Barry Prentice

The plaintiffs sued CIBC and Belzberg for breach of contract or negligence after a direct market access (DMA) system malfunctioned, causing significant error trades and the eventual shutdown of their hedge fund.

The court found CIBC prima facie liable, determining that Belzberg employees acted as CIBC's apparent agents when they negligently caused the malfunction.

The court rejected CIBC's broad contractual exclusion of liability for direct damages but upheld the exclusion for lost profits.

The plaintiffs were awarded direct trading losses, with no reduction for mitigation or contributory negligence, and punitive damages were denied.

The respondent employer brought a request for an order during proceedings to defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of the applicant's appeal before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to employment because of disability following a termination he claimed was discriminatory, while the respondent asserted the employment contract was frustrated.

The adjudicator dismissed the deferral request, finding that while there was some overlap regarding lost earnings, WSIAT would not consider whether the termination infringed the applicant's Code-protected rights.

The Tribunal directed that the application proceed to scheduling.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the plaintiffs’ civil action on the basis of an arbitration clause contained in a shareholders agreement executed as part of a share purchase transaction.

The plaintiffs alleged misrepresentations inducing the share purchase and sought declarations regarding share value, rescission of the transaction, and damages including wrongful dismissal.

The court held that the dispute was not clearly outside the scope of the arbitration clause, which broadly applied to disputes relating to interpretation or implementation of the shareholders agreement.

Applying s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991 and appellate guidance on deference to arbitration agreements, the court stayed the claims that arguably required interpretation of the shareholders agreement.

The wrongful dismissal claim arising from a separate employment agreement was not stayed.

The applicant union brought an application under section 73.1 of the Labour Relations Act regarding a strike of counter attendants and car jockeys.

The responding party employer challenged whether the strike vote met the statutory requirements for ample opportunity to vote and secrecy of the ballot.

The Board found that the notice provided was sufficient and that the voting arrangements, while not perfect, provided a secret ballot process that employees could opt out of, satisfying the requirements of the Act.

As the strike had ended, the matter was terminated.

The appellant was acquitted of a drunk driving charge after the trial judge held that the Crown could not rely on the statutory presumption of blood alcohol level without proceeding by certificate evidence or proving the suitability of the breathalyzer solution.

The Court of Appeal set aside the acquittal.

On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the Crown may rely on the statutory presumption whether it proceeds by viva voce evidence or certificate, and that proof of the suitability of the breathalyzer solution is not required as part of the Crown's case.