4 total
The Court of Appeal upheld a stay of proceedings on forum non conveniens grounds, confirming the dispute belonged in Quebec.
The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision granting a stay of proceedings on forum non conveniens grounds.
The motion judge had characterized the claim as one for oppression under the Canada Business Corporations Act and found that Ontario was forum non conveniens because the core dispute involved shareholders' dissatisfaction with internal management decisions of a Quebec-based company.
The appellants argued the motion judge erred by misconstruing their claim as purely oppression and failing to recognize a common law claim for fraudulent misrepresentation with connections to Ontario.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's characterization of the claim or his forum non conveniens analysis.
The plaintiff's claim was dismissed as statute-barred because it failed to exercise reasonable diligence in discovering its cause of action.
The City of Hamilton commenced an action against Daimler Trucks North America LLC and Wajax Industries Limited for damages arising from a truck fire.
The defendants brought motions for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred due to the expiry of the two-year limitation period.
The court found that the City of Hamilton knew or ought to have known of its claim by November 12, 2010, at the latest, and failed to exercise reasonable diligence in acquiring material facts.
Consequently, the claim, commenced on February 19, 2013, was statute-barred.
The defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted, dismissing the plaintiff's claim.
Applicant's requests for broad document production, third-party summonses, and a Tribunal inquiry denied for irrelevance.
The applicant in an age discrimination case brought requests for the production of prescription sales data, employee contact information, and summonses for third parties including the Ontario College of Pharmacists and CBC News.
The applicant also requested a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry and a determination of the respondents' corporate relationships.
The Tribunal denied all requests, finding that the requested documents and information were not arguably relevant to the core issue of whether the applicant's employment was terminated due to age, and that a Tribunal Inquiry was unnecessary.
Request for audit and addition of respondent denied as premature and unsupported by reasons.
The applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking an audit of the respondent to determine if it accessed his personal health information, and requesting that Loblaws Inc. be added as a respondent.
The Tribunal denied the request for an audit, noting it is akin to a Tribunal-ordered inquiry which is not a routine event and not a substitute for the usual production process.
The request to add Loblaws Inc. was also denied as the applicant provided no reasons in support.
