Good evening.

Below are summaries of the civil decisions released by the Court of Appeal for Ontario this week.

Llamo la atención sobre las dos cuestiones enunciadas, que tienen una indudable relevancia práctica en relación con los recursos extraordinarios:

1) La Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo 61/2019 de 31 enero (RJ 2019\227) aborda cuál debe ser la correcta interpretación del artículo 167.1 de la Ley Concursal, que contempla los supuestos en los que «no procederá la formación de la sección de calificación del concurso» cuando en el mismo haya sido aprobado judicialmente un convenio: si se establece en él, «para todos los acreedores o para los de una o varias clases, entendiendo igualmente por tales las establecidas en el artículo 94.2, una quita inferior a un tercio del importe de sus créditos o una espera inferior a tres años, salvo que res

 Se examina, en concreto, el supuesto de que se acuerde el régimen de suspensión de facultades y la administración concursal decide no hacer operativa en la primera instancia la sustitución prevista en la ley.

1. Los hechos analizados por la STS 570/2018, de 15 de octubre (RJ 2018/4613) y el problema planteado

Los hechos relevantes son los siguientes:

There were six substantive civil decisions released by the Court of Appeal this week. There were many criminal decisions released.

In Wall v. Shaw, the Court determined that there is no limitation period to objecting to accounts in an application to pass accounts in an estates matter. A notice of objection is not a “proceeding” within the meaning of the Limitations Act, 2002.

Following are the summaries for the civil decisions released by the Court of Appeal this week.

There were two wrongful dismissal cases this week. One was brought by a physician against Sick Kids Hospital. The Court found against the Hospital and allowed the appeal, remitting the matter back to the Superior Court for a determination of the damages. The second involved the breach of fiduciary duty of a senior officer of a public company who was found to have been self-dealing. The Court confirmed that the breach of fiduciary duty constituted just cause for termination.

Good evening,

Below are this week’s summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal.

Topics this week included personal injury, family law, employment law, property law, mortgages, bankruptcy and insolvency and extensions of time to appeal.

Have a nice weekend.

Below are this week’s summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal.

Congratulations to our very own Bill Anderson for succeeding on our client’s appeal in Holmes v. Hatch Ltd., 2017 ONCA 880.

In this Employment law decision, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal from the motion judge’s decision granting summary judgment against our client on the basis that the motion judge was not at liberty to find liability on a legal theory that was not pleaded by the plaintiff and which our client did not have an opportunity to properly address in the evidence.

Good evening.

Below are the summaries of this week’s civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

There were four substantive civil decision released this week. The first, Sturino v. Crown Capital Corporation is a priority dispute in the receivership context. The second, Iroquois Falls Power Corporation v. Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation involved a motion to stay a Superior Court order pending the determination of a leave application to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (the stay was denied). The third, Silva v.