Glenn A. Smith

Following the dismissal of their appeal, the appellants made written submissions regarding costs.

They argued that costs should not be awarded on a joint and several basis, and that four appellants whose judgments were satisfied while the case was under reserve should not bear any costs.

The Court of Appeal agreed, ordering costs against the remaining appellants on a several, pro rata basis rather than jointly and severally, noting that a joint and several order would be unusually onerous.

The appellants, Canadian 'Names' in the Lloyd's insurance market, appealed a decision allowing the registration and enforcement of U.K. judgments against them for unpaid reinsurance premiums.

They argued that the U.K. proceedings denied them natural justice by preventing them from litigating fraud claims before judgment, and that enforcing the judgments would be contrary to Ontario public policy because Lloyd's had breached the prospectus requirements of the Ontario Securities Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of natural justice because the U.K. courts assumed the fraud allegations were true but found they did not provide a legal defence.

The Court also held that enforcing the judgments was not contrary to public policy, emphasizing international comity and the fact that Ontario courts had previously determined England was the proper forum for the dispute.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing its motion to set aside a judgment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant failed to bring its motion forthwith after the judgment came to its attention, noting the obligation was triggered almost a year before the motion was made.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant insurer sought to add Livent Inc. and several of its directors as defendants by counterclaim in an action brought by outside directors to enforce a Directors and Officers Liability policy.

The insurer also sought to lift a CCAA stay of proceedings against Livent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, adding Livent as a party because the insurer was entitled to seek a declaration regarding the policy's validity against the policyholder.

However, the court refused to add the additional directors, finding it would unnecessarily complicate the discrete legal issue of coverage for the innocent outside directors.

The CCAA stay was lifted to the extent necessary to give effect to the order.

The appellant physician performed surgery on the respondent in 1969.

In 1979, a retained suture was discovered and removed.

The respondent brought a medical malpractice action.

Under the legislation in force in 1969, the limitation period expired one year after the termination of medical services.

In 1974, new legislation introduced a discoverability rule.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the new limitation period did not apply retrospectively to revive a claim that was already statute-barred under the previous legislation.

The appeal was allowed and the action was declared barred.