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.
The Court of Appeal has held that refusal of consent for both good and bad reasons will not automatically render that refusal unreasonable.
Background
Most commercial leases require tenants to obtain the consent of their landlord prior to assigning their lease. If so, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 (the Act) applies to say that if the tenant serves a valid application for consent, the landlord will be subject to the following duties: