43 total
Class action by Air Ontario pilots against Air Canada pilots over failed seniority list merger dismissed.
The Plaintiffs, representing Air Ontario pilots, brought a class action against the Defendants, representing Air Canada pilots, alleging unlawful act conspiracy, intentional interference with economic interests, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent misrepresentation.
The dispute arose from the failure to implement a merged pilot seniority list following an arbitration award by Michel Picher.
The court dismissed all claims, finding that the Defendants' conduct was not unlawful, there was no intention to injure, no fiduciary duty was owed to the Plaintiffs, and the representations made were not actionable.
Furthermore, the court found that the Plaintiffs suffered no damages as Air Canada would never have agreed to the merged seniority list.
Leave to appeal costs orders in dismissed class actions denied; substantial indemnity costs for unsubstantiated fraud allegations upheld.
The appellants and the Law Foundation of Ontario sought leave to appeal costs orders made by the case management judge following the dismissal of several proposed class actions against automobile insurers.
The motion judge had awarded costs to the successful insurers, including substantial indemnity costs where the plaintiffs persisted with unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and deceit to overcome limitation periods.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no error in principle in the motion judge's exercise of discretion regarding entitlement or scale of costs.
Section 75 of the National Energy Board Act does not create a civil cause of action for compensation.
The appellant landowners brought a class action claiming compensation from the respondent pipeline companies for restrictions on the use of their lands imposed by government regulation under the National Energy Board Act.
The motion judge dismissed the action on summary judgment.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that s. 75 of the Act does not create a civil cause of action for compensation, but rather provides a complete code for negotiation and arbitration.
The Court also held that the compensation provisions in the easement agreements were limited to physical damages and did not cover economic losses resulting from regulatory land use restrictions.