Simon looking earnest in Preveza, Greece

SimonShields@isp.com

Free Online Lawyer Consultations

Legal Guides
tenant / small claims / welfare (ontario works) / odsp / human rights / employment / consumer /
collection agencies / criminal injuries compensation / sppa (admin law) / animal cruelty / dogs & cats / wild animal law (all Canada)

home / about / testimonials / Conditions of Use

THE LATEST WORD

... what's this?

OTHER HISTORICAL CASES


----------------- ???
Jurisdiction - Statutory Courts


--------------- parties
Jurisdiction - Statutory Courts
Crown - Role of Crown Counsel
R v Fercan Developments Inc. (Ont CA, 2016)
Courts - Jurisdiction - Forum Non Conveniens


--------------- representation
Courts - Representation by Non-Licensees
Jurisdiction - Choice of Law
Das v. George Weston Limited (Ont CA, 2018)

----------------------------------------- TRAVEL

67. Ace Aviation Holding Inc. v. Holden, 2008 CanLII 40223 (Ont Div Ct, 2008) - lost airline luggage lawsuit; whether second passenger who had property in lost luggage can also sue and thus double the liability cap

68. Princess Cruises v. Nicolazzo, 2009 CanLII 28217 (Ont Div Ct, 2009) - lost property on ocean cruise lawsuit (venue issues)

69. Miskewycz v. Gaal, 2009 CanLII 2489 (Ont Div Ct, 2009) - travel agent found liable on breach of duty under TI/A to inform client of travel documentation requirements to destination country


------------------------------- PARTIES / CIVIL PROCEDURE?

- Sun‑Rype Products Ltd. v. Archer Daniels Midland Company, 2013 SCC 58 (CanLII) AND Pro‑Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Microsoft Corporation, 2013 SCC 57 (CanLII) [do together - Pro-Sys first, they relate to PARTY status of strangers to contract]

-------------------------- Issue estoppel

Penner v. Niagara (Regional Police Services Board), 2013 SCC 19, [2013] 2 SCR 125

-------------------------- Associations / Judicial Review

Mason v. Chem-Trend Limited Partnership, 2011 ONCA 344 (CanLII)

- judicial review of non-govt organizations

-------------------------- Administrative

. the fairness analysis recently adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada in Penner v. Niagara (Regional Police Services Board), 2013 SCC 19 (CanLII), 2013 SCC 19, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 125.

-------------------------- CRIMINAL/REGULATORY PROSECUTIONS

17. R. v. Richard, 1996 CanLII 185 (SCC) [Part I POA (ticket) deemed admission on non-attendence at trial and Charter 11(d) presumption of innocence]

18. Boucher v. The Queen, 1954 CanLII 3 (SCC) [neutral role of crown in crim prosecutions]

21. R. v. Briscoe, 2010 SCC 13 (CanLII) [mens rea for criminal aiding and abetting]

32. R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32 (CanLII) ['detention' by police defined]

---------------------------- ESTOPPEL

30. R. v. Mahalingan, 2008 SCC 63 [elements of issue estoppel]

---------------------------- FIDUCIARY DUTY

75. detailed discussion of types of, and breach of, fiduciary duties (upheld on appeal to the CA): Harris v. Leikin Group Inc., 2013 ONSC 1525 (CanLII) [see paras 390-401-ish re Slunder points]

60. Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 SCC 71 (CanLII)
- the issue here was whether the federal Crown, having charge of accounts containing employee and employer contributions accumulated in furtherance of statutory pension requirements (for public servants, the RCMP and the Canadian Forces), thereby owed a fiduciary duty with respect to such funds to the present and future pension recipients; the context was that the federal Crown transferred, under a statutory requirement to do so, of such funds ($28 billion) into it's general revenue fund when the total amounts were deemed actuarially surplus to meet projected entitlements
- the various employee groups challenged this transfer, largely on 'expropriation without compensation' and breach of fiduciary duty arguments; the court however relied heavily on the statutory basis of the transaction to reject these arguments; the court held that the only legal or equitable interest of the employees was in their defined pension entitlements (to which extent the Crown, as manager of such funds, was indeed a fiduciary), not to any surplus in the accounts pooled to fund such entitlements
- the court even reasoned (IMHO quite dubiously) that the holding of the funds in accounts separate from the Consolidated Revenue Fund was merely an accounting convenience, and that as such the funds could not thereby be taken ('deprived') from the employees, never have been held to the employees' account at any time

------------------------------ HUMAN RIGHTS (maybe refer to Guide)

