Peter William Kryworuk

The appellants, contractors and their employees, were charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act following a workplace accident during an expansion project at Pearson International Airport.

A justice of the peace quashed the charges, finding the appellants' work was integral to a core federal aeronautics undertaking and thus immune from provincial legislation.

The application judge granted certiorari and mandamus, setting aside the decision and directing a trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants' normal operations as going concerns were not integral to the federal undertaking, and the application of provincial workplace safety standards did not impair the core of federal jurisdiction over aeronautics.

The appellant was acquitted of Occupational Health and Safety Act charges at trial.

The Crown successfully appealed to the Provincial Offences Appeal Court, where the appeal judge permitted the Crown to rely on a new theory of liability regarding supervisor status and raised additional dispositive issues on her own motion without allowing submissions.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appellant's appeal, holding that it is improper for the Crown to advance a new theory of liability on an appeal against acquittal, and that the appellant was denied a fair hearing when the appeal judge decided the case on unargued grounds.

A new hearing was ordered.

The appellants were injured in motor vehicle accidents and commenced both accident benefits arbitration proceedings and civil actions for damages.

In the arbitration proceedings, they were compelled to submit to medical examinations.

The respondents in the civil actions sought production of the resulting medical reports.

The appellants refused, relying on the implied undertaking rule.

The Court of Appeal held that neither the deemed undertaking rule under the Rules of Civil Procedure nor the common law implied undertaking rule applied to protect the medical reports from disclosure in the tort actions, as the rule protects against use by the recipient of the information, not against all uses by the source of the information.

The appeals were dismissed.

The plaintiffs were injured in motor vehicle accidents and commenced both accident benefit arbitration proceedings and tort actions.

In the tort actions, the defendants sought production of medical reports obtained during the arbitration proceedings.

The motions judges dismissed the requests, relying on the implied undertaking rule.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that neither the deemed undertaking rule nor the implied undertaking rule protected the medical reports from disclosure.

The reports were highly relevant to the tort actions, and the plaintiffs had waived their privacy interests by putting their medical conditions in issue.

The appeals were allowed and the plaintiffs were ordered to produce the reports.

The appellants suffered severe injuries in a motor vehicle accident caused by an underinsured driver.

They sued their government-owned insurer for the shortfall, alleging the insurer failed to inform them about the availability of underinsured motorist coverage (UMC).

The Supreme Court of Canada held that a public insurer owes a duty of care to inform its customers of all available optional coverages, their purpose, and their cost.

The Court found the insurer breached this duty by providing inadequate and confusing information, and restored the trial judge's award of damages for the shortfall and costs on a solicitor and client basis.