Jean-Simon Schoenholz

Air carriers challenged federal regulations providing standardized compensation to passengers for flight delays, cancellations, denial of boarding, and lost or damaged baggage, arguing the regulations conflicted with the exclusivity principle in Article 29 of the Montreal Convention as implemented by the Carriage by Air Act and were therefore ultra vires the Canadian Transportation Agency's regulation-making authority under the Canada Transportation Act.

The Supreme Court held that the exclusivity principle applies only to 'actions for damages' that share the characteristics of judicial proceedings seeking individualized compensation tied to injury caused by another.

Because the impugned regulations create a consumer protection scheme providing standardized statutory entitlements irrespective of harm actually suffered, they do not constitute 'actions for damages' and do not fall within Article 29's scope.

The Court also clarified that the Mohan framework governs admissibility of expert evidence on questions of international law.

Appeal dismissed.

The plaintiffs initiated an action against the defendants for breach of contract, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation concerning investment rental properties and their management.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the claim was time-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found the action amenable to summary judgment and determined that the plaintiffs had sufficient knowledge of their loss and its cause by December 12, 2017, at the latest, when they terminated their property management agreement.

As the Statement of Claim was issued on March 16, 2020, beyond the two-year limitation period, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed the action as time-barred.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action for negligence, breach of contract, misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty, which was found to be statute-barred.

They also sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the fresh evidence motion, finding it did not meet the Palmer test, and the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that the limitation period had expired by December 2018.

The court affirmed that the appellants had sufficient knowledge of their losses and the responsible parties by spring 2016, and their subjective belief that a proceeding was not "appropriate" did not delay discoverability.

The appellant, Best Theratronics Ltd. (BTL), appealed a trial judgment ordering it to pay an outstanding debt to Kirloskar Technologies (P) Ltd. (KTPL), its former agent in India.

BTL argued it should be relieved of the debt due to a perceived risk of prosecution under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA) related to alleged corrupt practices by KTPL in India, and sought to delay payment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that the alleged criminal conduct was unrelated to the debt at issue and that BTL failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its public policy argument against enforcing the contract.

The court reiterated that public policy considerations for setting aside contractual provisions should be applied sparingly.

The defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after successfully obtaining summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' action as statute-barred.

The plaintiffs argued their conduct was reasonable and that costs should be limited.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiffs' conduct did not warrant it and that the case raised an important legal question regarding limitation periods.

Costs were fixed at $20,000 payable by the plaintiffs to the defendants.

The plaintiffs sought damages for negligence related to a soil bearing capacity report.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found that the plaintiffs had discovered the material facts giving rise to their claim by October 2016, more than two years before commencing the action in January 2019.

The court rejected arguments that expert reports or ongoing discussions with the defendants and their insurer postponed the discoverability date, emphasizing that certainty of causation is not required and settlement negotiations do not extend limitation periods.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed as prescribed.