John A. Terry

The appellants, who received long-term disability benefits, brought a proposed class action challenging the insurer's deduction of CPP Child Benefits from their payments.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the deductions were permitted by the policies and not contrary to the Canada Pension Plan, and awarded the insurer $215,000 in costs.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal and the costs award, confirming that while the factors in s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act must be given significance, they do not automatically insulate an unsuccessful class plaintiff from an adverse costs award.

Following the release of the main appellate decisions, the successful parties made costs submissions.

Counsel subsequently agreed to the quantum of costs for all four appeals.

The Court of Appeal ordered costs on a partial indemnity scale to TeleZone Inc., G-Civil Inc., Fielding Chemical Technologies Inc., and Michiel McArthur in the agreed-upon amounts.

Four appeals were heard consecutively to determine whether the Ontario Superior Court has jurisdiction over claims for damages against the federal Crown, or whether such claims must be brought in the Federal Court pursuant to section 18 of the Federal Courts Act.

The Crown argued that the claims constituted collateral attacks on federal administrative decisions and required prior judicial review in the Federal Court.

The Court of Appeal held that the Superior Court retains concurrent jurisdiction over claims for damages in contract and tort against the Crown.

Section 18 of the Federal Courts Act grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal Court only for prerogative remedies and declaratory relief, not for damages.

The plaintiffs' appeals were allowed and the Crown's appeals were dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award on a policy grievance, arguing the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction by making factual findings related to individual grievances that were not before him.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator properly used uncontested background facts to provide context for the broad policy award.

The court held that determining facts relevant to the award was within the arbitrator's jurisdiction, and his findings were not patently unreasonable.

Following the release of the court's reasons for judgment, the appellant requested a reconsideration of part of the decision.

The Court of Appeal declined to change the reasons for judgment.

Costs were fixed in favour of the respondents in the amount of $17,808.35 plus GST.

The respondents purchased condominium units as tax-sheltered investments, with the purchase price allocated between land/construction and services.

When the vendor failed to deliver title, the respondents sought compensation from the Ontario New Home Warranty Program.

The Program argued the contract was severable and refused to compensate for the services portion.

The Court of Appeal held that the agreements constituted a single contract for the provision of a home at fair market value, entitling the respondents to compensation for the full purchase price.

The Court also clarified that prejudgment interest is payable out of the guarantee fund at the rate prescribed by the Condominium Act, not the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant appealed a motions court decision answering questions on a special case under Rule 22.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's finding that s. 13 of Reg. 892 is intra vires the governing Act, as the Act's subrogation provisions are broad enough to cover payments made out of the guarantee fund.

The Court also found that the Corporation's expenses to rectify construction deficiencies in a condominium project qualified as payments triggering a right of subrogation.

The Corporation's right to subrogation was not defeated by the fact that the payments were made before the condominium corporation came into existence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant successfully avoided eviction in a private landlord and tenant dispute, rendering the appeal moot.

Although the appeal raised a potentially significant public interest issue regarding the publication of a young offender's identity under the Young Offenders Act, the court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal.

The court noted the issue was not evasive of review and was unlikely to arise again between the same parties.

The appeal was quashed.

Canada Post conducted a covert video surveillance investigation into mail theft by employees.

After the investigation concluded and criminal charges were laid, Canada Post dismissed the employees caught on tape.

The union grieved the dismissals.

The arbitrator ruled that under article 10.02 of the collective agreement, Canada Post was required to give notice of alleged misconduct within ten days of identifying an employee on the videotape, and failure to do so precluded reliance on the misconduct for dismissal.

The Divisional Court dismissed Canada Post's application for judicial review.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and his factual finding on when the notice period commenced were not patently unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

In an addendum to a majority judgment, the Divisional Court clarified that the applicants were entitled to interest on damages payable out of the guarantee fund under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The court held that pursuant to the regulations, interest is payable at the Condominium Act rate and may increase the total payment beyond the standard $20,000 maximum limit.

Interest was ordered payable from the date the Warranty Program initially denied the claims.

The appellants purchased two condominiums as tax-sheltered investments.

The vendor failed to convey title, and the appellants obtained an unpaid judgment against the vendor.

The appellants applied to the Ontario New Home Warranty Program for compensation.

The Program and the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal denied compensation for business and investment costs, allowing only land and construction costs, and deducted tax savings.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the appellants were entitled to compensation for the entire transaction, including service contracts integral to the condominium purchase, but agreed that tax savings must be deducted from the total financial loss.

Canada Post applied for judicial review of an arbitrator's decision reinstating 29 employees dismissed for theft.

The arbitrator ruled that evidence of the thefts was inadmissible because Canada Post failed to provide the employees with a report of their infractions within ten days, as required by the collective agreement.

Canada Post argued this interpretation was patently unreasonable because it prevented covert investigations of widespread criminal activity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation was not patently unreasonable as it was consistent with 20 years of arbitral jurisprudence and the collective agreement's stare decisis clause.

In a winding-up of a charitable corporation facing extensive institutional abuse claims, the liquidator sought appellate clarification on whether assets allegedly held on special purpose charitable trusts were shielded from tort creditors whose claims arose elsewhere within the charity’s operations.

The court held that Canadian law recognizes no charitable immunity from tort liability and rejects any trust-fund theory that would immunize charitable assets from execution.

In the winding-up context, all assets of the charitable corporation, whether beneficially owned or held on trust for charitable purposes, were available to satisfy legitimate tort claims.

The court also struck out a paragraph of the order suggesting it was not intended to affect related British Columbia proceedings, while confirming that the British Columbia court remained free to make its own factual findings on ownership issues.

The appellant, a federally incorporated board, appealed a decision finding it subject to the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the board is not operating under the Peace, Order and Good Government clause or the trade and commerce power, and is therefore subject to provincial human rights legislation.

The Court also rejected the appellant's argument that res judicata deprived the Commission of jurisdiction, as the human rights complaints were not the same cause of action as earlier proceedings before the Federal Court.