James Omran

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action of Jacqueline Delanty and Katherine Reilly.

Delanty's claim arose from a motor vehicle collision, but the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) had previously determined her right of action was taken away by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

Reilly's claim was a derivative claim under the Family Law Act.

The court dismissed Delanty's action, affirming the WSIAT's exclusive jurisdiction and finality.

Consequently, Reilly's derivative claim was also dismissed as it could not exist independently.

In the alternative, the court found that the action would have been dismissed for inordinate and unexplained delay.

The appellant, Sarfraz Malik, appealed a Superior Court decision that denied his motion to amend his statement of claim to add Family Law Act (FLA) s. 61 claims for losses arising from injuries to his children, more than four years after the accident.

The Superior Court judge had reversed a Master's decision, finding that s. 61 FLA claims constitute a distinct statutory cause of action, subject to the Limitations Act, and not merely a claim for additional damages within an existing negligence action.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior Court's decision, holding that a s. 61 FLA claim is a separate statutory cause of action that was statute-barred in this case, thereby dismissing the appeal.

The appellant brought a proposed class action on behalf of Uber food delivery drivers, claiming they were employees entitled to protections under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA).

The service agreement required arbitration in the Netherlands under ICC Rules.

The motion judge granted a stay in favour of arbitration.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the arbitration clause invalid on two independent grounds: (1) it constituted illegal contracting out of an employment standard (the complaint investigation process under s. 96 of the ESA), contrary to s. 5(1) of the ESA; and (2) it was unconscionable at common law due to prohibitive costs (US$14,500 upfront), significant inequality of bargaining power, and the absence of independent legal advice.

The court held that validity of arbitration agreements is a matter for the court to determine under s. 7(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, not the arbitrator.