3 total
Appeal of class action certification dismissed; landlord may owe duty of care for tenant's dangerous activities.
The landlord defendants appealed an order certifying a class action against them founded on common law negligence following a series of devastating propane explosions.
The appellants argued that as landlords, they owed no duty of care to third parties in the surrounding residential neighbourhood.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it was not plain and obvious that the landlords had no obligation to act, given allegations that they knew of the highly dangerous propane business and the foreseeable risk of catastrophic harm to nearby residents.
Motion to strike claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy in insurance fraud action dismissed.
The moving defendants brought a motion to strike out the plaintiff insurers' claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy under Rule 21.01(1)(b).
The plaintiffs alleged the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to submit fraudulent medical treatment and assessment claims.
The court found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded the material facts for fraudulent misrepresentation against the individual defendants, who could be held personally liable for tortious acts.
The court also declined to strike the conspiracy claims, holding that the applicability of the merger doctrine should be determined at trial and that the claims were properly based on unlawful acts under the Insurance Act and Criminal Code.
The motion was dismissed, though two plaintiffs were ordered to amend their pleadings to specify special damages for conspiracy.
Union certification application dismissed because the airline subsidiary's operations fall under federal aeronautics jurisdiction.
The applicant union sought certification for employees of Air-Dale Limited, an airline subsidiary of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission.
The respondent and objectors raised the issue of constitutional jurisdiction.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that the respondent's operations, which involved providing scheduled air services under a Transport Canada licence, fell squarely within the federal Parliament's exclusive jurisdiction over aeronautics.
Consequently, the provincial Labour Relations Act did not apply, and the application for certification was dismissed.
