Chris G. Paliare

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action in Ontario against McDonald's and Simon Marketing Inc. alleging wrongdoing in relation to promotional contests.

The defendants moved to dismiss or stay the action on the basis that the claims had been finally disposed of in an Illinois class action settlement.

The motion judge refused to stay or dismiss the action, finding that the notice given to the Canadian members of the plaintiff class in the Illinois action was so inadequate as to violate the rules of natural justice.

The defendants appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that before enforcing a foreign class action judgment against Ontario residents, the court must ensure the foreign court had a proper basis for jurisdiction and that the interests of Ontario residents were adequately protected.

The Court found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's finding that the notice given to the non-resident class members was inadequate, and therefore the Ontario courts should not recognize and enforce the Illinois judgment against the plaintiff and the non-attorning Canadian class members.

The plaintiffs appealed a jury's assessment of damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, arguing the award was perverse and that the trial judge's threshold determination under the Insurance Act bound the jury on causation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury was entitled to reject the plaintiff's position on causation based on the evidence.

The Court also held that a trial judge's threshold determination does not constitute a binding finding of fact on causation for the jury.

Following a successful appeal by Canadian Waste Services Inc. and the Minister of the Environment, the Court of Appeal determined the issue of costs.

The Court exercised its discretion to order no costs for either the application in the Divisional Court or the appeal.

The Court reasoned that the case involved a novel and difficult issue of statutory interpretation regarding the 1996 amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act, raised issues of public importance, and featured a significant disparity in the financial resources of the parties.

The College of Chiropractors of Ontario appealed a Discipline Committee decision that found the respondent chiropractor did not commit professional misconduct regarding allegations of sexual abuse.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Committee's majority decision unreasonable due to cumulative errors in assessing the complainant's credibility, reliance on stereotypes about sexual assault victims, and failure to consider relevant confirmatory evidence.

The matter was remitted for a rehearing before a new panel.

The College of Chiropractors of Ontario appealed a decision of its Discipline Committee, which found that the respondent chiropractor did not commit acts of professional misconduct relating to allegations of sexual abuse.

The majority of the Discipline Committee had dismissed the allegations based on credibility findings, preferring the respondent's evidence over the complainant's due to inconsistencies in her testimony.

The Divisional Court found that the Discipline Committee's decision was reasonable and did not rely on improper stereotypes, emphasizing the deference owed to specialized tribunals on findings of fact and credibility.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash an arbitration award that ordered it to pay the respondent $5 million pursuant to a share purchase agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Arbitration Act and the parties' agreement, which explicitly prohibited appeals, barred the application.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to pursue any potential statutory appeal rights within the prescribed time limits.

On the merits, the court found the arbitrator's interpretation of the agreement was not patently unreasonable and the process was procedurally fair.

Canadian Waste Services Inc. sought to expand a landfill site and obtained the Minister of the Environment's approval for the terms of reference for an environmental assessment.

The respondents successfully applied for judicial review, with the Divisional Court quashing the Minister's decision on the basis that the terms of reference did not include all generic elements required by the Environmental Assessment Act.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the Minister's decision to approve tailored terms of reference was entitled to deference and was reasonable.

The appeal was allowed and the Minister's decision was reinstated.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal regarding whether a workplace injury caused her to suffer a traumatic brain injury.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal failed to explain its rejection of unchallenged sworn evidence from a co-worker regarding a second blow to the head.

The Court quashed the Tribunal's decision as patently unreasonable and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal to resolve the conflicting medical opinions.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal decision finding that health care aides dispatched to a hospital were not 'casual' employees under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal had focused on 'the work' performed rather than the 'position', concluding the work was performed on a regular and continuing basis.

The Divisional Court applied the patently unreasonable standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of its home statute was not patently unreasonable.

The appellants, former senior executives of the respondent corporation, appealed a trial judgment finding that no 'change in control' had occurred to trigger generous compensation provisions in their employment contracts.

During a period of financial difficulty, a shareholder group accumulated proxies for over 35 percent of the voting shares to requisition a special meeting to replace the board of directors.

A settlement was reached before the meeting, and the executives subsequently claimed payouts from a trust fund established for change of control scenarios.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's conclusion that the mere accumulation of proxies did not confer the right to control or direct the voting power of the corporation, and thus did not constitute a change in control under the agreements.

The Law Society swore a complaint against the appellant solicitor containing eight counts of alleged misconduct.

A panel of the Discipline Committee dismissed two counts under the old Law Society Act, which did not allow for costs unless proceedings were unwarranted.

A second panel later stayed the remaining counts.

