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.

La competencia del orden social para declarar una sucesión de empresas en caso de adquisición de unidad productiva en concurso no parece albergar duda alguna para la Sala de lo Social del Tribunal Supremo. A tal fin, se imponen la aplicación de la norma laboral, las consecuencias derivadas sobre la responsabilidad solidaria de empresa adquirente y transmitente en toda su extensión —para contratos vigentes y deudas derivadas de contratos ya extinguidos— y la inviabilidad, en tal caso, de la exoneración contenida en el plan de liquidación.

Iniciado un despido colectivo y alcanzado un acuerdo entre los representantes de los trabajadores y el empresario en el periodo de consultas, se plantea si la impugnación individual de cada despido puede cuestionar la concurrencia de las causas que lo motivan. El diferente tratamiento normativo —laboral, concursal, procesal— y la distinta dicción sobre esta materia en procesos de naturaleza colectiva —modificación sustancial, movilidad, suspensión contractual— obligan a precisar una solución, sustantiva y procesalmente determinante.

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.

In accordance with EU legislation, Member States have the power to limit the obligation of public guarantee institutions to pay employees’ claims in the event of their employer’s insolvency. The Court of Justice found to be compliant a national provision (Bulgarian law) that confines the protection given by said guarantee institutions to those employment relationships that have not ended within the three months prior to the opening of insolvency proceedings.

Todos los supuestos de extinción en que ésta es adoptada por voluntad del trabajador, pero derivada de una decisión unilateral de la empresa, han de tener el mismo tratamiento por parte de los Estados miembros. Así lo señala el Tribunal de de Justicia en un reciente pronunciamiento en el que resuelve una cuestión cuya trascendencia práctica desborda el supuesto planteado específicamente.

El orden social mantiene no sólo su competencia, sino la aplicación del régimen jurídico de la sucesión laboral de empresa, aun cuando exista un auto del juez del concurso por el que se exonere de deudas a la empresa adquirente.

Un reciente pronunciamiento del orden contencioso-administrativo resulta sumamente útil en una controversia que parece irresoluble. La sentencia se pronuncia sobre un supuesto fáctico que precisa aplicar la Ley Concursal en su redacción anterior a la reforma del 2014.

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.