Jim D. Virtue

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether comments about future ownership of a family farm gave rise to an enforceable assurance under the doctrine of proprietary estoppel.

The trial judge had awarded damages to Tim Metske and Amanda Herlick on the basis of proprietary estoppel, but the Court of Appeal set aside this finding, holding there was no clear promise or assurance, nor reasonable reliance.

The court upheld the trial judge’s findings on unjust enrichment and equitable set-off, resulting in a reduced damages award.

The defendants brought a motion to determine whether the plaintiff's disability pension benefits ("Union benefits") were deductible from his income loss claim under s. 267.8(1) of the Insurance Act, following a motor vehicle accident.

The court analyzed the nature of these benefits, comparing them to HOOP disability benefits, and concluded they were non-indemnity payments not expressly made deductible by the Act.

The motion was dismissed, ruling that the Union benefits were not deductible.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff, Kayla Annette Joanna Stetler, to attend a two-day independent neuropsychological examination.

The plaintiff opposed the neuropsychological assessment but was open to a psychological one, arguing that mood and pain, not cognitive impairment, drove her deficits.

The court dismissed the application for a neuropsychological assessment, finding it would impose an undue burden and potentially delay the trial schedule.

Instead, the court ordered the plaintiff to attend a single-day defence psychological assessment.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim, arguing no reasonable cause of action, lack of standing for the Barbra Schlifer Clinic, and that the action was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs sought declarations of systemic sex discrimination by the London Police Service in investigating sexual assault complaints and an order for a court-supervised external review.

The court allowed the motion in part, affirming that the claim was not plainly and obviously bound to fail and that the Clinic had public interest standing.

However, several paragraphs of the statement of claim were struck for pleading evidence or being vexatious and inflammatory.