Robert B. Bell

The appellant appealed a case management master's order compelling answers to various discovery questions in litigation arising from the crash of a Bombardier Global 5000 aircraft and a subsequent insurance coverage dispute.

The appellant argued the questions were irrelevant because the case turned solely on contractual interpretation of a pilot training clause and also asserted statutory privilege over information related to a Transportation Safety Board investigation.

The court held that the circumstances of the accident, pilot training, and statements provided to the Transportation Safety Board were relevant to issues raised in the pleadings, including whether simulator time satisfied the contractual pilot training requirement.

The court further held the statutory privilege argument was improperly raised for the first time on appeal and, in any event, the public interest in the proper administration of justice outweighed the claimed privilege.

The master's discovery orders were upheld.

The appellant college appealed a trial judgment finding it negligently misrepresented the benefits of its graduate international business management program in its course calendar, breaching the Consumer Protection Act (CPA).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that a special relationship existed giving rise to a duty of care, that students are 'consumers' under the CPA, and that proof of individual reliance is not required to establish an unfair practice under the CPA.

The plaintiffs, former students of a post-graduate international business program, brought a class action against the defendant college.

The college's course calendar represented that the program provided the opportunity to complete three industry designations in addition to a graduate certificate.

The students discovered that the college had no agreements with the industry associations and could not confer the designations.

The court found that the college was negligent in making the misrepresentation and breached the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, as the students were 'consumers' under the Act.

The plaintiffs were entitled to monetary compensation, with damages to be determined in a subsequent phase.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the reasons of the motion judge and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant did not pursue his costs appeal, so leave to appeal costs was denied.

The respondent was awarded costs of the appeal fixed at $8,000.

The appellant, a non-settling defendant in a class action arising from an aviation accident, appealed an order approving partial settlements.

The appellant argued that the settlement's bar orders, which prohibited further discovery of the settling defendants, would prejudice its defence and prevent the trial court from properly allocating fault.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the bar orders did not prevent the appellant from raising its liability arguments at trial.

The Court also upheld the motion judge's finding that the benefits of the settlement to the class outweighed any remote prejudice to the appellant's procedural rights.

The plaintiff was injured when she fell from the rear bumper of her parked pick-up truck after the tailgate collapsed due to an allegedly defective latch mechanism.

She sued the manufacturer nearly five years later.

The manufacturer moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by the two-year limitation period for 'damages occasioned by a motor vehicle' under s. 206(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the truck was not the dominant feature of the claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, concluding the truck was not acting in the character of a motor vehicle and the damages were not occasioned by a motor vehicle.

The appellant's husband, while acting as an estate trustee, misappropriated millions of dollars from an estate and used the funds to purchase and renovate a luxury matrimonial home, placing title in the appellant's name.

The motion judge granted partial summary judgment against the husband, imposed a constructive trust on the home in favour of the estate, and issued a vesting order.

The appellant appealed, arguing she had contributed her own funds to the home and that the vesting order was improper.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that all funds for the home's purchase and renovation came from the misappropriated estate funds, the vesting order was a proper exercise of discretion under section 100 of the Courts of Justice Act, and any notional entitlement the appellant had to reimbursement was offset by the financial benefits of living rent-free in the home for a decade.

The plaintiff, a commercial cattle farmer, brought a proposed class action against a cattle feed manufacturer and the federal government for economic losses resulting from the closure of foreign borders due to a case of mad cow disease (BSE).

The defendants moved to strike the claims for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding it was not plain and obvious that the negligent manufacture claim against the feed manufacturer or the negligent regulation claim against the government would fail.

However, the court agreed it was plain and obvious that the manufacturer owed no duty to warn farmers who did not purchase its feed.

All three appeals were dismissed.

The plaintiff, a commercial cattle farmer, brought a proposed class action against a cattle feed manufacturer and the federal government for economic losses resulting from the closure of foreign borders due to a case of mad cow disease (BSE).

The defendants moved to strike the claims for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding it was not plain and obvious that the negligent manufacture claim against the feed manufacturer or the negligent regulation claim against the government would fail.

However, the court agreed it was plain and obvious that the manufacturer owed no duty to warn farmers who did not purchase its feed.

All three appeals were dismissed.

The appellants' premises were searched pursuant to an Anton Piller order obtained by the respondents.

During the search, the respondents' solicitors seized electronic documents, some of which were subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The respondents' solicitors subsequently accessed and reviewed these privileged documents without the appellants' consent.

The appellants brought a motion to remove the respondents' solicitors of record.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that where lawyers obtain access to relevant solicitor-client confidences during an Anton Piller search, they bear the onus of rebutting the presumption of a resulting risk of prejudice.

