4 total
The court dismissed a motion to amend a misnamed plaintiff's claim because the limitation period had expired and no special circumstances were shown.
The plaintiff sought leave to amend the statement of claim to correct the name of the plaintiff.
The defendant opposed, arguing prejudice and limitation period issues.
The court found that only two invoices were issued by the correct corporate entity, but those claims were out of time and duplicate.
The plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice from the loss of a limitation defence.
The motion to amend was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the defendant.
A shareholders' agreement restricting share transfers does not render a specific testamentary bequest of shares void.
The testator bequeathed his shares in a family business to his sister.
A brother challenged the bequest, arguing it violated a shareholders' agreement restricting share transfers.
The trial judge found the bequest null and void.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that contractual obligations do not constrain a person's ability to bequeath property by will.
Under section 67(2) of the Business Corporations Act, the estate trustees are entitled to be treated as registered security holders.
While the estate trustees are bound by the shareholders' agreement and cannot immediately distribute the shares without compliance, this does not render the bequest void.
The appeal was allowed.
Appeal of wrongful dismissal judgment dismissed; employee manual did not eliminate prior reasonable notice entitlement.
The appellants appealed a wrongful dismissal judgment.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that an employee manual could not eliminate the respondent's entitlement to reasonable notice for the 10 years of employment preceding its introduction.
The Court also upheld the trial judge's objective assessment of repudiation and found no palpable and overriding error in the findings of fact regarding mitigation.
Arbitrator's layoff ruling restored under deferential patent unreasonableness review.
The union appealed a Divisional Court decision quashing a labour arbitrator's award arising from layoffs following government funding cuts to municipal homes for the aged.
The Court of Appeal held that the applicable standard of review was patent unreasonableness and emphasized that a reviewing court must ask whether there is a rational basis for the arbitrator's interpretation, not search for the correct interpretation.
The arbitrator's reading of the collective agreement, treating the specific layoff clause as limiting the general management rights clause, was one the agreement could reasonably bear.
The court further held that economic hardship caused by funding reductions could not justify rewriting the parties' negotiated allocation of risk.
The appeal was allowed, the Divisional Court order set aside, and the arbitrator's award restored.
