James Forbes

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal upholding the respondent Commission's Cost of Production Formula for chicken pricing.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal failed to adequately explain its preference for certain expert evidence over others, rendering its reasons conclusory and inadequate.

The application was allowed, the Tribunal's decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted for a fresh hearing.

The Association of Ontario Chicken Processors appealed a reconsideration decision of the Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg & Chick Commission regarding a new Cost of Production formula.

The appellant sought six amendments to the formula, including changes to the prime rate calculation, exclusion of depreciation from working capital, adjustments to farm labour benefit and wage rates, use of a real rate of return, and addition of a risk premium.

After hearing extensive expert testimony from all parties, the Tribunal found the expert evidence presented by the respondent and third party to be more reliable and acceptable on all six issues.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant abattoir owner sued the provincial government for negligence, trespass, and conversion after Ministry officials occupied its plant for 19 months following an investigation into illegal meat processing.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding no duty of care and no breach of the standard of care.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the Ministry owed a duty of care to the targeted suspect, breached the standard of care by unreasonably prolonging its occupation of the plant and allowing meat to spoil, and caused the appellant's inability to sell the plant.

Damages of $3,520,000 were awarded for loss of enterprise value.

The plaintiff abattoir sued the provincial government for negligence, trespass, and conversion arising from the 19-month suspension of its licence and detention of meat products following an investigation into the processing of uninspected and dead animals.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the provincial regulator did not owe a private law duty of care to the plaintiff, as its statutory mandate was to protect public health.

Even if a duty existed, the regulator did not breach the standard of care given the extraordinary circumstances of concurrent criminal investigations, nor did its actions cause the plaintiff's business losses.

The plaintiff suffered a severe traumatic brain injury in a motor vehicle accident while riding as a passenger in a vehicle driven by the defendant.

Prior to the accident, both the plaintiff and the driver had consumed alcohol at the All Star Tap & Grill House.

The court found the driver 80% liable for the accident due to impaired driving and the commercial host 20% liable for over-serving alcohol and failing to prevent the intoxicated driver from operating a vehicle.

The plaintiff was found 25% contributorily negligent for failing to wear a seatbelt, entering a vehicle with an impaired driver, and encouraging the driver to speed.

The court assessed the plaintiff's damages, including $300,000 for non-pecuniary damages, significant amounts for past and future loss of income, and over $9 million for the cost of future care.

Family Law Act claims were also awarded to the plaintiff's parents and siblings.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

A dispute arose regarding the calculation of his pre-accident income from his self-employment at a family-owned car rental and repair business.

The applicant argued that significant personal expenses had been run through the company and should be added back to its profits, of which he claimed 100 percent.

The arbitrator determined the company's 1994 profit was $50,000, apportioned 50 percent to the applicant, and ordered that claim code 1 be used to determine his net income.

The applicant was also awarded expenses and interest on overdue benefits.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits from the insurer.

The insurer terminated the benefits on the basis that the applicant was capable of performing the essential tasks of his pre-accident occupation.

The applicant sought arbitration to reinstate benefits and increase the weekly quantum, claiming he was an employee earning a higher wage.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence regarding his employment and income lacked credibility, determining he was a partner in a business that lost money, entitling him only to the minimum weekly benefit.

The arbitrator also found the applicant failed to prove he suffered a substantial inability to perform his essential tasks during the disputed period.

The application was dismissed, the applicant was ordered to repay the overpayment, and his claim for expenses was denied.