3 total
The defendant was convicted of transporting dangerous goods without required placards after a US regulatory exemption was found inapplicable.
A commercial trucking company was charged with transporting dangerous goods (wet-filled acid batteries) without displaying required safety placards and labels in violation of the Dangerous Goods Transportation Act.
The defendant argued that an exemption under 49 CFR 173.159(e) applied because the shipment originated from the United States.
The court rejected this argument, finding that 173.159(e) pertains only to packaging and bracing requirements, not placarding and safety marking requirements.
The court held that the exemption under section 9.1 of the Canadian Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 only applies when United States placarding and marking requirements are met, which they were not.
The defendant was convicted.
Appeal dismissed as the plaintiff failed to prove damages in a volatile real estate market.
The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing its claim for damages.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it unnecessary to determine if the trial judge applied the correct test for liability because the trial judge reasonably concluded the appellant failed to prove its damages due to a volatile market.
The Court also upheld the trial judge's discretionary costs order against the guiding mind and principal shareholder of the appellant.
Applicant entitled to ongoing weekly income benefits as chronic pain prevented suitable alternative employment.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits for 156 weeks.
The insurer terminated benefits, arguing the applicant's ongoing disability was due to pre-existing degenerative changes and that he was not continuously prevented from engaging in suitable alternative employment.
The arbitrator preferred the medical evidence attributing the applicant's chronic pain to the accident.
The arbitrator also accepted vocational evidence that the applicant lacked the education, training, and skills for the alternative jobs proposed by the insurer, and found the applicant was entitled to ongoing weekly income benefits.
