Christopher Wirth

Following the release of the court's reasons, counsel for the appellants requested a reconsideration of the costs of the applications, noting that the appellants were not separately represented as stated in the reasons.

The Court of Appeal issued an addendum acknowledging the error but declined to reconsider the costs disposition, finding it remained appropriate because separate applications had been brought.

The appellants, former officers of a local union, were disciplined by an independent hearing officer pursuant to the union's constitution.

The union sought to enforce the hearing officer's decisions as arbitration awards under the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The application judge granted the enforcement, finding that the union constitution constituted an arbitration agreement.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the internal disciplinary proceedings were not arbitrations and the union constitution was not an arbitration agreement.

The appeal was allowed and the enforcement applications were dismissed.

The appellant brought a proposed class action against Health Canada, alleging negligent regulation of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) implants.

The motion judge struck the claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, holding that it was plain and obvious that Health Canada did not owe a private law duty of care to individual consumers of medical devices.

The statutory scheme did not create a proximate relationship, and the pleadings failed to allege specific representations or reliance that would establish proximity under the Anns/Cooper test.