Allan D. J. Dick

The moving parties (defendants) sought to set aside an order dismissing their motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.

The appeal had been deemed abandoned under rule 61.14(2) after the moving parties failed to file the notice within ten days.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's discretionary decision, agreeing that the moving parties failed to demonstrate a firm intention to appeal within the time period and failed to provide an adequate explanation for the delay.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

The appellant franchisees appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class proceeding against the respondent franchisor and distributors.

The appellants alleged price maintenance under the Competition Act, civil conspiracy, and breach of contract regarding mark-ups and sourcing fees for supplies.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in principle by focusing exclusively on the individualized nature of damages and failing to recognize that the breach of the Competition Act, breach of contract, and the fact of loss were common issues.

The Court conditionally certified the class action, concluding it was the preferable procedure to achieve judicial economy, access to justice, and behaviour modification.

The appellants appealed a decision declaring that their commercial lease expired and ordering vacant possession.

The appellants argued that they had entered into a binding conditional contract for the extension or renewal of the lease and that the landlords were estoppel from adducing evidence to the contrary.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the record amply supported the application judge's conclusion that the parties were merely engaged in negotiations and had not concluded an enforceable agreement to renew or extend the lease.

The appellant appealed and the respondent cross-appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

Both the appeal and the cross-appeal were dismissed on consent without costs.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their medical malpractice action arising from a perforated bowel suffered during a colonoscopy and polypectomy.

They argued the trial judge erred by failing to determine the exact cause of the injury before concluding the standard of care was met.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly rejected the appellants' theory that the electrocautery machine was set too high, and reasonably concluded the injury resulted from an inherent risk of the procedure.