F. Paul Morrison

The appellants appealed an order striking out their proposed class action statements of claim for oppression against the respondents.

The claims alleged that a recapitalization plan was oppressive to minority shareholders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the claims failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action because the prospectus explicitly warned of the financial risks, the recapitalization plan benefited the company by preventing immediate collapse, and the appellants failed to plead any specific loss or damage.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal, which upheld the cancellation of their tobacco production quota for alleged illegal sales.

The Divisional Court quashed the decisions of both the Board and the Tribunal, finding that the Tribunal failed to apply the required standard of clear and convincing proof for quasi-criminal allegations and relied on insufficient evidence.

The Court also found a reasonable apprehension of bias because an adjudicator from the initial Board hearing testified as a prosecution witness before the Tribunal.

The parties agreed on the costs of the appeal and the motion for leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal fixed the costs at $15,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST, to be paid by the appellant to the respondents jointly and severally.

The appellant sought to certify a class action against life insurance companies for allegedly deceptive sales of 'premium offset' or 'vanishing premium' policies.

The motions judge and Divisional Court refused certification, finding that the claims required individual assessments of the unique sales experiences and representations made to each policyholder.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the proposed common issues did not represent a substantial ingredient of each class member's claim and that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure due to the overwhelming individual issues.

The appellants appealed an order refusing to enjoin the respondents from pursuing a motion in the United States to access testimony and documents obtained through the US discovery process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no comity concerns or overriding policy issues that would warrant an injunction.

The Court held that the respondents were legitimately attempting to gather evidence in a foreign jurisdiction according to its rules, and that the US judge was in the best position to determine whether and how to vary the protective order.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal in a copyright infringement action, the Court of Appeal received written submissions to fix the respondents' costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court declined to refer the costs for assessment, finding it was better positioned to fix them given its knowledge of the complex appeal.

The court applied the new costs rules and Tariff A grid, rejecting the respondents' request to apply the former solicitor and client scale.

After adjusting hourly rates, reducing preparation hours, and setting off the appellant's costs for interlocutory proceedings, the court fixed the respondents' costs at $536,464.42.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its copyright infringement action and the assessment of damages awarded to the respondents under an undertaking given for an interlocutory injunction.

The appellant alleged the respondents' computer program infringed its copyright.

The trial judge found no copying of protectable expression, noting that similarities were dictated by functional considerations or were not protectable by copyright.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings on copyright infringement, including the application of the idea/expression dichotomy and the merger doctrine.

The Court also upheld the damages award of over $6.8 million for losses caused by the interlocutory injunction, finding the damages were reasonably foreseeable and caused by the injunction.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motions to certify their actions as class proceedings against life insurance companies regarding the sale of 'premium offset' or 'vanishing premium' policies.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judges' decisions, finding that the claims were intrinsically individualistic, based on individual representations by agents, and lacked common issues necessary for class certification.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant bank appealed a decision ordering a court-appointed receiver to pay municipal realty taxes to the respondent municipality in priority to the bank's secured claims.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that under section 382 of the Municipal Act, municipal realty taxes have priority over all other claims except the Crown.

The Court also held that a court-appointed receiver is a 'trustee' within the meaning of section 400(11) of the Act, giving the municipality priority over the proceeds of personal property realized by the receiver.

The patient underwent a cerebral angiogram to locate a suspected aneurism.

During the procedure, she experienced discomfort, hyperventilated, and asked the doctors to stop.

After calming down, she was asked if she wished the test completed and she consented.

Following the final injection, she suffered a rare reaction rendering her a quadriplegic.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while a patient may withdraw consent during a procedure, the patient here had validly consented to its continuation.

The doctors were not required to repeat the full disclosure of risks because there had been no material change in circumstances.