Ira Parghi

This decision provides supplementary reasons to a constitutional application that previously found s. 3(3)(a) of the Citizenship Act unconstitutional for creating a second-generation cut-off for citizenship by descent.

The court clarifies and amends its prior order, extending the declaration of invalidity to s. 3(3)(b) of the Act, which also imposes a second-generation cut-off for those born before 1977.

It also amends the constitutional exemptions granted to specific applicants and their children, including those born after the initial hearing, and extends the deadline for issuing citizenship certificates due to logistical issues.

The applicants challenged the constitutionality of the 'second-generation cut-off' in s. 3(3)(a) of the Citizenship Act, which prevents Canadian citizens born abroad from automatically passing citizenship to their children born abroad.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the provision violates s. 15(1) of the Charter by discriminating on the basis of national origin and the intersection of national origin and sex.

The court also found a violation of s. 6(1) mobility rights, as the law penalizes first-generation born abroad Canadians for choosing to live and work abroad.

The violations were not saved by s. 1.

The court declared the provision of no force or effect, suspended the declaration for six months, and granted constitutional exemptions to specific applicants, but denied Charter damages.

Following settlement of a medical negligence action arising from a patient’s stroke while recovering from neurosurgery, the hospital pursued a cross‑claim for contribution under s. 2 of the Negligence Act against a nurse and her staffing agency employer.

The court found that the primary care nurse failed to properly assess neurological deterioration, failed to recognize hemiplegia, inadequately documented patient status, and failed to escalate concerns to obtain timely physician assessment.

The charge nurse also breached the standard of care by failing to properly assess the patient and failing to ensure that physicians were promptly paged and attended.

Applying the “but for” test with a robust and pragmatic approach to causation, the court inferred that earlier diagnosis and treatment of vasospasm would likely have reduced the extent of neurological injury.

Because the respective degrees of fault between the two nurses could not be determined, liability was apportioned equally under the Negligence Act.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action.

The Court of Appeal found that while there was enough evidence to raise a genuine issue for trial regarding the standard of care, the appellants failed to put forward sufficient evidence on causation to raise a genuine issue for trial.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The infant plaintiff allegedly suffered damages as a result of negligent surgery and follow-up treatment in Quebec while the plaintiffs were residents of that province.

The plaintiffs subsequently moved to Ontario and commenced an action in Ontario.

The defendants brought motions to stay the action on the basis that Ontario courts had no jurisdiction or that Ontario was not a convenient forum.

The motions judge granted the motions and stayed the actions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no real and substantial connection between the claim and Ontario, and concluding that Quebec was clearly the more appropriate forum.