Jonathan C. Lisus

The appellants, minority shareholders of a Manitoba broadcasting corporation, brought an action in Ontario seeking an oppression remedy under the Canada Business Corporations Act against the majority shareholder and its affiliates.

The motions judge stayed the action, finding Ontario lacked jurisdiction and that Manitoba was the convenient forum.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the motions judge erred in applying the real and substantial connection test to defendants present in Ontario, and found that Ontario did have jurisdiction over all defendants, including the extra-provincial defendant.

However, the Court upheld the stay on the basis that Manitoba was clearly the more convenient forum, as the dispute primarily concerned the internal management of a Manitoba corporation.

The plaintiff brought a civil action for damages for sexual assault against the defendant, whose criminal charges for the same allegations were stayed.

The plaintiff sought production of the Crown Disclosure Brief from the criminal proceedings, which included a statement the defendant made to police that was ruled inadmissible in criminal court due to a breach of his s. 10(b) Charter rights.

The Divisional Court held that while the existence of the Crown Brief must be disclosed, its contents should not be produced without a screening mechanism involving the Attorney General and police to protect public interest.

Furthermore, the court ruled that the defendant's Charter-infringing statement to police was protected from production in the civil proceeding.

The plaintiff sued the defendant doctor for sexual assault.

Criminal charges against the defendant were stayed, but during the criminal proceedings, the defendant received a Crown Disclosure Brief, which included a statement he made to police that was ruled inadmissible due to a s. 10(b) Charter violation.

In the civil action, the plaintiff sought production of the Crown Brief.

The Divisional Court held that while the existence of the Crown Brief must be disclosed, its contents should not be produced until the Attorney General and relevant police service are notified and either consent or a court orders production.

Furthermore, the defendant's Charter-infringing statement to police was protected from production in the civil proceeding.

The appellants appealed an order finding that Ontario had jurisdiction over the litigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that there was a sufficient connection to Ontario.

The plaintiff was located in Ontario, the harm was suffered there, and the tort as pleaded involved the appellants effecting a breach of contract in Ontario, which they should have reasonably anticipated would cause harm in the province.

The appellants appealed an order finding that Ontario had jurisdiction over the litigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that there was a sufficient connection to Ontario.

The court noted that the plaintiff was in Ontario, the harm was suffered there, and the tort as pleaded involved the appellants effecting a breach of contract in Ontario, making it reasonably foreseeable that their actions would cause harm in the province.

The appellant solicitor appealed an order requiring him to fulfill a solicitor's undertaking to repay a $50,000 loan to the respondent from mortgage financing.

The appellant breached the undertaking by paying the funds directly to the debtor.

The appellant argued the debt had already been paid by the debtor but provided only an affidavit based on information and belief, contrary to Rule 39.01(5).

The applications judge refused an adjournment to summons the debtor and ordered the appellant to pay the sum plus prejudgment interest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that solicitors must be strictly accountable for their undertakings and noting the lack of admissible evidence supporting the appellant's claims.

The appellant sign companies challenged a municipal by-law that imposed an annual fee on third-party billboards and capped the total number of such signs.

The appellants argued the fee was an ultra vires indirect tax and the cap violated their freedom of expression under the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the by-law, finding that the annual fee was a valid regulatory fee authorized by the Municipal Act, as it defrayed the costs of the municipality's sign section.

The Court also held that while the cap on billboards infringed freedom of expression, it was saved under section 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limit to protect the city's urban plan and streetscape.

The appellant challenged an order refusing to set aside an earlier summary judgment enforcing a foreign judgment and permitting amendment of the judgment to accord with the statutory foreign-currency conversion provision.

The court held that the amendment under s. 121(1) of the Courts of Justice Act did not introduce a new cause of action, did not seek further damages, and merely brought the Ontario judgment into conformity with the amount awarded in the foreign judgment.

Because the appellant had ample opportunity to raise any limitation defence before summary judgment and the amendment created no new substantive rights or prejudice, the limitation argument failed.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant doctor appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for a surgical burn suffered during routine electrocautery surgery and awarding general and special damages.

The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the trial judge’s liability findings, holding there was evidence supporting the conclusion that pooled alcohol-based prepping solution ignited during the procedure and that the doctor breached the standard of care.

The court divided on discoverability under s. 17 of the Health Disciplines Act, but the majority held the respondent knew enough material facts immediately after the surgery to allege negligence against the surgeon and hospital without awaiting an expert opinion.

The appeal was therefore allowed and the action dismissed as statute barred.