Adam Patrick Strömbergsson-DeNora

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 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 applicant sought urgent relief in the form of a Norwich order and a Mareva injunction to recover funds allegedly lost to fraud.

The court declined to grant these extraordinary remedies, finding that the identity and location of the respondent were already known and that the circumstances did not justify such sweeping orders.

The decision emphasizes the proportionality and appropriateness of remedies, suggesting that a straightforward damages action in Small Claims Court is the proper course.

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.

The City of Ottawa brought a motion to dismiss an appeal by Philip Comeau regarding a Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted a four-storey residential building.

The City argued that the Notice of Appeal failed to disclose apparent land use planning grounds and did not explain how the by-law failed to conform with the Official Plan, as required by the Planning Act.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to meet the statutory requirements and that it lacked the discretionary authority to extend the appeal period or allow the appellant to supplement the reasons after the deadline.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.