M. Tulloch

In a class action arising from a COVID-19 outbreak at a long-term care home, the appellants challenged certification of causation and punitive, exemplary or aggravated damages as common issues, and sought leave to appeal the certification costs award.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge properly found some basis in fact for a workable methodology for proving causation on a class-wide basis through a risk ratio approach supported by available data and expert evidence.

The court also upheld certification of punitive, exemplary or aggravated damages, rejecting the argument that such relief could not be certified absent common compensatory damages, noting that sequencing could address any quantification concerns.

Leave to appeal costs was denied because no strong grounds were shown for appellate intervention in the discretionary costs ruling.

The appellant appealed from summary judgment dismissing negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims against a lawyer retained to draft a deceased relative’s will.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial because, even accepting the appellant’s version of events, the claim failed on duty, causation, and limitation grounds.

It declined to recognize a novel duty of care to a non-client who was not an intended beneficiary under the will, and found no ad hoc fiduciary undertaking.

The court further held that the alleged losses flowed from prior judicial findings concerning beneficial ownership of trust property, not from the respondent’s conduct, and that the claim was discoverable more than two years before it was commenced.

Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent.

The appellants appealed an order validating unsigned 2024 draft wills under s. 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The deceased had executed a will in 2018 and improperly executed wills in 2022, before having new drafts prepared in 2024 that remained unsigned at his death.

The Court of Appeal admitted the 2018 will as fresh evidence, set aside the validation of the 2024 drafts because they did not reflect final testamentary intentions, and remitted the issue of the 2022 wills' validity to the Superior Court for fact-finding.

The Crown appealed stays of proceedings granted to two respondents charged in a massive cross-border drug trafficking investigation.

The application judge had found the delay exceeded the Jordan ceiling and declined to deduct time for joint-trial scheduling or find the case exceptionally complex.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the 107 days of joint-trial scheduling delay should have been deducted as a discrete exceptional circumstance.

Furthermore, the overarching complexity of the multi-agency project prosecution, which involved voluminous disclosure, justified the remaining modest delay above the ceiling.

The stays were set aside and the matters remitted for trial.

The appellants, owners of a dental clinic, appealed the dismissal of their action against a former independent contractor dentist who left to start his own practice.

The appellants alleged conversion, improper solicitation of patients and employees, appropriation of confidential information, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the dentists carried on independent practices, the departing dentist only contacted his own patients to fulfill professional obligations, and the patient information accessed was not confidential.

The court also rejected claims regarding breach of fiduciary duty and the contractual duty of good faith.

The moving party sought leave to appeal from a Divisional Court order that dismissed his motion for leave to appeal under Rule 2.1.

The Divisional Court had ruled it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal from decisions of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The Court of Appeal found it had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a dismissal of a motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed as an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.

The appellant insurer appealed a partial summary judgment declaring it responsible for covering water damage to the respondent's property.

The insurer had denied coverage based on an exclusionary clause for water entering through basement walls, arguing it applied because water from a burst watermain entered via a pipe transecting the basement wall.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the plain meaning of 'wall' does not include a pipe, as they serve conflicting functions.

The court held that any ambiguity in the exclusionary clause must be resolved against the insurer who drafted the policy.

The appellant, an undischarged bankrupt, commenced an action against his former landlord for the disposal of business assets and related mental distress.

The motion judge dismissed the action as a nullity, finding that only the trustee in bankruptcy had the capacity to sue.

On appeal, the appellant argued the assets were exempt 'tools of the trade' under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the exemption limit was only $11,300, the claim sought damages rather than the return of property, and the mental distress claim was inextricably linked to the property claim belonging to the bankrupt estate.

The appellant, a defendant in an ongoing Superior Court action, commenced a separate action against the opposing counsel and their law firm, alleging negligence, misrepresentation, fraud, and conspiracy.

The motion judge dismissed the action under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's decision, as opposing counsel owed no duty of care to the appellant and the statement of claim failed to particularize any valid causes of action.

The moving party brought a motion under Rule 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to amend a previous order of the Court of Appeal.

The moving party sought to have an unpaid Superior Court costs order of $9,000 paid out of monies the responding party had previously paid into court as security for costs.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, finding that the moving party's original intent in seeking security for costs included the costs of the underlying application, and awarded $2,000 in costs for the motion.

The appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder after shooting his wife in a parking lot.

He argued the verdict was unreasonable, the trial judge misapprehended evidence, made errors of law, and that he was prejudiced by self-representing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the verdict was reasonable and supported by ample evidence, including the appellant's own statements and eyewitness testimony.

The court also noted the appellant chose to self-represent and had the assistance of amicus curiae.

In a CCAA proceeding, the Monitor sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion for a declaration that funds swept into a UK bank account were subject to a statutory trust under the Construction Lien Act.

The CCAA judge had found the funds were irreconcilably commingled and could not be traced.

The Court of Appeal refused to admit fresh evidence and denied leave to appeal, finding the proposed appeal was not prima facie meritorious and the decision was fact-specific and consistent with established jurisprudence regarding tracing.