Marion Jasmine Sweatman

The appellant moved for a stay of the trial judge's orders pending appeal, which required him to vacate a farm property and permitted the estate to auction inventory.

The underlying dispute involved an estate settlement where the appellant agreed to vacate the property in exchange for a retirement lot and funds to build a house.

The Court of Appeal applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion for a stay, finding no serious issue to be tried and that the balance of convenience favoured the respondents.

The respondents' cross-motion to permit the auction to proceed was granted.

The appellant airline appealed an order arising from a cargo damage dispute and argued the respondent had failed to establish a prima facie case of actual knowledge that damage would probably result from re-routing the cargo.

The Court of Appeal accepted the legal premise of that submission but held the evidentiary record supported the motion judge's conclusion that such a prima facie case had been established.

The court further held that an adverse inference could properly be drawn from the appellant's failure to call witnesses with personal knowledge, and that the appellant's limited evidence did not raise a genuine issue for trial.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

These appeals arose from two Ontario boating accidents involving deaths and serious injuries, and required the Court to determine the scope of Canadian maritime law, the constitutional applicability of provincial statutes in maritime negligence actions, and the proper limitation period for fatal accident claims.

The Court held that provincial superior courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal Court over dependants’ maritime fatal accident claims under the Canada Shipping Act.

It established a four-part framework for assessing whether provincial statutes may apply in maritime negligence cases, emphasizing the core federal nature and required uniformity of maritime negligence law.

The Court judicially reformed Canadian maritime law to permit claims for loss of guidance, care and companionship and survival claims by estates, but held siblings could not qualify as dependants.

It further held that maritime collision claims were governed by the two-year limitation period in s. 572(1) of the Canada Shipping Act, and dismissed the appeals and cross-appeals with costs.