By then, a new Act was in effect, allowing the hearing panel to award costs.

The second panel and the Appeal Panel held that the old Act applied because a hearing had commenced.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that 'hearing' refers to the substantive hearing on the merits, which had not commenced for the remaining counts.

The matter was remitted for a determination of costs under the new Act.

The appellants appealed an order of the Master dismissing their motion to extend the time for service of the statement of claim.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Master erred by focusing entirely on the length of delay and the expiry of the limitation period rather than whether the respondents were prejudiced.

Applying the principles from Chiarelli v. Wiens, the court found no evidence of prejudice to the respondents, as their insurers were involved early, copies of the claim were mailed, and medical reports were provided.

The appeal was allowed and the time for service was extended.

The applicant sought judicial review of a coroner's decision denying him standing at an ongoing inquest.

The coroner found the applicant did not meet the statutory requirements for standing under either the public law or private law tests.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the coroner's decision was entitled to curial deference and was not unreasonable.

The court emphasized the need to avoid interrupting the ongoing statutory hearing and found no serious error in principle that would justify interference.

The appellants challenged Ontario legislation repealing agricultural labour protections and excluding agricultural workers from the statutory labour relations regime.

The majority held that, in the labour relations context, freedom of association under s. 2(d) may impose a positive obligation where exclusion from protective legislation substantially interferes with the ability of a vulnerable group to organize.

The Court found that the exclusion of agricultural workers from the LRA substantially impeded their capacity to form and maintain employee associations and created a chilling effect on associational activity.

The infringement was not justified under s. 1 because the wholesale exclusion was overly broad and failed minimum impairment.

The appeal was allowed and the declarations of invalidity were suspended for 18 months.

The plaintiff, owner of the registered trademark 'Wingen' for software, sued the defendant for trademark infringement.

The defendant used the name 'Wingen' for its computers sold in the United States and operated a passive website that Canadian customers could access.

The trial judge found trademark infringement and awarded damages.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that a passive website does not constitute 'use' of a trademark in association with wares in Canada under the Trade-Marks Act, as no transfer of ownership occurs through that medium.

The appeal was allowed and the action dismissed.

The respondent owned the trademark 'Wingen' for its software and used it as its website domain name.

The appellant sold 'Wingen' computers in the US but not in Canada, and operated a passive website.

US customers mistakenly visited the respondent's website, allegedly overwhelming it and ruining the respondent's business.

The trial judge found trademark infringement and awarded damages.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that a passive website does not constitute 'use' of a trademark in association with goods in Canada under the Trade-marks Act, as it cannot effect a transfer of property.

The appeal was allowed and the action dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision confirming her ineligibility for social assistance benefits as a single parent because she was found to be residing in the same dwelling place as her spouse.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the onus to prove continuing eligibility rests on the recipient and that the tribunal's factual determination regarding cohabitation was supported by the evidence.

The appellants challenged 1994 changes to the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) that restricted eligibility based on immigration status, imposed a three-month waiting period, and required individual rather than family-based eligibility assessments.

The appellants argued these changes violated their equality rights under section 15 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal held that the distinction between permanent and non-permanent residents is not an enumerated or analogous ground under section 15.

The Court further found that the three-month waiting period and the shift to individual eligibility did not constitute discrimination.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant solicitor appealed an order directing an assessment of his account for legal fees arising from a motor vehicle accident settlement obtained for an adult person under disability.

The court held that the settlement judgment, although inclusive of fees and disbursements and accompanied by a management plan referring to a specific fee amount, did not fix or approve the solicitor's account within the meaning of s. 4(1) of the Solicitors Act.

The court emphasized the usual practice on settlement approval under rule 7.08, including disclosure of intended legal fees, and the litigation guardian's duty to scrutinize the fairness and reasonableness of those fees.

Because the account had not been judicially fixed and the twelve-month bar had not arisen, the respondent was entitled to an assessment order.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant municipality sought to enforce Ontario's building code and development charge regime against a massive redevelopment project at a federally owned international airport operated under long-term leases.

The court held that the entire redevelopment, including terminals, runways, utilities, and air navigation facilities, fell within Parliament's exclusive jurisdiction over aeronautics and also formed part of a federal undertaking, such that provincial laws directly regulating building design, permits, and development charges were constitutionally inapplicable under interjurisdictional immunity.

The court further held that provincial land and property development legislation could not apply to the federal Crown's continuing property interest in leased airport lands.

Ancillary claims based on the ground lease, common law compensation, and refusal of fire services were rejected, with the municipality directed to pursue the statutory grant-in-lieu regime instead.