3 total
Action allowed to proceed at status hearing as plaintiff adequately explained delay without prejudicing defendant.
The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant security company after allegedly being struck by a bouncer.
At a status hearing, the defendant requested that the action be dismissed for delay.
The court found that the plaintiff provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, which was largely caused by the defendant's desire to locate a third party before scheduling examinations for discovery.
The court also found that the defendant would not suffer non-compensable prejudice if the action proceeded.
The request to dismiss the action was denied, a timetable was set, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
Appeal allowed in part; interlocutory arbitral orders reinstated, but final award set aside for unfairness.
The appellants appealed a Superior Court decision that set aside an arbitrator's interlocutory orders, an order striking statements of defence, a final arbitral award, and removed the arbitrator.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that the application judge erred in setting aside the interlocutory orders, as the Arbitration Act does not permit judicial intervention for procedural decisions.
However, the Court upheld the setting aside of the order striking the pleadings and the final award, finding that the respondents were treated unfairly because their bankruptcy made compliance with the interlocutory orders legally impossible.
The removal of the arbitrator was also upheld.
Environmental remediation orders treated as insolvency claims and stayed under CCAA.
In CCAA proceedings involving a large telecommunications company, the applicants sought authorization to cease environmental remediation work at several contaminated sites and to have regulatory remediation orders treated as claims within the insolvency process.
The provincial environmental regulator argued that its orders imposed regulatory performance obligations rather than monetary claims and therefore should not be stayed by the insolvency proceedings.
The court held that where a debtor is no longer operating and compliance with regulatory orders necessarily requires the expenditure of funds, such orders are in substance financial obligations.
The court concluded that environmental remediation orders relating to pre‑filing contamination constituted claims subject to the CCAA claims process and were stayed by the existing stay of proceedings.
The applicants were authorized to cease remediation activities and environmental claims were directed to be resolved through the established claims procedure.
