Douglas F. Harrison

The appellant appealed an order dismissing its action against a foreign state on sovereign immunity grounds.

The court held that the appellant failed to meet its burden under the State Immunity Act to show that the foreign state's alleged involvement in a state-owned airline's decision-making constituted commercial activity rather than sovereign oversight as shareholder and pursuit of governmental objectives.

The court rejected the submission that the motion should await discoveries, holding that sovereign immunity must be determined before the action proceeds.

The appeal was dismissed with agreed costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order requiring the disclosure of records containing homeowners' addresses and environmental test results.

The Divisional Court set aside the order and remitted the matter for a new hearing.

The court found that the information arguably constituted 'personal information' and that procedural fairness, as well as potentially section 28 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, required that the affected homeowners be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before their information could be disclosed.

The appellant, manager of an income trust, appealed a decision regarding the interpretation of the trust's declaration of trust.

The dispute centered on the method and date for calculating the 'Net Realized Proceeds per Unit' for units redeemed by the respondents.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the valuation date was the correct date for determining the redemption price under both calculation methods provided in the declaration of trust.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant brought an action in Ontario for injuries sustained in a slip and fall on a cruise ship owned by the respondent.

The respondent successfully moved to stay the action based on a forum selection clause in the cruise contract.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the appellant was bound by the contract and failed to show strong cause why the forum selection clause should not be enforced.

The appellant appealed a judgment regarding the respondent's compliance with a due diligence undertaking.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the motion judge erred by failing to apply an objective test, applying an objective standard would lead to the same conclusion: the respondent took sufficient steps to comply with its contractual obligation and exercise its discretion reasonably.