Christopher I. R. Morrison

The appellant submitted a $950,000 insurance claim following a theft at her residence, which included $50,000 for stolen artwork.

To substantiate the artwork's value, she provided the insurer with false invoices and maintained their validity under oath until compelled to disclose purchaser names.

The motions judge granted summary judgment dismissing her claim due to fraud and misrepresentation.

On appeal, the appellant argued the misrepresentations were not material as they only sought to justify legitimate value.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant breached her duty of utmost good faith, rendering any evidence of her claimed loss untrustworthy.

The appellants appealed a decision staying their action on an insurance policy on the basis of forum non conveniens.

They argued the motions judge failed to consider Articles 68 and 69 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure, which allow an action to be instituted in the domicile of the insured.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that Quebec procedural rules are irrelevant to an Ontario forum non conveniens analysis.

The court found no error in the motions judge's conclusion that the action's connection was almost entirely with Quebec.

The insured was securing a boat to a trailer attached to his van using a bungee cord.

The cord snapped and injured his friend's eye.

The friend sued the insured.

The insured had three insurance policies: an automobile policy with Axa, a boat liability policy with Dominion, and a homeowner's policy with Co-Operators.

Axa and Dominion appealed the application judge's decision regarding coverage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, holding that the Axa automobile policy must respond because securing the boat was an ordinary activity related to the use of the vehicle.

The Court also upheld the finding that Dominion's policy provided only excess coverage for both indemnity and defence costs, and that the Co-Operators policy explicitly excluded the claim.

The appellant appealed a series of orders, including a receiving order, made in bankruptcy proceedings against him.

He sought to adduce fresh evidence demonstrating that the bankruptcy proceedings were initiated by the petitioning creditors for an improper purpose, specifically to eliminate him as an adversary in ongoing civil litigation.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, which revealed that the appellant was solvent, that there were no amounts owing on a mortgage on his home, and that the bankruptcy was orchestrated for an improper purpose.

The appeal was allowed and all bankruptcy orders, including the receiving order, were set aside.

The appellant lawyer appealed a trial judgment finding that a residential mortgage assigned to him by an insolvent corporate client was a fraudulent conveyance and an unlawful preference.

The appellant also appealed the trial judge's decision to disqualify his proposed counsel due to a conflict of interest and the subsequent refusal to allow him to represent himself while his law firm continued to represent his co-defendants.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's discretionary decisions regarding legal representation and upholding the finding of a fraudulent conveyance based on badges of fraud, including lack of consideration, insolvency, and secrecy.

The appellant brought a proposed class action against the manufacturers of the prescription drug Prepulsid.

The respondents successfully moved to strike paragraphs of the statement of claim alleging fraudulent or negligent filings with Health Canada and claiming reimbursement of the purchase price.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, reinstating the paragraphs regarding regulatory filings as they were sustainable under a negligence or negligent misstatement claim.

However, the court upheld the striking of the reimbursement claims, finding they could not be sustained under negligence, breach of contract, or unjust enrichment.

The defendants appealed a decision refusing to strike out paragraphs of a statement of claim in a proposed national class proceeding regarding the prescription drug Prepulsid.

The defendants argued the representative plaintiff, an Ontario resident, could not assert causes of action under the legislation of other provinces, such as subrogated health insurance claims.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Class Proceedings Act permits a representative plaintiff to advance claims on behalf of class members that the plaintiff might not have personally.

However, the court ordered the plaintiff to amend the statement of claim to explicitly plead the out-of-province statutes relied upon as material facts.

The defendants appealed an order consolidating two proposed class actions and substituting a new representative plaintiff.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, holding that the order was interlocutory because it did not dispose of any substantive rights between the parties.

As an interlocutory order, the appeal properly lies to the Divisional Court with leave, not to the Court of Appeal.

The appellants appealed a judgment dismissing their claims for damages after the appellant slipped and fell in her apartment building's parking lot.

They argued the trial judge erred in admitting hospital and ambulance records regarding the mechanism of the fall, allowing them to be used as prior inconsistent statements, and in instructing the jury on the standard of care.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the records were properly admitted as circumstantial evidence of prior inconsistent statements and the jury instructions on reasonable care were appropriate.

The minor plaintiff was allegedly attacked by the insureds' son on school property.

The plaintiff sued the son for intentional torts and the parents for negligent supervision.

The parents' homeowner's insurer denied coverage and refused to defend the action, relying on an exclusion clause for intentional or criminal acts by 'any person or any named insured'.

The parents successfully brought a motion for summary judgment declaring the insurer had a duty to defend them.

The insurer appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the exclusion clause ambiguous as to whether the intentional act of one insured excluded coverage for all insureds, including those sued in negligence.

The ambiguity was resolved in favour of the insureds.

Following the release of reasons for judgment allowing the appeals by the Canadian Red Cross Society and Canada, the Court of Appeal received written submissions on the costs of the trial.

The Court ordered that the Canadian Red Cross Society shall have its costs on a party-and-party scale from the plaintiffs, with no costs to or against Canada or Ontario.

The disposition of Bayer's costs ordered by the trial judge was not disturbed.

The plaintiffs, who suffered from Hemophilia B, contracted HIV from unheated Factor IX blood products distributed by the Canadian Red Cross Society (CRCS).

They sued the CRCS, Bayer, and Ontario in negligence, alleging a delay in the introduction of heat-treated Factor IX.

The CRCS claimed over against Canada, alleging regulatory delay.

The trial judge found the CRCS and Canada liable for delaying the transition to heat-treated products.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal overturned the trial decision, finding that the CRCS and Canada did not breach their respective standards of care, as the delay was due to necessary regulatory approvals.

The Court also found that the plaintiffs failed to prove the dates of their infections, which was fatal to causation, and that the trial judge erred in drawing adverse inferences against the CRCS for not calling certain witnesses.

The plaintiffs contracted HIV from blood and blood products supplied by the Canadian Red Cross Society (CRCS) between 1983 and 1985.

They alleged the CRCS was negligent in its blood donor screening procedures.

The trial judge found the CRCS breached its standard of care by using a 'good health' questionnaire rather than symptom-specific questions, but dismissed one plaintiff's action for failing to prove causation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the negligence findings and reversed the causation dismissal by applying a presumptive causal link.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the CRCS's appeals, holding that while the Court of Appeal erred in applying a presumptive causal link, causation was established under the material contribution test because the CRCS's failure to implement adequate screening measures materially contributed to the plaintiffs contracting HIV.

The appellants sought judicial review to quash notices of potential findings of misconduct issued by the Commissioner of the Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada.

The appellants argued the Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction by making findings that amounted to civil or criminal liability, and that the late delivery of the notices breached procedural fairness.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that a commissioner may make findings of misconduct and evaluate facts according to standards of conduct, provided they do not amount to conclusions of legal liability.

The Court also found the procedural protections afforded to the parties were extensive and the timing of the notices was fair given the complexity of the inquiry.