Paul Stewart Champ

On a Rule 21 motion, the moving parties sought to stay or dismiss a negligence and breach of contract action for want of court jurisdiction.

The court applied the essential character framework and considered whether the dispute arose from collective agreement administration or from alleged promises and representations made outside that framework.

The court held that the pleaded claim, including alleged negligent misrepresentation and reliance relating to disability litigation steps and a missed limitation period, was arguable as a civil negligence claim not confined to labour board exclusivity.

The motion to stay or dismiss was therefore refused, and directions were set for further submissions.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of power, negligence, and Charter breaches arising from an income tax reassessment.

The plaintiff conceded the malicious prosecution claim.

For the remaining claims, the court held that the limitation period commenced when the plaintiff discovered the material facts underlying her claims, which occurred by 1998 or at the latest 2001 when she included them in her Notice of Tax Appeal.

The court rejected the argument that the cause of action only accrued after her tax appeal was successfully resolved in 2005.

As the action was commenced in 2007, it was statute-barred and dismissed.

The parties consented to an order for costs of the appeal.

The Court of Appeal ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs fixed at $12,000 plus $805.23 for HST and disbursements.

The appellant deposited a materially altered cheque into his account at the respondent credit union as part of a wire transfer scam.

After the drawee bank dishonoured the cheque, the respondent exercised its common law right of charge-back against the appellant's accounts and sued for the unrecovered balance.

The trial judge found for the respondent.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the right of charge-back was extinguished once the respondent received funds from the drawee bank, and alternatively, that the respondent was negligent in failing to warn him that the credit was provisional.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a collecting bank does not lose its right of charge-back upon receiving payment from the drawee bank, and that the respondent owed no duty to warn the appellant in these circumstances.

The plaintiff brought a wrongful dismissal action in Ontario against his British Columbia employer after being dismissed from his employment in Nevada.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside service and stay the proceedings, arguing Ontario lacked jurisdiction and was not the convenient forum.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding jurisdiction simpliciter and that Ontario was the convenient forum.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal, holding that there was a real and substantial connection to Ontario and that the motion judge did not err in considering the plaintiff's loss of juridical advantage if forced to litigate in Nevada.