3 total
The court dismissed the motion to stay, finding strong cause not to enforce the forum selection clause.
The defendant, Ferrovial Services Canada Limited, brought a motion to dismiss or permanently stay the action commenced by the plaintiffs, JLPM and Dwight Anthony Jr., in Ontario.
The motion was based on a forum selection clause (FSC) in their subcontract, which stipulated Travis County, Texas, as the exclusive venue for judicial proceedings.
The court first determined that the FSC survived the termination of the contract and was valid, clear, and enforceable.
However, the court then applied the "strong cause" test, considering factors such as the location of evidence, applicable law, parties' connections to jurisdictions, and potential prejudice.
The court concluded that the plaintiffs demonstrated "strong cause" not to enforce the FSC, primarily due to the parties' closer connection to Ontario and the application of Ontario law.
Consequently, the defendant's motion was dismissed, and Ontario was deemed the convenient forum.
The Court of Appeal upheld a partial summary judgment finding the appellant solely liable for a rear-end collision on an icy road.
The appellant appealed a partial summary judgment granted by the motion judge in a rear-end motor vehicle collision case that occurred on an icy road during freezing rain.
The appellant argued that the motion judge applied the wrong test and failed to address the alleged contributory negligence of the respondent, contending that the respondent should not have stopped on the highway.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error and confirming that the motion judge correctly applied the summary judgment test.
The court upheld the finding that the respondent did not act negligently in stopping her vehicle given the road conditions and visibility issues.
Request to dismiss human rights application denied; WSIB benefits decision did not address discrimination allegations.
The applicant, a seasonal truck driver, alleged discrimination based on perceived disability after the respondent failed to rehire him following a hernia diagnosis.
The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had already been dealt with by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB only determined whether the hernia was work-related for benefits purposes and did not consider the human rights allegations regarding the failure to rehire.
