Thomas Whillier

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision finding him incapable of consenting to antipsychotic and mood stabilizer treatment.

The board had granted an adjournment to allow the appellant to obtain counsel, but when the hearing resumed, the appellant appeared without counsel.

The majority held that the board did not breach procedural fairness because the appellant did not refuse legal representation but rather indicated he was prepared to represent himself.

The dissent argued the board failed to follow its own guidelines requiring a mini-inquiry to determine whether the appellant was making an informed decision to proceed without counsel, and that the board should have intervened when the appellant's condition deteriorated during the hearing.

The moving defendants brought a Rule 22 motion seeking determination of whether Ontario or Alberta law governed the plaintiff’s contractual and tort claims arising from a fire allegedly caused by a defective fryer and oven system supplied to an Alberta poultry processing plant.

The parties agreed that if Alberta law governed the tort claims, the claims would be statute‑barred under Alberta’s ultimate limitation period.

Applying the lex loci delicti rule from Tolofson v. Jensen, the court held that Alberta law governed the tort claims because the damage occurred in Alberta, and therefore those claims were dismissed as statute‑barred.

However, applying the “closest and most real connection” test for contractual choice of law, the court found the contract was most closely connected to Ontario, where the system was designed and supplied.

Ontario law therefore governed the contractual claims.

A food processing company sued a manufacturer of aseptic liner bags after over 1,200 containers of tomato sauce leaked and collapsed during warehouse storage, alleging defects in the bags’ side seams.

The defendant argued the failure resulted from the plaintiff’s use of oversized corrugated boxes, inadequate structural support, and multi-tier stacking during long-term storage.

Expert evidence conflicted on whether seam defects or packaging design and storage conditions caused the failures.

The court held the plaintiff had not proven on a balance of probabilities that the bags were defective and instead found the more likely explanation was the plaintiff’s choice of incompatible boxes and stacking methods.

The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed.

The defendant’s counterclaim for unpaid invoices was stayed due to the plaintiff’s Notice of Intention to make a proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the set down date for a complex product liability action and to place the proceeding and a related action into case management.

The defendants opposed the extension, arguing that the plaintiff had failed to comply with multiple court-ordered timetables and that the delay warranted dismissal due to prejudice, including the loss of documents and witnesses.

The court held that while the plaintiff’s prosecution of the action had been slow, its explanations for delay were plausible and it had taken ongoing steps to advance the litigation.

The court found that the evidence of prejudice was weak and largely speculative, and that the plaintiff had established a prima facie absence of actual prejudice to the defendants.

The set down date was extended, but the request to place the matter into case management was refused.