Arthur Yallen

The applicant, a professional hockey player, sought to set aside an arbitral award that dismissed his claims against his former agent as time-barred under a six-month limitation period in the NHLPA Regulations.

The applicant argued the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction because the claims arose after his Standard Player-Agent Contract expired, and that the limitation period was invalid or unfairly applied.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator correctly determined he had jurisdiction because the NHLPA Regulations govern all player-agent relations, even after a specific contract expires.

The court also upheld the arbitrator's findings that the limitation period was lawful and that the applicant was treated fairly.

The plaintiff commenced defamation actions against the defendants regarding online broadcasts and internet postings.

A summary judgment motion was scheduled for September 21, 2021.

On September 10, 2021, the defendant retained new counsel, who requested a brief adjournment to prepare a new factum and provide proper representation.

The court denied the adjournment request, finding that the defendant provided no explanation for the late retention of counsel, the plaintiff would be prejudiced by further delay as the alleged defamatory postings remained online, and the administration of justice would not be served by a last-minute adjournment.

The appellants, a fertility doctor and her professional corporation, appealed the dismissal of their action against a former colleague for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment regarding a government funding application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's factual findings.

The court upheld the trial judge's conclusions that no fiduciary duty existed due to the absence of an undertaking to act in the beneficiary's best interests, and that there was a juristic reason for any enrichment because the funding application was made honestly and in accordance with the parties' agreement at the time.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a motor vehicle negligence action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The central issue was when the plaintiff discovered or ought to have discovered that her injuries met the statutory threshold under s. 266(1) of the Insurance Act, which would permit recovery of damages for bodily injury.

The court reviewed extensive and conflicting medical evidence regarding the seriousness and permanence of the plaintiff’s injuries and whether objective evidence existed before April 22, 2007 establishing a threshold claim exceeding the statutory deductible.

Applying the framework in Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court concluded that determining discoverability would require weighing complex medical evidence and credibility issues inappropriate for summary judgment.

A genuine issue requiring trial existed regarding when the plaintiff’s injuries became objectively discoverable as meeting the threshold.