Allan Rouben

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Michigan and brought an action in Ontario against the Michigan driver and owner, an unidentified driver, and her own Ontario insurer.

The defendants successfully moved to stay the action on the basis of forum non conveniens, arguing Michigan was the more appropriate forum.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred by failing to give weight to the plaintiff's choice of forum and by not considering the claim as a whole, including the necessary claim against the Ontario insurer.

The appeal was allowed and the stay was set aside, allowing the action to proceed in Ontario to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The Crown appealed a conditional sentence of two years less a day imposed on the respondent for criminal negligence causing death while street racing.

The respondent had struck a tractor-trailer, resulting in the death of its driver.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in principle by treating the respondent's pre-sentence custody as a mitigating factor to reduce the sentence range to make a conditional sentence available, contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Fice.

The Court held that a fit sentence would be 30 months' incarceration to address denunciation and general deterrence.

However, factoring in credit for pre-sentence custody and time already served under the conditional sentence, the Court varied the sentence to time served followed by probation.

The appellant, a judgment creditor of the plaintiff, appealed a Master's order that maintained writs of seizure and sale registered by a competing creditor (the defendant) after a default judgment against the plaintiff was set aside.

The Master held that the appellant lacked standing under Rule 37.14(1)(a) because she was only indirectly affected by the order, and alternatively, that maintaining the writs was a just term under Rule 19.08(1).

The Divisional Court found no error of law or palpable and overriding error in the Master's decision and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision setting aside an unopposed judgment for the passing of estate accounts.

The lower court had set aside the judgment because the applicant's counsel failed to disclose relevant correspondence agreeing to a stay and took advantage of opposing counsel's slip in not filing a notice of objection.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and agreeing that the applicant's counsel engaged in sharp practice by breaching obligations to the court and opposing counsel.

Costs of $3,000 were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant sued her former father-in-law's estate for unjust enrichment, seeking compensation for services she provided to her in-laws during her marriage.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding her contributions were not substantial enough and there was no shared expectation of compensation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, noting that the appellant's services were no more than what might reasonably be expected from a loving daughter-in-law, and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The appellant taxi company appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent driver $7,500 in punitive damages and $31,500 in substantial indemnity costs after terminating his independent contractor agreement.

The trial judge found the termination was motivated by a perception that the driver was attempting to unionize.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the violation of the Labour Relations Act constituted an independent actionable wrong supporting punitive damages.

The respondent's cross-appeal for aggravated damages and increased costs was also dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation.

The union had negotiated mid-term amendments to a collective agreement with Loblaws to address competition from Wal-Mart, without holding a ratification vote by the general membership.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was patent unreasonableness and found that the Board's interpretation of the Labour Relations Act and its conclusion that the union acted fairly and reasonably were not patently unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The plaintiff, an Ontario resident, was injured in a motor vehicle accident in New York while volunteering for post-9/11 relief work.

She sued her New York supervisor, who was driving the vehicle, in Ontario.

The defendant moved to stay the action for lack of jurisdiction and forum non conveniens.

The motion judge dismissed the motion.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal applied the Muscutt factors and found a real and substantial connection to Ontario, noting the plaintiff's extensive medical treatment in Ontario, the pre-existing relationship between the parties, the defendant's insurance coverage, and the mandatory Ontario venue for the plaintiff's underinsured motorist claim.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant housing co-operative appealed from a Divisional Court decision that had decided the merits of a settled dispute concerning termination of a member's membership and occupancy rights.

The Court of Appeal held the matter was moot because the parties had fully settled and neither retained any live legal interest in the outcome.

Applying the mootness framework, the court declined to hear the appeal on the merits, finding the issues were not uniquely evasive of review and did not raise broad questions of public importance.

The Divisional Court should not have entertained the moot appeal.

Its order was set aside and the appeal was dismissed as moot, without costs.