Ian V.B. Nordheimer

The appellants sought certification of a proposed class action on behalf of approximately 15,000 Canadian major junior hockey players from 1975 to the present, alleging systemic abuse including physical and sexual assaults, bullying, harassment, and hazing.

The class action named 78 defendants across four major junior hockey leagues and sought to hold the leagues and teams liable for systemic negligence in failing to adopt and enforce effective abuse-prevention policies.

The motion judge denied certification, finding the action unmanageable due to its unprecedented scope and complexity, and that no viable litigation plan had been presented.

The appellants appealed on three grounds: that they had disclosed a viable cause of action, that common issues existed, and that the class action was the preferable procedure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the appellants had viable claims and the motion judge applied an overly stringent test to the common issues requirement, the action was unmanageable and therefore not the preferable procedure.

The court emphasized that the proposed class action was far broader and more complex than previous systemic negligence class actions, involving 78 defendants across 13 jurisdictions, events spanning 50 years, and complex conflicts-of-law issues.

The appellants' attempt to fundamentally alter their case on appeal by dropping 74 defendants was rejected as impermissible.

The appellant RSA appealed a motion judge's decision regarding insurance policy priority following a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff was struck by a vehicle owned by D'Souza and driven by Lamoureux.

The central issue was whether the plaintiff's OPCF 44R underinsured motorist endorsement or D'Souza's personal umbrella liability policy (PLUP) would respond after the primary automobile policy limits were exhausted.

The motion judge determined that the OPCF 44R took priority over the PLUP, that RSA could not deduct the PLUP limits from its OPCF 44R payments, and that RSA could not issue a third-party claim against Certas or subrogate against the defendants.

The Court of Appeal upheld all of these determinations.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1587, upholding the Divisional Court’s decision to quash an arbitration award that reinstated five employees dismissed by Metrolinx for sexual harassment.

The Court found that the arbitrator made legal and factual errors, including failing to recognize Metrolinx’s statutory duty to investigate workplace harassment even in the absence of a formal complaint, and improperly relying on myths and stereotypes about victim behaviour.

The matter was remitted to a new arbitrator for reconsideration.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the father’s appeal from a family law order that varied parenting and support arrangements.

The court found that the trial judge’s reasons were clear, sound, and based on the evidence, and that the findings were consistent with the Divorce Act.

The trial judge’s decision to grant the mother primary care and sole decision-making authority, as well as to vary child and spousal support, was upheld.

The court emphasized deference to the trial judge’s factual findings and the best interests of the children.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed David Jarvis’s appeal regarding his entitlement to exercise stock options after resigning as a director of 1CM Inc. The court found that the corporate documents clearly required Jarvis to be a director at the time of exercising the options.

Jarvis failed to demonstrate any error in the application judge’s interpretation of the plan.

The respondent was awarded costs of $15,000.

These two appeals arise from a receivership order under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The motion judge found both the debtor and its management, as well as United Group of Companies and its management, in civil contempt of the receivership and asset recovery orders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no error in the motion judge’s reasoning or exercise of discretion, and confirmed the costs awards and sentences imposed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by Neural Systems Inc., JiangJian Wang, and George Tarazi from a summary judgment granted in favour of the Business Development Bank of Canada.

The court found the appeal to be meritless and brought solely to delay judgment, noting that the debt remained unpaid and there was no genuine issue for trial.

The appellants' arguments regarding repayment efforts were rejected, and the appeal was dismissed with costs of $5,000 awarded to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal of P.P. from convictions for assault, sexual assault, uttering threats, unlawful confinement, and attempted extortion, setting aside the convictions and ordering a new trial.

The court found that the trial judge made errors by relying on unsupported assumptions about arranged marriages, improperly relying on an evidentiary fact without giving counsel an opportunity to make submissions, and drawing conclusions based on government COVID protocols without evidentiary foundation.

These errors rendered the convictions unsafe.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the Crown's appeal from a stay of proceedings granted due to a breach of the respondents’ rights under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The court agreed with the trial judge that last-minute offering of earlier trial dates did not require defence counsel to be available, nor did it make any resulting delay attributable to the defence.

The court also found the case was not sufficiently complex to justify an exception to the Jordan framework, and the presence of a Garofoli application did not elevate the case’s complexity.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Andrew Miracle’s appeal from a summary judgment awarding his former lawyer $2,858,500 in contingency fees and upholding a solicitor’s lien.

The dispute arose from a business conflict between Miracle and his son over “Smokin’ Joe’s,” resolved by arbitration.

The court found that Miracle’s acquisition of the business constituted a “recovery” under the contingency fee agreement, even though he did not receive a cash award.

The court also upheld the enforceability of the contingency fee agreement and the granting of a common law solicitor’s lien, finding no error in the motion judge’s exercise of discretion.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal of the Attorney General of Canada, setting aside the conditional certification of a class action brought by Andrew Knisley, a veteran, regarding the administration of disability benefits by Veterans Affairs Canada.

The court found that conditional certification is not permitted under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and remitted the matter for reconsideration of whether an identifiable class exists.

The court also upheld the motion judge’s finding that the claim in negligence disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The moving party brought a motion to quash an appeal filed in the Court of Appeal, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction.

The responding party acknowledged the error and requested a transfer to the Divisional Court under section 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to quash and declined to order a transfer, finding the proposed appeal lacked obvious merit and that further delay would prejudice the moving party given significant unpaid support and costs arrears.

The minor respondent sued the appellant for damages resulting from a dog bite.

The appellant sought leave to issue a third party claim against the respondent's mother for negligent supervision, eleven months after the statement of defence was filed.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding prejudice to the respondent and a lack of merit in the proposed claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, clarifying that the test for assessing the merits of a proposed third party claim out of time is the test for an extension of time, not the strict pleadings test under Rule 21.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, an inmate serving a life sentence, appealed an order dismissing his motion to appoint counsel and striking his statement of claim against the respondent regarding a disciplinary proceeding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusions that there is generally no authority to appoint counsel in civil proceedings, that the Human Rights Code does not apply to federal institutions, and that the claim lacked material facts and constituted an abuse of process.

The appellant purchaser appealed a summary judgment finding she breached an agreement of purchase and sale.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the appellant was never in a position to close the transaction.

A one-day error by the respondent in setting the closing date was deemed minor and immaterial to the appellant's ability to complete the purchase.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision that dismissed his action based on the defence of qualified privilege.

The Court of Appeal found no errors of law, legal principle, or palpable and overriding errors of fact in the motion judge's decision to proceed by summary judgment or in her analysis of qualified privilege.

The court also rejected the appellant's argument that the hearing was unfair.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found that the mandatory notice requirements for constitutional issues under s. 109 of the Courts of Justice Act had not been complied with, depriving the Attorneys General of the opportunity to participate.

Consequently, the court set aside the order below and directed that any further pursuit of the matter must be reheard before the Superior Court on proper notice.

The appellant appealed an order striking his fresh as amended statement of claim against the individual respondents without leave to amend.

The claim alleged constructive dismissal, defamation, conspiracy, discrimination, and breach of Law Society rules following his resignation from the respondent law firm.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the pleadings lacked material facts, failed to disclose viable causes of action, and could not be saved by further amendment.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order regarding spousal support, life insurance, occupation rent, and the valuation of net family property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law, principle, or palpable and overriding error of fact in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence.

The court also declined to address the issue of pre- and post-judgment interest as it was not raised at trial.