Jump To: Table of Contents | Civil Decisions | Short Civil Decisions
Good afternoon.
Following are our summaries of last week’s civil decisions released by the Court of Appeal for Ontario. There were four substantive decisions, but quite a few very short ones.
Topics covered included piercing the corporate veil to pursue costs against non-parties, the enforcement of settlements under Rule 49, the principles applicable to the interpretation of a zoning bylaw, and whether a refusal to stay an action in the class proceedings context is a final or interlocutory order.
John Polyzogopoulos
Blaney McMurtry LLP
416.593.2953 Email
Table of Contents
Civil Decisions
2222868 Ontario Inc. v. Grimsby (Town), 2020 ONCA 376
Keywords: Municipal Law, Zoning Bylaws, Interpretation, Standard of Review, Permitted Uses, Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s. 24, Greenbelt Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c.1, s.7, Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 23, Official Plan, Provincial Policy Statement, St. Mary’s Cement Inc. (Canada) v. Clarington (Municipality), 2012 ONCA 884, Sarnia (City) v. River City Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Sarnia, 2015 ONCA 494, Bele Himmell Investments Ltd. v. Mississauga (City), 1982 CarswellOnt 1946 (Div. Ct.), Goldlist Properties Inc. v. Toronto (City), 232 D.L.R. (4th) 298 (Ont. C.A.),
Chatsikiriakos v. Kilislian , 2020 ONCA 378
Keywords: Contracts, Employment, Wrongful Dismissal, Civil Procedure, Settlements, Enforcement, Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 49.04, Perri v. Concordian Chesterfield, 2003 CarswellOnt 6240 (SCJ), aff’d 2004 CanLII 2904 (CA),
Cornerstone Properties Inc. v. Southside Construction Management Limited , 2020 ONCA 380
Keywords: Civil Procedure, Costs, Simplified Procedure, Non-Parties, Abuse of Process, Corporations, Doctrine of Separate Corporate Personality, Piercing Corporate Veil, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 43, s. 131(1), Ontario Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16, s. 15, 431318847 Ontario Limited v. Laval Tool and Mould Ltd., 2017 ONCA 184, Williams Distinctive Gems Inc. v. Advantex Dining Corporation, 2019 ONCA 702
Drywall Acoustic Lathing Insulation Local 675 Pension Fund v. SNCLavalin Group Inc., 2020 ONCA 375
Keywords: Civil Procedure, Class Proceedings, Appeals, Jurisdiction, Final or Interlocutory, Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6, s. 14, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s 6(1)(b), 19(1)(b), Hendrickson v. KalIio, [1932] O.R. 675 (C.A.), Ball v. Donais (1993), 13 O.R. (3d) 322 (C.A.), Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. York Ridge Developments Ltd., 1998 CarswellOnt 4534 (C.A.), Hislop v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009 ONCA 354, leave to appeal refused, [2009] S.C.C.A. No. 264, Ontario v. Lipsitz, 2011 ONCA 466, leave to appeal refused, [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 407, Smith Estate v. National Money Mart Company, 2008 ONCA 746, leave to appeal refused, [2008] S.C.C.A. No. 535, M.J. Jones Inc. v. Kingsway General Insurance Co. (2003), 233 D.L.R. (4th) 285 (Ont. C.A.), Smerchanski v. Lewis (1980), 117 D.L.R. (3d) 716 (C.A.), CC&L Dedicated Enterprise Fund (Trustee of) v. Fisherman, 2001 CarswellOnt 3354 (C.A.), Ambrose v. Zuppardi, 2013 ONCA 768
Short Civil Decisions
Sagos v. Canada (Attorney General), 2020 ONCA 360
Keywords: Torts, Negligence, Police Liability, Negligent Investigation, Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment
Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 476 v. Wong , 2020 ONCA 363
Keywords: Real Property, Condominiums, Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Costs Endorsement
Burns v. RBC Life Insurance Company , 2020 ONCA 377
Keywords: Civil Procedure, Amending Pleadings, Costs Endorsement
Zhang v. Shenglin Financial Group Inc., 2020 ONCA 366
