Paola Calce

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order certifying a class action and an order refusing to strike the claim against the defendant law firm.

The underlying action involved a charitable gift program that was disallowed by the Canada Revenue Agency, leading to claims of breach of contract and negligence against the promoters and the law firm that provided tax opinions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's conclusions that the common issues requirement was met and that the pleadings disclosed a tenable cause of action in negligence against the law firm.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision upholding the assignment of certain I-beam installation work to a rival union.

The applicant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by failing to consider twenty drawings submitted with its reply.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board had considered the drawings and its decision was not patently unreasonable.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal a motion judge's dismissal of their motion to enforce a settlement under Rule 49.09.

The motion judge had found he could not determine whether a settlement had been reached.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions on the application of Rule 49.09 and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, as he properly applied a Rule 20 summary judgment approach to the first step of the settlement enforcement analysis.

The appellants moved under Rule 49.09 for judgment in the terms of an alleged settlement agreement.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, stating that he could not determine on the affidavit evidence whether a binding settlement had been reached, but concluded by stating the proceeding would continue as if there had been no accepted offer.

The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, holding that the motion judge's order was interlocutory because he did not make a final determination that no settlement existed, but rather found he could not decide the issue on the record before him.

As the order was interlocutory, the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction.