Khalid Baksh

A commercial dispute between competing importers of Caribbean food products involved allegations of defamation, statutory unfair competition under s. 7 of the Trade-marks Act, depreciation of goodwill under s. 22, and unlawful interference with economic relations.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false statements to a supplier accusing the plaintiffs of importing and selling infringing competing products, which were subsequently relayed to the supplier in a written report.

The court held that the oral statements were statute‑barred as slander but that the written republication constituted actionable libel.

Although qualified privilege initially applied, the court found the defendant acted with malice and intentional dishonesty, defeating the defence.

The plaintiffs failed to prove economic loss or that the statements caused termination of their distributorship, but general damages were presumed for libel and awarded to one plaintiff.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their action on a motion for summary judgment.

The infant appellant suffered from a serious medical condition, which the appellants alleged was caused by a motor vehicle accident involving the mother while she was pregnant.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no genuine issue for trial regarding causation, as the appellants failed to provide expert medical opinion establishing that the accident probably caused or contributed to the condition.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff suffered a low back injury in a motor vehicle accident.

At trial, the defendant successfully moved for a finding that the plaintiff did not meet the threshold for permanent serious impairment under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The trial judge found the impairment was neither permanent nor serious.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held the trial judge erred in finding the impairment was not permanent, as there was no evidence the pain would completely resolve.

The Court also found the trial judge took an overly narrow approach to whether the impairment was serious by focusing only on the plaintiff's ability to resume employment and household duties, without considering the effect of continuing pain on her enjoyment of life.

The appeal was allowed.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's finding that the parties had reached a binding settlement agreement.

The Court of Appeal found that there was a triable issue as to whether an agreement was reached, as the appellant had insisted on personal releases from other shareholders which were never provided, and subsequent correspondence from the respondent introduced new terms such as a non-competition clause.

The appeal was allowed and the judgment below set aside.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits until the insurer terminated them, arguing her continuing kidney problems were due to pre-existing conditions.

The applicant claimed the accident caused severe trauma to her kidney, embedding a stone that led to chronic infections.

The arbitrator preferred the insurer's expert medical evidence, finding that the applicant's ongoing kidney issues and infections were a spontaneous recurrence of her extensive pre-existing kidney stone condition, not caused by the accident.

The applications for weekly income benefits and supplementary medical and rehabilitation expenses were dismissed, though the applicant was awarded her hearing expenses.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly benefits from the respondent insurer.

The insurer terminated benefits and claimed a repayment after the appellant began receiving CPP disability benefits.

The appellant disputed the reduction and claimed the cost of airfare to Italy as a medical expense.

The Director of Arbitrations dismissed the appeal, confirming that CPP disability benefits are deductible from weekly benefits under section 13(3) of the Schedule, and upholding the arbitrator's finding that the airfare was not a reasonable medical expense.

The Applicant sought death benefits from the Insurer following the death of her parents in a motor vehicle accident, claiming she was a dependant under section 11(1)(c) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Insurer denied the claim on the basis that she was not principally dependent on her parents for financial support.

The arbitrator found that the Applicant, who was married, had children, and had income from her husband and her own work placement, failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to prove her parents were her primary source of financial support.

The claim for death benefits was dismissed, but the Applicant was awarded her arbitration expenses.