Peter J. Pliszka

The defendant moved under Rule 21.01(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to stay or dismiss an Ontario wrongful dismissal action on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction and that North Carolina was the more appropriate forum.

The moving party relied on contractual terms stating that the agreement was governed by the laws of North Carolina and argued that related proceedings had already been commenced there.

The responding party argued that she had worked in Ontario for 27 years, was paid in Canadian dollars through a Canadian bank, and that the termination occurred in Ontario.

Applying the forum non conveniens principles articulated in Van Breda and subsequent appellate authority, the court held that the defendant had not met the high burden required to displace the plaintiff’s chosen forum.

Ontario was found to be the appropriate forum given the location of the plaintiff, witnesses, and the employment relationship.

The appellant was rendered a paraplegic during a soccer game organized by the Ontario Soccer Association (OSA).

He sued the OSA's corporate sponsors, alleging they had a duty to ensure adequate insurance coverage for players.

The motion judge struck the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no relationship of sufficient proximity between the appellant and the corporate sponsors to ground a duty of care.

Following dismissal of the plaintiff’s $4.5 million action alleging that corporate sponsors of a soccer association owed a duty to ensure adequate insurance coverage for players, the court determined the issue of costs.

The successful defendants sought substantial partial indemnity costs following a Rule 21 motion that terminated the claim at an early stage.

The court held that while the defendants were entitled to significant costs, the hours claimed by counsel were excessive and involved duplication of work.

Considering the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court reduced the requested amounts and fixed reasonable costs payable to the successful defendants.

The defendants, corporate sponsors of a soccer organization, brought a motion under rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike a negligence claim arising from a catastrophic soccer injury.

The plaintiff alleged the sponsors had a duty of care to ensure that the organization maintained adequate insurance coverage for players.

The court held that mere financial sponsorship and advertising relationships do not create a proximate relationship giving rise to a duty of care to participants.

The pleadings failed to establish reliance, proximity, or control over the event or insurance arrangements.

The statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was struck.

Two competing groups of plaintiffs brought carriage and stay motions regarding proposed class actions against Zimmer for allegedly defective hip implants.

The court considered the problematic of multiple class actions across Canada, including the differences between opt-in and opt-out regimes.

The court granted carriage to the McSherry action, which was coordinated with a certified British Columbia class action, and stayed the competing Mets, D'Anna, and Ducharme actions, finding this to be in the best interests of the class members.

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada appealed an order requiring the production of an aircraft's cockpit voice recorder (CVR) to NAV Canada in the context of civil litigation arising from an airplane crash.

The Board argued the motion judge applied the wrong legal test under s. 28(6) of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly balanced the public interest in the proper administration of justice against the statutory privilege attached to the CVR.

The court upheld the production order, noting the CVR's high relevance and reliability, but reversed a minor order regarding a flight animation that was not properly before the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following the hearing of two appeals.

The Van Breda respondents and the Charron respondents were each awarded costs fixed at $45,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The respondents Hola Sun Holidays Limited and Bel Air Travel Group Ltd. were each awarded costs fixed at $10,000.

No costs were ordered for or against the interveners.

The appellants, out-of-province resort operators, appealed decisions dismissing their motions to stay or dismiss personal injury actions for want of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal convened a five-judge panel to reconsider the Muscutt test for assumed jurisdiction.

The Court modified the Muscutt test by elevating the weight given to Rule 17.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, creating a presumption of a real and substantial connection for most of its subrules.

The Court also collapsed the fairness factors and clarified the distinction between jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens.

Applying the revised test, the Court found a real and substantial connection between Ontario and the appellants in both cases and upheld the motion judges' decisions that Ontario was the appropriate forum.

Matrix Integrated Solutions Limited appealed an order staying its action against Radiant Hospitality Systems Ltd. based on a forum selection clause in their Reseller Agreement.

Matrix alleged that its former employees breached fiduciary duties and that Radiant conspired with them.

The Court of Appeal held that the claims for breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy were not contractual in nature and did not arise out of or in connection with the Reseller Agreement.

Therefore, the forum selection clause did not apply.

The appeal was allowed and the stay was set aside.

The plaintiffs appealed an order dismissing their motion to add the selling dealership as a defendant after the expiry of the two-year limitation period under the Highway Traffic Act.

The plaintiffs argued the discoverability principle applied because they only learned of a potential defect when they received a recall notice from the manufacturer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence of due diligence in investigating the cause of the accident during the limitation period or in the months following the commencement of the action against the manufacturer.

The appellants, Ontario residents, brought an action in Ontario against a Tennessee corporation for injuries sustained in a slip and fall at the respondent's restaurant in New York.

The respondent moved to stay the proceedings on jurisdictional grounds.

The Court of Appeal applied the factors from the companion case of Muscutt v. Courcelles and held that Ontario courts could not assume jurisdiction over the out-of-province respondent, as the real and substantial connection test was not met and assuming jurisdiction would violate principles of order and fairness.

The appeal was dismissed.