Keywords: Contracts, Interpretation, Standard of Review, Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53, Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., 2016 SCC 37
Couper v. Adair Barristers LLP , 2020 ONCA 372
Keywords: Solicitor and Client, Assessment of Accounts, Solicitors Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.15, s 28.1, Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 54.09(5), Evans Sweeny Bordin LLP v. Zawadzki, 2015 ONCA 756
Edgeworth v. Shapira , 2020 ONCA 374
Keywords: Torts, Conspiracy, Intrusion Upon Seclusion, Negligent Misrepresentation, Civil Procedure, Amending Pleadings, Removal of Solicitors of Record, Conflict of Interest, Appeals, Jurisdiction, Final or Interlocutory, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C 43, ss 6(2), Dobreff v. Davenport, 2007 ONCA 902, Marrocco v. John Doe, 2014 ONSC 5663 (Div. Ct.). Cole v. Hamilton (City), 60 O.R. (3d) 284 (CA), Mader v. South Easthope Mutual Insurance Co., 2014 ONCA 714
Formosa v. Persaud , 2020 ONCA 368
Keywords: Torts, Professional Negligence, Solicitors, Standard of Care, Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, McPeake v. Cadesky, 2018 ONCA 554, Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Municipal Police, 2007 SCC 41
Kerr v. Sezerman , 2020 ONCA 364
Keywords: Contracts, Employment, Constructive Dismissal, Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Documents, Production, Cross-Examination, Privilege, Draft Affidavits, Appeals, Jurisdiction, Final or Interlocutory
Mullings v. Robertson , 2020 ONCA 369
Keywords: Family Law, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Re-hearing, Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 37.14(6) and 59.06(2), 61.16(6.1), Trillium Motor World Ltd. v. Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, 2017 ONCA 840, leave to appeal dismissed, [2017] S.C.C.A. No. 366, First Elgin Mills Development Inc. v. Romandale Farms Limited, 2015 ONCA 54, R. v. H. (E.), 115 C.C.C. (3d) 89 (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [1997] S.C.C.A. No. 256
CIVIL DECISIONS
2222868 Ontario Inc. v. Grimsby (Town), 2020 ONCA 376
[Pepall, van Rensburg and Paciocco JJ.A.]
Counsel:
R. Andrew Biggart, for the appellant
Scott Snider and Shelley Kaufman, for the respondent
Keywords:Municipal Law, Zoning Bylaws, Interpretation, Standard of Review, Permitted Uses, Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s. 24, Greenbelt Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c.1, s.7, Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 23, Official Plan, Provincial Policy Statement, St. Mary’s Cement Inc. (Canada) v. Clarington (Municipality), 2012 ONCA 884, Sarnia (City) v. River City Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Sarnia, 2015 ONCA 494, Bele Himmell Investments Ltd. v. Mississauga (City), 1982 CarswellOnt 1946 (Div. Ct.), Goldlist Properties Inc. v. Toronto (City), 232 D.L.R. (4th) 298 (Ont. C.A.),
facts:
The respondent successfully applied to a judge having its use of its property as a works yard (storying construction machinery) declared a permitted use. The land was adjacent to a private regional airport on the same parcel of land and was zoned as being within a “Utility Area”. The Town appealed.
issues:
Did the application judge err:
a) in her interpretation of the By-law by permitting a private Works Yard “that is not in any way related to a Utility use”, notwithstanding:
i. that the lands are designated in the Official Plan as “Utility Areas” and are zoned “Utility” in the Town’s By-law consistent with the Official Plan;
ii. the context which includes consideration of the Official Plan and the permitted uses in the Utility Zone; and
iii. the applicable statutory and policy regime, which includes the Provincial Policy Statement and the Greenbelt Plan; and
b) in considering compatibility of land use as part of her assessment.
holding:
Appeal dismissed.
reasoning:
No.
