OCA 2002

The appellants sued two dental regulatory Colleges in negligence, misfeasance of public office, and breach of Charter rights, alleging the Colleges failed to implement adequate standards to prevent temporomandibular joint injuries during dental hygiene treatments.

The motions judge struck the claims against the Colleges.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, applying recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence to hold that the Colleges' statutory duty is to the public as a whole, not to individual patients, and therefore they owe no private law duty of care to the appellants.

Several trade unions brought actions challenging federal legislation that authorized the federal government to deal with surpluses in pension plans covering federal government and RCMP employees.

The Attorney General of Canada successfully moved to strike the unions as plaintiffs, arguing that s. 3(2) of the Rights of Labour Act prevented them from suing in their own names.

The Court of Appeal allowed the unions' appeal, holding that the unions have the legal status to sue in their own names derived from their governing labour legislation or corporate status, and that s. 3(2) does not bar them.

The Court also found the unions had standing due to their direct interest in their members' pension benefits.

The self-represented applicant filed a notice of motion to review an order refusing leave to extend the time for bringing an appeal, but failed to perfect the motion.

The respondents sought to have the motion dismissed for delay.

The Court of Appeal declined to dismiss the motion, noting the lack of time limits in the Rules for perfecting such a motion, the applicant's unrepresented status, and the respondents' failure to bring a formal motion to dismiss.

The court scheduled the motion for a full hearing and set strict deadlines for perfection.

The appellant was convicted of importing narcotics after arriving at Pearson International Airport with cannabis resin strapped to her body.

She appealed her conviction and 18-month conditional sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in rejecting her defence of duress, failing to find she knew the packs contained narcotics, and illegally modifying her conditional sentence conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly assessed her credibility regarding the duress defence, the inference of knowledge was available on the evidence, and the condition to remain in Ontario was permitted under s. 742.3(2)(f) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant appealed a judgment, arguing that the respondent's claim was barred by cause of action estoppel due to an earlier small claims court action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that cause of action estoppel did not apply because the earlier action was resolved by a settlement without a court determination or releases.

Furthermore, the respondent was not required to assert its complaint as a counterclaim in the small claims court, as it would have exceeded the monetary jurisdiction.

The appellant trustee in bankruptcy appealed a trial judgment finding no intention to form a debt between the bankrupt and the respondent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the main appeal, holding that the trial judge's factual findings, which accepted the respondent's explanation for questionable book entries, could not be disturbed.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal costs and reduced the trial costs award from a solicitor and client scale to a party and party scale, noting the trustee was justified in being suspicious of the altered accounting records.

The appellant mother appealed an order varying a consent order and awarding custody of her seven-year-old son to the respondent father.

The trial judge had found a material change in circumstances based on the father disclosing the child's existence to his wife, and relied on an assessor's report criticizing the mother's attitude towards the father.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the disclosure did not constitute a material change in circumstances.

Furthermore, the Court held that the trial judge erred by placing undue emphasis on the mother's conduct without sufficient evidence that it had a detrimental effect on the child, who was developing well.

Custody was restored to the mother with generous access to the father.

Apotex appealed a trial judge's decision allowing Bayer to elect an accounting for profits as a remedy for patent infringement and directing a referee to count all infringing capsules sold by Apotex.

Apotex argued that the trial judge reversed the burden of proof, misconstrued the patent, and erred in finding a causal link between the infringement and all profits.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion to award an accounting for profits or in the direction to the referee, as Apotex's product infringed the patent in its entirety.

The appellant insurer appealed a jury verdict awarding the respondent insured disability benefits, aggravated damages, and punitive damages following the denial of a disability claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and directed a new trial, finding fatal defects in the trial judge's charge to the jury.

Specifically, the charge on aggravated and punitive damages was wholly inadequate, failing to explain the legal requirements or direct the jury to relevant evidence.

Furthermore, the trial judge erred in law by instructing the jury that a six-year limitation period applied for breach of contract rather than the one-year limitation period mandated by the insurance policy, and failed to instruct the jury on the discoverability principle.

