Jack F. Fitch

The appellant manufacturer sued a competitor and its employee for slander, inducement of breach of contract, and interference with economic relations after the employee allegedly told customers the appellant's product was dangerous.

The slander claim was withdrawn as it was outside the two-year limitation period.

The motion judge struck the remaining claims, finding they were an attempt to indirectly plead slander.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the economic torts were distinct causes of action that provided remedies for commercial losses not covered by slander, and were therefore not barred by the two-year limitation period.

The appellant's husband was killed in a motor vehicle accident while in the course of his employment.

The appellant and her children received death benefits from the respondent automobile insurer, and subsequently received survivor's benefits from the Workers' Compensation Board.

The insurer demanded repayment of the death benefits under section 20 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, which precludes payment where the insured person is entitled to workers' compensation benefits.

The Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's decision that section 20 applies to prevent double recovery, even though the workers' compensation benefits were payable to the survivors rather than the deceased insured person.

The applicant's husband was killed in a motor vehicle accident while in the course of his employment.

The family received workers' compensation benefits and also claimed death benefits under the deceased's automobile insurance policy.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing that section 20 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule precludes payment of no-fault benefits when workers' compensation benefits are payable.

The arbitrator agreed, finding that section 20 reflects a legislative intent to prevent double recovery and makes the auto insurer the payer of last resort.

The applicants were ordered to repay the $45,000 in death benefits previously advanced by the insurer, along with interest.

The applicant applied for arbitration on behalf of his granddaughter, claiming death benefits following the death of her father in a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the child's mother was a separated common-law spouse and not a 'spouse at the time of the accident'.

The arbitrator held that the child was a dependant under the Schedule because she was principally dependent on the deceased's spouse, regardless of whether the spouse qualified for a spousal death benefit.

The arbitrator awarded $35,000 in death benefits to the child, finding that denying benefits to children of unmarried parents would be unfair and contrary to the Children's Law Reform Act.

The complainant, a black man of East Indian origin, alleged he was denied the position of director at a hospital's new detoxification centre because of his race.

During his interview, the hospital's representative asked questions regarding his ability to handle racial situations and racial slurs, which were not asked of white candidates.

The Board of Inquiry found that the complainant's qualifications were comparable to the successful white candidate and that the hospital's representative showed an intent to discriminate by offering the position to the white candidate without checking references.

The Board concluded that race was a factor in the decision not to hire the complainant and awarded him compensation for lost wages and general damages for injury to dignity.