The Court first summarized the principles relevant to the interpretation of a bylaw. The interpretation of a bylaw is a question of law, therefore the standard of review is correctness. The modern principles of statutory interpretation apply equally to bylaws. Official Plans are not statutes. The purpose of an Official Plan is to set out a framework of “goals, objectives and policies”. It establishes the broad principles that are to govern the municipality’s land use planning generally. Under the Planning Act, zoning by-laws are deemed conclusively to conform with an Official Plan in the absence of an appeal or appeal period applicable to the relevant provision. As by-laws are the means by which Official Plans are implemented, the terms of an Official Plan aid in the contextual interpretation of the by-law. An applicant for a building permit must be in compliance with the applicable By-law. Unambiguous by-laws provide clarity to the Chief Building Official and to a landowner.
In this case, the application judge identified and applied the correct test. She examined the Zone and the Permitted Uses contained in the By-law. Works Yard was specifically and unambiguously defined in the By-law. A Works Yard was identified as a separate Permitted Use and not as an Accessory Use. Had the Town intended to link Works Yard to utility use or to public or quasi-public uses, it could have done so by including a Qualification or Accessory use designation in the By-law as it did for other uses. Instead, the Town opted not to do so. Furthermore, the name of a Zone did not dictate a Permitted Use.
Chatsikiriakos v. Kilislian , 2020 ONCA 378
[Doherty, Hourigan and Fairburn JJ.A.]
Counsel:
Mark H. Arnold, for the respondent
Avrum D. Slodovnick, for the appellants
Keywords:Contracts, Employment, Wrongful Dismissal, Civil Procedure, Settlements, Enforcement, Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 49.04, Perri v. Concordian Chesterfield, 2003 CarswellOnt 6240 (SCJ), aff’d 2004 CanLII 2904 (CA),
facts:
This was a wrongful dismissal claim by a dental hygienist against the dental practice that employed her. The action was settled on the eve of trial, but when the settlement funds were not forthcoming, the respondent successfully moved under Rule 49.04 for judgment on the terms of the settlement. The dental practice appealed.
issues:
- Did the agreement contain the essential terms of the settlement?
- Should the motion judge have refused to enforce the settlement on public policy grounds
- Should leave to appeal the costs portion of the order be granted to the respondent?
holding:
Appeal dismissed.
reasoning:
1. Yes. The appellants argued that the terms of the purported settlement were uncertain and did not contain terms essential to the settlement. They submitted that in the settlement of wrongful dismissal claims, the classification under various heads of damages of the amount paid in the settlement is an essential element of the settlement agreement. Without that classification, the agreement to pay $75,000 to settle the claim, did not constitute a settlement agreement.
The Court rejected this argument. It cannot be argued the classification of the amount of a settlement into various heads of damages is always an essential element of any agreement to settle a wrongful dismissal claim. This court has held the exact opposite: Perri v. Concordian Chesterfield, 2003 CarswellOnt 6240 (SCJ), aff’d 2004 CanLII 2904 (CA). In the present case, there was nothing in the language of the Offer to Settle, or in the terms of the appellants’ acceptance of the offer to suggest the characterization of the amounts of the settlement under various damage heads was essential to, or played any part in, the agreement. There was nothing vague or uncertain about the terms of the settlement agreement.
2. No. The appellants argued that if there was a settlement agreement, the motion judge should exercise his discretion and decline to enforce the agreement on public policy grounds. The appellants submitted, among other things, the manner in which the respondent litigated the claim, in particular the use of threats and misrepresentations to intimidate and defame the spouse of one of the appellants required the court to reject the settlement which was the product of those tactics.
The Court rejected this argument as well. A court has a discretion to decline to enforce a settlement agreement on public policy grounds. That discretion is exercised sparingly. The moving party must demonstrate sufficiently compelling circumstances to justify the inevitable negative impact non-enforcement of an agreement will have on both the finality principle and the reasonable expectations of litigants who enter into settlement agreements. As with the exercise of any discretionary power, the Court will defer to the motion judge’s exercise of his discretion, absent demonstration of: a) a clearly unreasonable result; b) a material misapprehension of the evidence, or a failure to consider material evidence; and c) a failure to correctly apply the controlling legal principles.
