Howard W. Winkler

The appellant, a low-rise forming contractor, commenced an action against the respondent employers' association for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional interference with economic relations, alleging misuse of an Industry Fund.

The motion judge dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, finding the claims fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, holding that the essential character of the dispute concerned the association's statutory duty of fair representation and the reasonableness of levied fees, both of which are matters exclusively within the Board's jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The defendants brought a motion in Toronto for leave to appeal an interlocutory order made in Milton (Central West Region).

The court raised a preliminary issue regarding whether the motion was properly returnable in Toronto.

After reviewing the Courts of Justice Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court determined that a motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court must be filed and heard in the region where the appeal is to be heard, which in this case was the Central West Region.

The court ordered the motion transferred to the Central West Region.

The appellant, a law student, sued the respondent for defamation after the respondent made disparaging remarks about him into a microphone at an Italian social club meeting.

The motion judge dismissed the claims for libel and slander on a motion for summary judgment, finding that the use of a microphone was not a 'broadcast' under the Libel and Slander Act, that the appellant could not claim slander per se because he was not yet a lawyer, and that there was no evidence of special damage.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred by deciding novel and significant questions of law on a summary judgment motion without a full factual record, and finding that there was some evidence of special damage.

The appellants, private couriers providing outbound international mail services, appealed a motion judge's decision interpreting s. 14 of the Canada Post Corporation Act.

The motion judge held that Canada Post's exclusive privilege of 'collecting, transmitting and delivering letters' applies to any one or more of those activities within Canada, including for letters destined abroad.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the French version of the statute clearly granted an exclusive privilege for each activity independently.

The Court rejected the appellants' argument that the activities constituted a single indivisible process, noting that such an interpretation would conflict with other provisions of the Act.

Two competitors in the outbound international mail industry brought a motion to intervene in an appeal concerning the interpretation of the Canada Post Corporation Act's exclusive privilege provisions.

The moving parties sought to be added as parties or friends of the court, arguing they had a direct interest as they were facing similar injunction proceedings by the respondent.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, adding the moving parties as intervenors with the right to augment the record, finding they had a sufficient interest and common questions of law with the main proceeding.

The defendants appealed an order dismissing their motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiff sued for breach of a commercial lease after the defendants sold the property without honouring the plaintiff's right of first refusal.

The defendants argued the action was barred by a one-year contractual limitation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that whether the discoverability rule applies to a contractual limitation period is a genuine issue for trial, as is the factual question of when the plaintiff ought reasonably to have discovered the breach.

The appellant in a libel action challenged the refusal to strike a statement of defence that denied the pleaded defamatory meaning and asserted a different defamatory meaning said to be true.

The Court of Appeal adopted the Divisional Court's reasoning that, under the modern rule, a defendant in a libel action may plead any defamatory meaning the words are capable of bearing and may justify that meaning or plead fair comment on a matter of public interest.

Finding no basis for appellate intervention, the court dismissed the appeal and fixed costs in favour of the respondents.

The defendants in a libel action appealed a Master's decision dismissing their motion to compel production of documents and examination for discovery of a non-party investigator.

The investigator had been hired by the plaintiff employer to interview employees regarding the same allegations that formed the basis of the libel action.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the interview notes were relevant to the defendants' plea of justification and were not protected by privilege under the Wigmore criteria.

The court concluded it would be unfair to require the defendants to proceed to trial without discovery of the non-party.