- Moore v British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 (CanLII) - this was a BC Human Rights Code case that alleged discrimination on the basis of disability (dyslexia) in the provision of services (education), when remedial school services geared to the applicant's disability were discontinued
- while the case turned largely on the specific wording of the BC Code's s.8 provision that protected a right to "any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public", and of the BC School Act which promised adequate education to "all learners", it is possible to read those protections as being implicit in the Ontario and other Canadian Human Rights Codes
- relying largely on fact-findings that the District has made no alternate provisions for such special needs students, that it conducted no study to determine possible replacement programming, and that the cutting of the program as a budget measure was born disproportionality by the special needs program (in contrast to other programs), the court found for the applicant:
[para 52] The failure to consider financial alternatives completely undermines what is, in essence, the District’s argument, namely that it was justified in providing no meaningful access to an education for Jeffrey because it had no economic choice. In order to decide that it had no other choice, it had at least to consider what those other choices were.
- while the court upheld compensatory remedies granted to the applicant to pay for private remedial services and related expenses, it overturned - on the basis of remoteness - 'systemic' remedial orders of the Tribunal requiring increased funding for special education, the establishment of mechanisms to ensure future special needs service delivery and that the Tribunal retained jurisdiction over the matter to ensure compliance

------------------------------- STATUTES

- R. v. Dineley, 2012 SCC 58 (CanLII) - in this criminal case, legislation as to what evidence a defendant could adduce in defence (a toxicology report in a DUI case) was amended between the time of the offence and the time of the trial (to bar such reports)
- traditionally the law in these circumstances has been that if a legislative change is procedural then it applies right away, but if it is substantive (ie. about rights) then the new law cannot apply to the case
- the court here however held that the proper test was not whether the legislative change was procedural or substantive in nature, but whether it effected substantive rights, which the court here held that it did
- as well, any legislative change that effected Charter rights would be presumed to effect substantive rights as well

------------------------------- CROWN / Liability

- Gratton-Masuy Environmental Technologies Inc. v. Ontario, 2010 ONCA 501 (CanLII) (Ont CA, 2010) - this case engages in an extended discussion of when non-corporate statutory bodies (here a commission established under the Building Code Act) are categorically exempt from being sued; cp to OLRB situation

------------------------------------ SECURITIES

66. Questrade Inc. v. Gu, 2011 ONSC 4106 (CanLII) (Ont Div Ct, 2011) - this case is interesting not so much for any legal principles that it applies but for the insight it gives into the world of 'margin trading' in the stock market

--------------------------- Bad Faith

- bad faith (in context of suing government; leading case): Finney v. Barreau (Québec), 2004 SCC 36 (CanLII), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 17

--------------------------- Fraud

R. v. Drabinsky, 2011 ONCA 582 (CanLII)

------------------ Liens / good lien reading

D 2015-10-23 Connolly v. Advantagewon Inc., 2015 ONCA 709 (CanLII) [good lien reading]

---------------------- Gifts

[5] Contrary to the appellant’s submission, these factual findings made by the trial judge met the three criteria for a gift set out in McNamee v. McNamee, 2011 ONCA 533 (CanLII), 106 O.R. (3d) 401 (C.A.).

----------------------- Stare Decisis / leading case on stare decisis

Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72 (CanLII),

------------------------ Fraud / Fraudulent concealment to extend limitation period

[10] Applying the principles regarding fraudulent concealment enunciated by this court in Giroux Estate v. Trillium Health Centre (2005), 2005 CanLII 1488 (ON CA), 74 O.R. (3d) 341 (C.A.),

------------------ Prerogative Writs (maybe merge with habeas corpus) / leading case on mandamus

[76] According to the City, the relevant aspects of that test, set out in Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 1993 CanLII 3004 (FCA), [1994] 1 F.C. 742 (C.A.), at pp. 766-67, aff’d by 1994 CanLII 47 (SCC), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1100, are as follows:

i) there must be a public legal duty to act;

ii) the duty must be owed to the applicant;

iii) there must be a clear right to the performance of that duty; and

iv) if the decision is discretionary, mandamus is unavailable where the decision-making power is unqualified, absolute, permissive or unfettered.

=====================================================================================================
======================================= MISCELLANEOUS ===============================================
=====================================================================================================

------------------ do the judge's Div Ct and CA caselists as well

------------------ Ramdath v. George Brown College of Applied Arts and Technology, 2015 ONCA 921 (CanLII)

------------------ Livent Inc. v. Deloitte & Touche, 2016 ONCA 11 (CanLII) [SCC case too?]

------------------ Trang (SCC) from November 2016 [the CA case of this is already posted and heavily quoted]

------------------ London Drugs Ltd. v. Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd. (SCC, 1992) [corporate oppression?]
Law Society Number #37308N / Website © Simon Shields 2005-2019