The Court was not convinced that it should override the motion judge’s exercise of discretion to enforce the settlement. The litigation was personal and became nasty, but there was plenty of blamed to go around on both side for this unfortunate development.
3. No. The Court only grants leave to appeal costs sparingly. Contrary to the respondent’s argument, the motion judge did, in fact, consider the request for substantial indemnity costs and ultimately rejected it. The judge considered the relevant factors in determining costs. Leave to appeal them was therefore denied.
Cornerstone Properties Inc. v. Southside Construction Management Limited , 2020 ONCA 380
[Doherty, Hourigan and Fairburn JJ.A.]
Counsel:
F. Scott Turton, for the appellant
David A. Decker, for the respondent
Keywords:Civil Procedure, Costs, Simplified Procedure, Non-Parties, Abuse of Process, Corporations, Doctrine of Separate Corporate Personality, Piercing Corporate Veil, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 43, s. 131(1), Ontario Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16, s. 15, 431318847 Ontario Limited v. Laval Tool and Mould Ltd., 2017 ONCA 184, Williams Distinctive Gems Inc. v. Advantex Dining Corporation, 2019 ONCA 702
facts:
The appellant, Cornerstone, was in protracted litigation with 2108790 Ontario Inc. (“210”) regarding the enforceability of a debenture. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal held in a previous decision that the debenture was statute-barred and unenforceable. Cornerstone, the successful party in that litigation, obtained a costs award against 210 for about $51,000, but could not enforce it, as 210 was a shell company.
Cornerstone then sought costs against 210’s parent, Southside, a non-party to the original litigation, by suing it in a separate action. That action was dismissed, with costs awarded to Southside. Cornerstone appealed the dismissal of the action and sought leave to appeal the costs order made against it.
issues:
- Did the trial judge err in dismissing Cornerstone’s action for the costs against Southside?
- Did the trial judge err in the amount of costs Cornerstone was ordered to pay Southside?
holding:
Appeal dismissed. Leave to appeal costs granted. Costs appeal allowed.
reasoning:
1. No. The test for ordering costs against non-parties is set out in 1318847 Ontario Limited v. Laval Tool and Mould Ltd., 2017 ONCA 184. Under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, to make a costs order against a non-party requires a finding that the main plaintiff was “a person of straw” and not the actual litigant. The second, premised on the inherent jurisdiction of the court, looks to conduct by the non-party tantamount to an abuse of process.
The Court did not agreed with Cornerstone that the judge misapprehended the test by characterizing the exercise as one of piercing the corporate veil. Cornerstone alleged 210 had “no substance” and that its “separate legal persona” should be ignored. By this pleading, Cornerstone effectively asked the court to look through the separate corporate identity of 210 and impose liability on Southside. It was appropriate that the trial judge address this claim in his reasons. Piercing the corporate veil was the only real chance Cornerstone had to render Southside liable for the costs order imposed on 210. In any event, many of the considerations pertinent to an inquiry of whether to pierce the corporate veil apply to the test under Laval.
The Court determined that while one passage of the decision could be interpreted as the judge having concluded that he did not have the jurisdiction to order costs against Southside, the rest of his decision confirmed that he recognized he did have jurisdiction.There was also no evidence that there had been any abuse of process on the part of 210 or Southside.
There had been a legitimate dispute as to the validity of the debenture.
Finally, the real point of Cornerstone’s submissions were its argument that if a party has no funds to satisfy a costs order, and that party is a corporation controlled in the litigation by another corporation that does have funds, fairness and the purposes underlying costs orders dictate that the successful party should receive its costs from the directing corporate entity that has assets. This argument was rejected in Laval at paras. 63, 77, and runs directly against s. 15 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act. If that submission were accepted, it would fundamentally change the accepted notions of corporate identity insofar as costs awards are concerned. It was an argument best addressed by the legislature.
