Good afternoon.

Following are our summaries of last week’s civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Not surprisingly, it was a light week.

Good afternoon.

Please find below our summaries of this past week’s civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Topics covered included insurance broker negligence, zoning (use) bylaw enforcement, the wrongful termination of a commercial lease and the automatic right of appeal of bankruptcy orders.

Good afternoon.

Following are this week’s summaries of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

In Thistle v Schumilias, an insurer refused to pay out on a life insurance policy on the basis that the insured had failed to disclose a pre-existing medical condition. The respondent commenced an action against the insurance company and during that litigation became aware of the potential professional negligence of the insurance agent who sold the policy.

Good afternoon.

Following are this week’s summaries of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

In Armstrong v. Royal Victoria Hospital, the plaintiff was seriously injured during a colectomy surgery. The trial judge found the doctor who completed the surgery negligently caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The doctor appealed this liability finding, arguing that the trial judge erred by (i) establishing a standard of perfection; and (ii) conflating the causation and standard of care analysis.

Good evening.

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

Good evening,

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

Good evening.

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

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.

(12) 信托计划中受托人对股权投资应当如何进行管理？

实践中，信托计划受托人取得股权主要基于两种情形，一是基于受托而取得股权，即委托人将自己合法持有的股权作为信托财产，转移至受托人管理和处分；二是基于投资而取得股权，即委托人先把自己合法持有的信托资金或其他财产转移至受托人，进而由受托人通过管理、运用该等受托财产，以增资、受让等方式投资取得股权并对该等股权进行管理和处分。

基于受托人取得股权的不同情形，受托人对股权投资的管理责任不完全相同。

如受托人系基于受托取得股权，受托人的股东身份更接近“名义股东”，其对投资股权的管理主要受限于信托合同约定的信托财产的运用及管理方式。