The appellants were convicted of kidnapping and forcible confinement after holding a family hostage for 22 days to extract a ransom.

They appealed, arguing they acted under duress from the 'Snakeheads', a criminal organization that smuggled them into Canada.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding no air of reality to the duress defence because the appellants voluntarily associated with the criminal organization and had multiple safe avenues of escape.

However, the sentence appeals were allowed, reducing the life sentences for kidnapping to 14 years.

The requester sought access to photos and a video from a closed Crown prosecutor's file under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The inquiry officer ordered disclosure, finding that the litigation privilege exemption under s. 19 ended when the prosecution concluded.

The Divisional Court overturned this decision on judicial review.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the standard of review was correctness and that the legislative intent of s. 19 was to provide a permanent exemption for Crown counsel's work product, akin to solicitor-client privilege.

The moving party father sought to stay a joint custody order and parenting schedule pending his appeal.

The trial judge had awarded joint custody despite the parents' conflict, relying on parallel parenting principles.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the father failed to show irreparable harm to the child or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The court noted the mother's historical role as primary caregiver and the minimal differences between the trial judge's parenting schedule and the previous interim order.

The appellant employer sought to partially wind up its defined benefit pension plan following a corporate reorganization and plant closure, without distributing the $3.1 million pro rata share of the actuarial surplus to the affected members.

The Superintendent of Financial Services refused to approve the report, but the Financial Services Tribunal ordered its approval, relying on the doctrine of legitimate expectations and its interpretation of the Pension Benefits Act.

The Divisional Court overturned the Tribunal's decision.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the Divisional Court, holding that section 70(6) of the Pension Benefits Act requires the distribution of surplus on a partial wind up, and that the doctrine of legitimate expectations cannot be used to create substantive rights or override statutory obligations.

The Crown appealed the trial judge's refusal to grant a DNA databanking order under s. 487.052 of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge had refused the order solely because the offence was committed before the provisions came into force.

The respondent conceded this was an error but argued the matter should be remitted to the trial judge to allow the defence to present evidence.

The Court of Appeal found the evidentiary record was complete and the evidence supporting the order was overwhelming.

The appeal was allowed and the DNA databanking order was granted.

The appellant client was awarded fixed costs in matrimonial proceedings.

Her solicitor claimed the fixed costs as its solicitor and client account, and the client applied to have the account assessed.

The motion judge ruled that the doctrine of issue estoppel applied.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that neither issue estoppel nor abuse of process applied, as the solicitor and client are allied in interest when costs are fixed but opposed in interest on an assessment.

The appeal was allowed, permitting the client to have the accounts assessed.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment requiring it to pay $135.5 million in cash to fulfill its obligations under a letter agreement.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by restricting payment to cash rather than allowing payment in shares of certain corporations as provided in the agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the respondent was entitled to reject the offered shares as not being of equivalent value, and finding that allowing payment in shares years after the deadline would inappropriately rewrite the agreement.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, which was based on an alleged attempt to have anal intercourse with the complainant without her consent.

The Court of Appeal noted that the trial judge and counsel had not referred to this incident during the trial, and the only evidence supporting the conviction came from the appellant himself.

The Court concluded that there was no evidence of intent, rendering the conviction unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence for sexual assault were set aside, and an acquittal was entered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, arguing that the trial judge's jury instructions on reasonable doubt and credibility were inadequate.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury on how reasonable doubt applies to credibility, omitting the necessary W.(D.) formula or equivalent instructions.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The appellants appealed an order approving a debtor's proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, seeking an order that the debtor pay them $244,049.10.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error in the approval of the proposal.

The Court noted the appellants could pursue claims against individuals or follow statutory procedures to question the claim amount.

The respondent employer was charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a worker was fatally injured by a reversing dump truck while acting as both a signaller and a spreader operator.

The trial judge directed a verdict of acquittal, ruling that the Crown could not prove a failure to provide a signaller under section 104 of the Regulation by showing the signaller failed to perform the duties prescribed by section 106.

The summary conviction appeal court dismissed the Crown's appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that sections 104 and 106 must be read together to promote the public safety purpose of the legislation, and ordered a new trial.