2. Yes. The amount of costs awarded against Cornerstone ($48,000) was almost equal to the amount of Cornerstone’s claim. Parties to actions under the simplified rules procedure can reasonably expect reduced costs awards. The trial judge in this case did not give any weight, much less sufficient weight, to the proportionality principle in determining the amount of costs. The Court therefore granted leave to appeal the costs and reduced them to $25,000.
Drywall Acoustic Lathing Insulation Local 675 Pension Fund v. SNCLavalin Group Inc., 2020 ONCA 375
[Benotto, Zarnett and Thorburn JJ.A.]
Counsel:
Joel P. Rochon, Peter R. Jervis, Douglas Worndl, Ronald Podolny and Peter Proszanski, for the Trustees of the Drywall Acoustic Lathing and Insulation Local 675 Pension Fund, moving parties in M51262 and responding parties in M51557
Michael G. Robb, Garett M. Hunter, Anthony O’Brien, Karim Diallo, Erika Provencher and Serge Kalloghlian, for RMG, responding party in M51262 and M51557
Katherine L. Kay, Daniel S. Murdoch and Libby Nixon, for SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., KGL, NB, SG, JR, AR, EDS and BMW, moving parties in M51557
Keywords:Civil Procedure, Class Proceedings, Appeals, Jurisdiction, Final or Interlocutory, Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6, s. 14, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s 6(1)(b), 19(1)(b), Hendrickson v. KalIio, [1932] O.R. 675 (C.A.), Ball v. Donais (1993), 13 O.R. (3d) 322 (C.A.), Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. York Ridge Developments Ltd., 1998 CarswellOnt 4534 (C.A.), Hislop v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009 ONCA 354, leave to appeal refused, [2009] S.C.C.A. No. 264, Ontario v. Lipsitz, 2011 ONCA 466, leave to appeal refused, [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 407, Smith Estate v. National Money Mart Company, 2008 ONCA 746, leave to appeal refused, [2008] S.C.C.A. No. 535, M.J. Jones Inc. v. Kingsway General Insurance Co. (2003), 233 D.L.R. (4th) 285 (Ont. C.A.), Smerchanski v. Lewis (1980), 117 D.L.R. (3d) 716 (C.A.), CC&L Dedicated Enterprise Fund (Trustee of) v. Fisherman, 2001 CarswellOnt 3354 (C.A.), Ambrose v. Zuppardi, 2013 ONCA 768
facts:
There were two competing securities class actions brought against SNC-Lavalin in 2019, one in Quebec and one in Ontario. The Quebec plaintiff and the defendants moved before the Ontario court to stay the Ontario action. That motion was dismissed. The motion judge found that the Ontario action was not an abuse of process because it was not duplicative of the Quebec action and was not shown to serve no legitimate purpose when it was commenced. The motion judge also found that the Quebec plaintiff could argue at the certification stage that the action should not be certified in Ontario.
The Quebec plaintiff appeals and the Ontario plaintiff moves to quash the appeal on the basis that the order appealed from was interlocutory, not final, and should therefore go to the Divisional Court, with leave.
issues:
Should the appeal be quashed for want of jurisdiction?
holding:
Motion to quash granted.
reasoning:
Yes. The dismissal of the motion to stay the Ontario action was not a final determination of that action, and was therefore interlocutory. A final order determines substantive rights, not procedural ones. The Class Proceedings Act, 1992 is a procedural statute. Although this was not a carriage motion and the test applicable on this motion was different, it was worth noting that carriage motions have previously been determined to be interlocutory orders, not final ones.
SHORT CIVIL DECISIONS
Sagos v. Canada (Attorney General), 2020 ONCA 360
[Strathy C.J.O., Lauwers and van Rensburg JJ.A.]
Counsel:
PS, in person
Kevin Palframan, for the respondent Attorney General of Canada
Mary Simms, for the respondent Ottawa Police Services Board
Keywords: Torts, Negligence, Police Liability, Negligent Investigation, Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment
Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 476 v. Wong , 2020 ONCA 363
[Paciocco, Zarnett and Thorburn JJ.A.]
