Thomas N. T. Sutton

The applicants sought to extend an interim Mareva injunction restraining the United Republic of Tanzania from removing a newly purchased aircraft from Ontario, pending an application to recognize and enforce an international arbitral award.

Tanzania opposed the extension, arguing sovereign immunity, lack of full disclosure, and failure to meet the Mareva test.

The court rejected Tanzania's arguments, finding that by signing a Bilateral Investment Treaty and agreeing to UNCITRAL rules, Tanzania consented to interim measures.

The court extended the injunction, holding that the applicants had a strong prima facie case and the balance of convenience favoured them.

The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against the defendants relating to cosmetic facial surgery.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The plaintiff alleged breaches of the standard of care, lack of informed consent, battery, fraud, and vicarious liability.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to tender any admissible expert evidence to support her claims, while the defendants provided uncontradicted expert evidence that the standard of care was met and the procedures were appropriate.

The court applied the 'full appreciation test' under Rule 20 and concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

The tax debtor owed tax to the federal government.

The Minister of National Revenue issued requirements to pay to the appellant bank, seeking to intercept funds from cheques drawn by the tax debtor on his trust account and deposited into a joint account held by the tax debtor and a third party.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the bank was not liable to make a payment to the tax debtor personally.

When the bank received the cheques for deposit into the joint account, it acted as a collecting bank for the joint account holders, not as an agent for the payee.

Therefore, the requirements to pay under s. 224(1) of the Income Tax Act were not triggered.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing its motion to vary the terms of an injunction.

The moving party argued the decision conflicted with other cases and there was good reason to doubt its correctness.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no conflict in principle, no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and that the proposed appeal did not involve matters of general public importance.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the responding party.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' request for judicial review of a decision denying them admission to a master's program, the successful university sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court weighed the factors under Rule 57, noting the complexity of the issues, the unfounded allegations of bias, and the applicants' failure to mitigate.

The court awarded the university partial indemnity costs fixed at $15,000 for fees and $8,665.31 for disbursements, payable equally by the three applicants.

A dissenting judge would have awarded a lower quantum of costs with an extended time to pay.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her medical malpractice action against the respondent doctor, who had prescribed Garasone for ear infections, allegedly causing ototoxicity.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings on credibility, standard of care, and causation, finding no palpable and overriding error.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal costs and varied the trial costs award to disbursements only, reflecting the respondent's change in evidence from discovery to trial and conduct that attracted negative comment.