Jeff Galway

Following the release of the court's reasons for judgment on an appeal, the respondent Aviva Canada Inc. requested that the court reopen its decision based on a recently released Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding the standard of review.

Aviva argued that the new decision altered the applicable standard of review from reasonableness to correctness due to concurrent jurisdiction provisions in the Insurance Act.

The court denied the request, noting that the parties did not agree an error had been made and finding that it was not in the interests of justice to withdraw the reasons and rehear the case on the merits.

The applicant sought to enforce a New York judgment ordering the respondent to deliver a painting purchased by the applicant.

The respondent opposed enforcement, arguing lack of standing, lack of jurisdiction, denial of natural justice, and a novel 'comity' defence, while also requesting a stay pending an appeal in New York.

The court rejected all of the respondent's defences, finding the New York court had jurisdiction and its process was fair.

The court ordered that the New York judgment could be enforced in Ontario, but granted a short, conditional stay of enforcement pending the determination of the respondent's ongoing appeal in New York.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment requiring it to pay $135.5 million in cash to fulfill its obligations under a letter agreement.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by restricting payment to cash rather than allowing payment in shares of certain corporations as provided in the agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the respondent was entitled to reject the offered shares as not being of equivalent value, and finding that allowing payment in shares years after the deadline would inappropriately rewrite the agreement.

The complainant alleged that the respondent insurance company discriminated against young, single, male drivers by charging them higher automobile insurance premiums than other groups.

The respondent conceded a prima facie infringement of the Human Rights Code but argued the distinction was based on reasonable and bona fide grounds under s. 21.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the discriminatory practice was reasonable because it was based on sound and accepted insurance practice and there was no practical alternative available to the industry at the time.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown commenced a civil action for forfeiture against the respondent corporation under the Customs Act for making false declarations.

The Crown sought to examine an officer of the respondent for discovery.

The respondent argued it was protected from discovery by common law privilege and section 11(c) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the common law privilege against self-incrimination in forfeiture actions was abrogated by the Canada Evidence Act and modern discovery rules.

Furthermore, the Court ruled that a corporation cannot be a 'witness' and therefore cannot claim the protection of section 11(c) of the Charter.

The Crown's appeal was allowed and the corporation was ordered to produce an officer for discovery.