Counsel:
NW, acting in person
Cheryll Wood, for the respondent
Keywords: Real Property, Condominiums, Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Costs Endorsement
Burns v. RBC Life Insurance Company , 2020 ONCA 377
[Gillese, Brown and Jamal JJ.A.]
Counsel:
Deanna S. Gilbert, for the appellant
Barry G. Marta, for the respondents
Keywords: Civil Procedure, Amending Pleadings, Costs Endorsement
Zhang v. Shenglin Financial Group Inc., 2020 ONCA 366
[Brown, Paciocco and Nordheimer JJ.A.]
Counsel:
Rebecca Huang and Zina Rita, for the appellant
Douglas O. Smith and Cindy Zhang, for the respondent
Keywords: Contracts, Interpretation, Standard of Review, Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53, Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., 2016 SCC 37
Couper v. Adair Barristers LLP , 2020 ONCA 372
[Lauwers, Huscroft and Thorburn JJ.A.]
Counsel:
MC, acting in person
John J. Adair, for the respondent
Keywords: Solicitor and Client, Assessment of Accounts, Solicitors Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.15, s 28.1, Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 54.09(5), Evans Sweeny Bordin LLP v. Zawadzki, 2015 ONCA 756
Edgeworth v. Shapira , 2020 ONCA 374
[Doherty, Hourigan and Fairburn JJ.A.]
Counsel:
Michael Kestenberg and Thomas M. Slahta, for the moving parties KS and AE
Todd Burke and Samaneh Frounchi, for the moving party BL
David Zuber, for the moving party Northbridge General Insurance Corporation
Rocco Galati, for the responding party
Keywords:Torts, Conspiracy, Intrusion Upon Seclusion, Negligent Misrepresentation, Civil Procedure, Amending Pleadings, Removal of Solicitors of Record, Conflict of Interest, Appeals, Jurisdiction, Final or Interlocutory, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C 43, ss 6(2), Dobreff v. Davenport, 2007 ONCA 902, Marrocco v. John Doe, 2014 ONSC 5663 (Div. Ct.). Cole v. Hamilton (City), 60 O.R. (3d) 284 (CA), Mader v. South Easthope Mutual Insurance Co., 2014 ONCA 714
Formosa v. Persaud , 2020 ONCA 368
[Pepall, Hourigan and Roberts JJ.A.]
Counsel:
Julian Binavince, for the appellants
Michael R. Kestenberg and David S. Lipkus, for the respondent, Gardiner Roberts LLP
Keywords:Torts, Professional Negligence, Solicitors, Standard of Care, Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, McPeake v. Cadesky, 2018 ONCA 554, Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Municipal Police, 2007 SCC 41
Kerr v. Sezerman , 2020 ONCA 364
[Pepall, Hourigan and Roberts JJ.A.]
Counsel:
Omur Sezerman, acting in person Nicholas Karnis, for the appellants OZ Optics Ltd. and ZS
TDK, acting in person
Keywords: Contracts, Employment, Constructive Dismissal, Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Documents, Production, Cross-Examination, Privilege, Draft Affidavits, Appeals, Jurisdiction, Final or Interlocutory
Mullings v. Robertson , 2020 ONCA 369
[Lauwers, Paciocco and Fairburn JJ.A.]
Counsel:
OCM, acting in person
Lauri Daitchman, for the respondent
Keywords:Family Law, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Re-hearing, Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 37.14(6) and 59.06(2), 61.16(6.1), Trillium Motor World Ltd. v. Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, 2017 ONCA 840, leave to appeal dismissed, [2017] S.C.C.A. No. 366, First Elgin Mills Development Inc. v. Romandale Farms Limited, 2015 ONCA 54, R. v. H. (E.), 115 C.C.C. (3d) 89 (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [1997] S.C.C.A. No. 256
The information contained in our summaries of the decisions is not intended to provide legal advice and does not necessarily cover every matter raised in a decision. For complete information or for specific advice, please read the decision or contact us.