Pardu J.A.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its claim for breach of restrictive covenants in its contracts with the respondent independent contractors.

The trial judge had found the covenants were not brought to the attention of the respondents, were unenforceable, and that damages were not proven.

Because the appellant did not appeal the finding concerning damages, the Court of Appeal found no basis to set aside the trial judge's order and dismissed the appeal.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against the Toronto Police Services Board for mass detentions and arrests during the 2010 G20 summit.

After the motion judge dismissed the certification motion, the plaintiff narrowed her claims on appeal.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and certified two separate class actions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal, upholding the certification of the location-based subclasses and the detention centre class, finding that the narrowed claims met the certification criteria under the Class Proceedings Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiff's cross-appeal on costs, increasing the costs award for the certification motion to $315,000 to reflect the legislative goal of access to justice.

The appellant appealed a decision making his daughter a Crown ward without access for the purpose of adoption.

He argued the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors and sought to adduce fresh evidence on appeal, including his intention to reunite with the child's mother and the mother's Jewish heritage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors.

The court held that the fresh evidence did not warrant interfering with the trial judge's conclusion that Crown wardship without access remained in the child's best interests, as the appellant failed to rebut the presumption against access and the child required permanency.

The appellants appealed an order striking their statement of claim under Rule 21.01 based on the expiry of a limitation period.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred because a plaintiff is not obligated to plead discoverability until a statement of defence pleading a limitation period is delivered.

The court also clarified that the exception allowing a claim to be struck for a limitation period prior to a defence is confined to cases with no legal or factual complexities.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's discretionary decision refusing to set aside a noting of default.

The motion judge had considered the appellant's failure to comply with an outstanding production order, which could prejudice the respondents.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's exercise of discretion.

Furthermore, the Court held that Rule 11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure did not apply because the respondents had obtained an order to proceed under section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant, an Ontario corporation, sued its former North Carolina legal counsel in Ontario for professional negligence arising from a North Carolina action.

The motion judge stayed the action for lack of a real and substantial connection to Ontario, but failed to consider the appellant's argument that Ontario should assume jurisdiction as a forum of necessity.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that while the motion judge erred in ignoring the argument, the appellant failed to meet the high threshold for the forum of necessity doctrine.

The appellant's inability to retain counsel in North Carolina did not make it an exceptional case justifying the assumption of jurisdiction.