4 total
Appeal dismissed; malicious prosecution counterclaim struck as premature because the underlying prosecution was still ongoing.
The appellant appealed an order striking his counterclaim without leave to amend.
The counterclaim alleged that the respondent made misleading statements to the US Department of Justice, resulting in his indictment.
The motion judge found the counterclaim rested entirely on malicious prosecution, which requires the prosecution to have terminated in the plaintiff's favour.
Because the prosecution was ongoing, the claim was premature.
The Court of Appeal agreed and dismissed the appeal.
Appeal from damages for defective stone embankment dismissed; trial costs award reduced.
The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent damages for the costs of correcting a stone embankment that was not erected in accordance with a site plan agreement, as well as costs of the action.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings on liability and damages, noting the embankment was unstable and unsafe.
However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding costs, finding the trial judge erred in her discretion, and reduced the trial costs award from $102,981.64 to $60,000.
Corporate tort claims may be assignable, but Charter claims under sections 7 and 8 cannot be assigned.
The appellant Ministry appealed the dismissal of its motions to strike the respondent corporation's claims for defamation, misfeasance in public office, and Charter breaches.
The claims had been assigned to the respondent during corporate restructuring.
The Court of Appeal held that the tort claims for corporate defamation and misfeasance were not strictly personal and could potentially be assigned, leaving the issue of champerty for trial.
However, the Court struck the Charter claims, ruling that corporations cannot assert section 7 rights, section 11 did not apply as no charges were laid, and the section 8 claim for a section 24(1) remedy was unassignable.
Leave to appeal granted to determine if a corporation not charged with an offence can assert Charter rights.
The defendant Ministry of the Environment brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dismissing its Rule 21 motion.
The underlying action involved a corporate plaintiff alleging that the Ministry's investigation, press releases, and threats of core drilling violated its rights under sections 7, 8, and 11 of the Charter, despite no charges being laid.
The court granted leave to appeal, finding that there were conflicting decisions regarding whether a corporation could assert these Charter rights in the absence of penal proceedings, and that the issues raised were of sufficient importance to warrant appellate review.
