David Hamer

The appellant, an Ontario mining company, sued American engineering consultants for negligent misrepresentation regarding studies for a Costa Rican gold mine.

The defendants successfully moved to stay the action for lack of jurisdiction.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the tort of negligent misrepresentation was committed in Ontario, as the studies were received and relied upon at the appellant's Toronto head office.

This established a presumptive real and substantial connection that the defendants failed to rebut.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to determine forum non conveniens.

In a medical negligence action, the court addressed how the trial should proceed where liability was to be determined by a jury but a limitations defence invoking the doctrine of special circumstances was to be decided by the judge alone.

The defendants argued that the jury must hear all evidence or that the jury notice should be struck, asserting that the evidence relating to liability and the limitation issue was intertwined.

The plaintiffs proposed limiting the jury’s exposure to evidence related to liability and having the limitation issue addressed separately.

The court held that under s. 108(3) of the Courts of Justice Act it could direct that certain issues of fact be tried without a jury.

The trial was ordered to proceed in two phases: a jury phase determining liability followed by a judge-alone phase addressing the limitation issue and related evidence.

During the early stage of a medical negligence jury trial, the defendants brought an oral motion to strike the jury notice and discharge the jury.

The motion arose after the plaintiffs proposed that evidence relating to liability be heard by the jury, while evidence relating to a limitation defence and the doctrine of special circumstances be heard only by the judge.

The court considered whether such compartmentalization of evidence would make the trial unworkable or compromise fairness.

Emphasizing the importance of the substantive right to a jury trial and the substantial onus required to strike a jury notice, the court declined to discharge the jury at that stage.

The judge adopted a “wait and see” approach, permitting the jury to be excluded for witnesses whose evidence related solely to the limitations issue while reserving the decision regarding witnesses whose evidence might overlap both issues.

The defendant physician brought a motion seeking to disqualify the plaintiffs' counsel of record and for particulars regarding the plaintiffs' response to his limitations defence.

The defendant argued that the plaintiffs' counsel would likely need to testify regarding their due diligence to establish 'special circumstances' to extend the limitation period.

The court dismissed the motion for disqualification, noting the plaintiffs undertook not to call any current or former member of their counsel's firm as a witness.

The court also dismissed the request for further particulars, finding the draft amended statement of claim and the extensive summary judgment record provided sufficient detail.

The respondent purchased timber from the Crown and harvested it pursuant to a licence under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, 1994.

The price included a Residual Value Charge (RVC).

The respondent successfully applied for a declaration that the RVC was an unlawful tax.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the application judge erred in applying the test for distinguishing regulatory charges from taxes.

The RVC is a proprietary charge and a legitimate component of the price of timber set by the Crown as owner of the resource, not a tax.

The appellant surgeon appealed a trial judgment finding him negligent in the performance of a mediastinoscopy, during which he unintentionally biopsied the respondent's oesophagus.

The trial judge had rejected the negligence theories advanced by the respondent's expert but found negligence on two unpleaded grounds: failure to take a smaller biopsy and failure to differentiate the oesophagus from the lymph node.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusions were based on a manifestly incorrect finding of fact regarding biopsy size and inferences unsupported by the expert evidence.

The action was dismissed.

The CRTC appealed a Federal Court of Appeal decision that set aside its renewal of CTV's broadcasting licence.

The CRTC had imposed a condition requiring CTV to broadcast a specified number of hours of original new Canadian drama.

The Federal Court of Appeal held that the CRTC had jurisdiction to impose the condition but breached natural justice by not giving adequate notice of the specific condition.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the CRTC's appeal, holding that the CRTC had the jurisdiction to impose the condition under s. 17(1) of the Broadcasting Act and that there was no breach of natural justice, as CTV had sufficient notice that Canadian drama offerings would be discussed.

The Court also dismissed CTV's cross-appeal regarding the composition of the hearing panel.