Robby Bernstein

The appellant sought to amend its statement of claim to add a claim for breach of contractual warranty after its original claim for negligent design was dismissed by summary judgment.

The motion judge refused the amendment, finding it would cause non-compensable prejudice and require the withdrawal of an admission.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the prejudice relied upon (death of witnesses, destruction of documents, alteration of the plant) existed before the action was commenced and therefore did not result from the proposed amendment.

The Court also found that the original pleading did not contain an admission precluding the amendment.

The appellant brought a proposed class action against Health Canada, alleging negligent regulation of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) implants.

The motion judge struck the claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, holding that it was plain and obvious that Health Canada did not owe a private law duty of care to individual consumers of medical devices.

The statutory scheme did not create a proximate relationship, and the pleadings failed to allege specific representations or reliance that would establish proximity under the Anns/Cooper test.

Following an appeal, the Court of Appeal issued a supplementary costs endorsement regarding the costs of the underlying summary judgment motion.

The Court directed that the costs of the motion be fixed by the motion judge in light of the appeal's result, unfettered by the terms of the original judgment.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action against the respondents for damages related to cracked heat recovery steam generators at a power plant.

The motion judge had ruled the claims were barred by the 12-month limitation period under the Professional Engineers Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of claims based on engineering design deficiencies but allowed the appeal regarding the proposed amended claims for breach of a product durability warranty, finding a genuine issue for trial as to whether those claims fell outside the scope of professional engineering services and were subject to a six-year limitation period.