3 total
Corporate applicant granted leave to discontinue action; cross-motion to continue derivative action denied for lack of standing.
The applicant corporation sought to discontinue its claim against the defendant lessor.
The defendant by counterclaim, Ms. Gala, opposed the discontinuance and brought a cross-motion for leave to continue the action in the applicant's name under the Business Corporations Act.
The court found that Ms. Gala was neither a director nor a 'deemed director' of the applicant, and therefore lacked standing to initiate or continue the action on its behalf.
The applicant was granted leave to discontinue the action, and the cross-motion was dismissed.
Governments not vicariously liable for indigenous police service actions; no private law duty of care owed.
The respondents' family members were killed in a motor vehicle collision caused by a driver fleeing a high-speed pursuit by the Akwesasne Mohawk Police Service.
The respondents sued the police service and the governments of Ontario, Quebec, and Canada, alleging vicarious liability and direct negligence.
The governments appealed the dismissal of their summary judgment motions and the granting of the respondents' motion to amend their pleadings.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, finding that the quadripartite policing agreement did not create a relationship sufficiently close to impose vicarious liability on the provinces, and that the governments owed no private law duty of care to the deceased based on a 1991 audit report.
Foreign judgment from non‑reciprocating jurisdiction must be enforced by action, not application.
A Quebec law firm sought a declaration in Ontario recognizing and enforcing a Quebec judgment for unpaid legal fees under rule 14.05(3)(h) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court held that a foreign judgment from a non‑reciprocating jurisdiction creates a debt based on an implied promise to pay, which must be enforced through a new action rather than an application for declaratory relief.
The court rejected prior authorities suggesting that an application was available under rule 14.05(3)(h).
Because the amount claimed fell within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, the proper forum for any enforcement proceeding was that court rather than the Superior Court of Justice.
The application was therefore dismissed.