The respondents' solicitors failed to discharge this burden and were removed from the record.

Following a successful appeal that certified the action as a class proceeding, the Court of Appeal issued a costs endorsement.

The appellants were awarded costs throughout on a partial indemnity scale.

The Court fixed the costs for the Divisional Court at $60,000 and for the Court of Appeal at $42,500, payable forthwith by the respondents jointly and severally.

The costs of the initial certification motion were referred back to the motion judge.

The appellants, members of various First Nations, sought to bring a class proceeding against the federal government and church entities for harms suffered at the Mohawk Institute Residential School between 1922 and 1969.

The motion judge and Divisional Court denied certification.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the criteria for certification under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met, including identifiable classes, common issues such as systemic negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, and the preferability of a class action.

The appellant insurance company appealed a decision regarding the cancellation of an insurance policy.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding the calculation of a premium refund.

The uncontradicted evidence showed that the insured requested the cancellation of the policy due to dissatisfaction with the broker.

The Court concluded that the entire policy, including the completed operations hazard provision, was cancelled.

The appeal was allowed and the application dismissed.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict finding them liable for defaming the respondent in a series of newspaper articles.

The jury awarded $150,000 in general damages and $100,000 in aggravated damages against the publisher.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge erred in his instructions on the defence of fair comment and that the aggravated damages award was inconsistent with the jury's finding of no malice at the liability stage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants failed to prove the underlying facts required for the fair comment defence, and that a finding of malice for aggravated damages can be based on post-publication conduct even if no malice existed at the time of publication.

In an addendum on costs following a successful appeal, the Court of Appeal declined to award costs to the successful appellants.

The majority held that the appellants' deliberate violation of a confidentiality agreement signed at mediation, combined with the novelty of the legal issues raised regarding mediation, justified a departure from the general rule that a successful party is entitled to costs.

A dissenting judge would have awarded costs, arguing the issues were not sufficiently novel and the appellants were entitled to costs after successfully defending against a serious contempt allegation.

The plaintiffs obtained an ex parte Anton Piller order to search and seize documents from the defendants' premises.

The order lacked a procedure for handling privileged documents.

During the search, electronic files containing privileged solicitor-client communications were seized and subsequently reviewed by the plaintiffs' counsel.

The defendants moved to disqualify the plaintiffs' solicitors.

The motions judge dismissed the motion, holding that the defendants had to prove pressing and substantial prejudice.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held this was an error of law; where relevant privileged documents are reviewed by opposing counsel, prejudice is assumed.

The appeal was allowed and the plaintiffs' solicitors were disqualified.

The appellant, a defendant in a libel action and publisher of a newspaper, published an article about a mandatory mediation session that failed to reach a settlement.

He later published another article about his experience being examined for discovery.

The plaintiff successfully moved to have the appellant found in contempt of court for breaching the confidentiality of the mediation process.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that neither Rule 24.1.14 nor the mediation confidentiality agreement constituted a court order enforceable by contempt under Rule 60.

Furthermore, the publications did not constitute contempt under the court's inherent jurisdiction as they did not pose a serious risk to the administration of justice.

The court also confirmed that the deemed undertaking rule (Rule 30.1) restricts the discovering party, not the discovered party, and thus was not breached by the appellant.

The appellants sought to certify a class action against the federal government and others for alleged systemic physical, emotional, spiritual, and cultural abuse at a residential school operated between 1922 and 1969.

The motion judge dismissed the certification application, finding that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure due to the highly individualized nature of the claims and the necessity of separate inquiries for each student.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's conclusion that the resolution of common issues would not significantly advance the litigation and that individual actions were the preferable alternative.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment finding that their insurer, Royal & SunAlliance, had no duty to defend claims against them arising from a sexual assault committed by an employee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the abuse and harassment exclusion clause clearly excluded liability for the sexual assault.

The court rejected the application of the concurrent cause analysis, finding that the negligent supervision claims were subsumed into the intentional tort claim and derived from the sexual assault.

The appellant valve manufacturer appealed from a Divisional Court order upholding partial refusal of summary judgment in a product liability action arising from a propane explosion and fire.

The Court of Appeal held that on a defendant's motion for summary judgment, the responding plaintiffs bore an evidentiary burden to show their negligent design and failure to warn claims were factually supported.

Applying the design defect framework, the court found no evidence identifying any defect in the valve or any safer economically feasible alternative design.

The failure to warn claim also failed because there was no evidence of an inherent danger known or knowable to the manufacturer.

The appeal was allowed and the claims against the manufacturer were dismissed in their entirety.