James Yap

This is an appeal from a motion judge's order dismissing a motion to strike an action.

The motion judge had declared the respondent's claims timely and within the Ontario court's jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by declaring the claim timely and precluding the appellant from raising a limitations defence on a Rule 21 motion, as fact-finding is generally not appropriate at that stage.

However, the Court upheld the motion judge's finding that the Ontario court had jurisdiction over the matter.

The appeal was allowed in part, striking the order that precluded the limitations defence.

The plaintiff successfully defended a motion brought by the defendant to dismiss her Charter action regarding exclusion from health care coverage.

The plaintiff sought costs of the motion on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $181,666.71, or alternatively on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $121,111.14.

The court found no justification for substantial indemnity costs and awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale.

Applying the principle of reasonableness and the factors under Rule 57.01(1), the court fixed the plaintiff's costs at $92,000 all inclusive.

The defendant, the Attorney General of Canada, brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's action for damages and declaratory relief arising from the denial of public health care while she was an irregular migrant.

The plaintiff alleged violations of her Charter rights and customary international law, relying on a decision by the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the Ontario Superior Court has jurisdiction, the claims are not statute-barred, it is not plain and obvious that the claims are barred by res judicata, and the claims disclose a reasonable cause of action that is not doomed to fail.

Three Eritrean workers alleged they were conscripted into forced labour at a mine in Eritrea owned by Canadian corporation Nevsun Resources Ltd. and subjected to violent, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

The workers commenced proceedings in British Columbia seeking damages for breaches of customary international law prohibitions against forced labour, slavery, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and crimes against humanity, as well as domestic torts.

Nevsun brought a motion to strike the pleadings on the basis of the act of state doctrine and on the basis that the customary international law claims had no reasonable prospect of success.

The majority (Abella J., Wagner C.J., Karakatsanis, Gascon and Martin JJ.) dismissed the appeal, holding that the act of state doctrine does not form part of Canadian common law and that it was not plain and obvious that the customary international law claims were bound to fail.

Brown and Rowe JJ. dissented in part, agreeing on the act of state doctrine but concluding the customary international law claims were bound to fail.

Côté J. (Moldaver J. concurring) dissented in full, holding the claims were not justiciable because they required a determination that Eritrea had violated international law.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's product liability action as statute-barred.

The plaintiff had killed his son while experiencing a psychotic episode, which he alleged was caused by the defendant's antidepressant medication.

The court found that while the plaintiff had cognitive awareness of his potential claim earlier, he lacked the psychological capacity to commence the action until his absolute discharge from the Ontario Review Board.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.