Christina K. Litt

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging that the respondent's Blackberry smart phones were not fully accessible to blind users out of the box, denying him equal access to goods and services.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion asserting that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the respondent is a federally regulated enterprise.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that telecommunications, including wireless telecommunications and the terminal equipment integrated with them, fall under exclusive federal jurisdiction pursuant to section 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant sued the corporate and personal defendants for the price of products supplied under an oral distribution agreement.

The personal defendants successfully moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim against them personally.

On appeal, the majority of the Court of Appeal held that the motion judge failed to consider the admissions and positions taken by the personal defendants in their statement of defence and counterclaim, which raised a genuine issue for trial regarding their personal liability.

The appeal was allowed and the summary judgment was set aside.

The appellant appealed a judgment dismissing his action following a jury verdict that found no negligence by the respondent driver, who suffered a medical episode while driving.

The appellant argued the trial judge misdirected the jury on the defence of inevitable accident and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the jury instructions and holding that the verdict was supported by evidence that the respondent had no prior daytime episodes, no medical warnings against driving, and no advance warning of the episode.