Lawrence E. Ritchie

Following an appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement.

The appellant was awarded $20,000 in costs, subject to a reduction for an unsuccessful appeal regarding two U.S. companies and the unsatisfactory nature of the statement of claim.

The two U.S. respondents were awarded costs of $5,856.53 and $500, respectively.

The appellant, who had been discharged from bankruptcy, was denied credit because the respondent credit reporting agencies allegedly included statute-barred debts in his credit report contrary to the Consumer Reporting Act.

The appellant brought a proposed class action in negligence.

The motion judge struck the claim, finding policy reasons against recognizing a duty of care.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against the Canadian respondents, holding that a prima facie duty of care exists based on proximity and foreseeability, analogous to negligent misrepresentation, and that policy considerations do not make it plain and obvious that the claim should be struck at this stage.

The claims against the American parent companies were struck for failing to plead sufficient material facts.

The applicant union sought a declaration that a sale of a business and intermingling of employees occurred between the respondent companies, and requested a representation vote.

The Board found that a sale of a business had occurred when Union Felt purchased Almac Industries Inc. and subsequently integrated operations.

The Board concluded that intermingling of employees had taken place and ordered a representation vote to determine which of the two trade unions should represent the combined bargaining unit.

The respondent, a natural father, was denied parental benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, which provided such benefits only to adoptive parents.

The trial judge found this violated s. 15 of the Charter and used s. 24(1) to read natural parents into the legislation.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while reading in is a permissible remedy under s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, it was inappropriate in this case due to the budgetary implications and the lack of a clear legislative mandate.

The Court concluded that the proper remedy was to declare the provision invalid but suspend the declaration to allow Parliament to amend the legislation.