Lisa La Horey

The deceased was struck and killed by two motorists while walking on a highway after becoming intoxicated at a college event.

The deceased's family commenced an action under the Family Law Act more than three years after the accident.

The motion judge extended the two-year limitation period under s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act and applied the discoverability rule.

The Court of Appeal allowed the defendants' appeal, holding that the plaintiffs' unawareness of the limitation period did not postpone it, and that whether the requirements of s. 2(8) and the discoverability rule were met should be determined at trial rather than on a motion.

The plaintiffs in a class action brought motions to quash the defendants' appeals from orders dismissing their Rule 20 and Rule 21 motions.

The plaintiffs argued the orders were interlocutory, not final.

The Court of Appeal held that the orders, which dismissed the motions on a question of law and bound the court to a specific interpretation of the Insurance Act, gave rise to res judicata and were therefore final orders.

The motions to quash were dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice in a CCAA proceeding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasoning of the motion judge, and awarded costs of $10,000 to the respondents.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding triable issues regarding whether the president of Lason Canada had a duty to disclose off-balance sheet payments and whether he participated in including tailwind revenues, both of which allegedly inflated the EBITDA calculation.

The summary judgment was set aside and the motion dismissed.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision finding them bound by a December 17, 1999 agreement.

The appellants argued the agreement was based on a misrepresentation regarding the accounting approach used for a pay-out calculation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that differing views on accounting approaches did not constitute a misrepresentation, especially since the view of the appellant's Chief Financial Officer was known to the appellant.