Sanjit Rajayer

At a trial management conference, an issue arose as to whether the plaintiff's pleadings in an Indigenous land claim action sought the recovery of Crown lands or merely monetary relief for alleged breaches of duty.

The court ruled that determining this issue before trial was necessary.

Analyzing the pleadings, the court found the claim exclusively sought equitable compensation, damages, and accounting, and did not properly plead any present-day interest in or right to recover actual Crown land in the Haldimand Tract.

Appeal from summary judgment in a life insurance coverage dispute arising after the insurer denied a beneficiary's claim based on an alleged change in insurability between the insured's application and delivery of the policy.

The Court of Appeal held that s. 180(1)(c) of the Insurance Act creates a condition precedent to contract formation and is not subject to the two-year contestability limitation in s. 184(2).

The court rejected both the argument that s. 180(1)(c) operates only prospectively and the argument that the policy's incontestability clause ousted the statutory requirement.

The appeal was allowed, the summary judgment set aside, and the parties were left to determine how to litigate the insurability issue.

The appellant vendor breached agreements of purchase and sale for two development properties.

The trial judge awarded the respondent purchaser $15.5 million in damages based on lost development profits, rejecting the appellant's argument that damages should be limited to the difference between the contract price and the resale price to a third party.

The trial judge also found the respondent did not fail to mitigate its damages when its affiliates purchased other properties.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge did not err in accepting the lost development profits approach endorsed by both parties' experts, as it appropriately measured the specific economic opportunity lost.

The Court also upheld the finding that the affiliates' purchases were independent transactions that did not mitigate the loss.

During pre-trial examinations in an Indigenous land claim, the plaintiff cross-examined the Crown's expert historian.

The Crown and Ontario objected to several questions, arguing they exceeded the expert's scope of expertise regarding pre-confederation Ontario land systems and strayed into Crown-Indigenous relations.

The court ruled on six objections, allowing questions that sought historical context for documents raised in chief, but sustaining objections to questions seeking opinions on matters outside the expert's specific research, such as the Indigenous perspective on the Crown's protective role.

This endorsement from a case conference addressed several procedural issues in a complex litigation involving Indigenous land claims.

The court provided directions regarding preparatory materials for upcoming out-of-court expert examinations, including the appointment of a hybrid commissioner and deadlines for expert report summaries and legal arguments.

The court also addressed a dispute regarding the scope of cross-examination of an expert witness, directing the parties to narrow issues concerning adversity of interest before seeking further judicial determination.

Finally, the court confirmed the appointment of a pre-trial judge and scheduled the next case conference.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against numerous pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors regarding the marketing and sale of opioids in Canada.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and one defendant, Pro Doc Limitée, moved to dismiss the action against it for lack of jurisdiction.

The court granted Pro Doc's jurisdiction motion, finding no real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The court struck the claims against the distributor defendants without leave to amend, finding no viable cause of action.

The court found that while there were viable causes of action against the manufacturer defendants for breach of the Competition Act, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and failure to warn, the plaintiff's pleading was defective.

The court struck the claims against the manufacturer defendants with leave to amend to join representative plaintiffs for each defendant group and to comply with the rules of pleading.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion seeking leave to examine three expert witnesses before trial.

The parties largely resolved the motion, leaving the court to adjudicate the quantum of interim costs payable by Canada to the plaintiff (Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians) and the costs of the motion.

The court awarded the plaintiff $150,000 in interim costs to indemnify for financial prejudice due to duplicated work and early incurred expenses from the pre-trial examinations.

The court declined to award costs for the motion itself, finding that all parties had compromised their positions and no exceptional circumstances warranted a costs award.