid-hearing procedural change denied procedural fairness.
The applicants sought to set aside an arbitration award under section 46 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, arguing that the arbitrator’s mid-hearing switch from an oral to a written process, and refusal to consider their closing submissions, constituted unequal and unfair treatment.
The Court found that the applicants were denied their statutory rights to an oral hearing and to equal treatment, and set aside the award, remitting the matter for a new hearing before a different arbitration panel.
The court struck a pilot's negligence claim against Transport Canada, finding the regulator owes no private law duty of care regarding medical certification.
The court considered a motion by the Attorney General of Canada to strike the plaintiff’s action, which alleged negligence in the administration of pilot medical certification.
The plaintiff, a commercial pilot, had his medical certificate refused due to a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder, but was later found fit and granted an unrestricted certificate after a successful appeal.
The court found that the regulatory regime’s purpose is public safety, not the protection of individual economic interests, and that no private law duty of care is owed by Transport Canada to pilots in these circumstances.
The action was struck in its entirety.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the negligence claim, finding no duty of care was owed.
The appellant, Reset Electronics Inc., appealed the dismissal of its action against Hydro One Networks Inc. for alleged negligent misrepresentation and negligent performance of service.
Reset claimed Hydro One's delays in processing incentive payments for energy-efficient products caused its business failure.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld the trial judge's findings that Hydro One owed no duty of care to Reset, did not breach any duty if one existed, and did not cause Reset's alleged losses.
The court affirmed that no undertaking inviting reasonable reliance was established between the parties, and Hydro One's actions were based on legitimate safety concerns.
The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal costs was refused.