Lerners LLP Top 5 Civil Appeal Decisions From July and August, 2013 (Video Companion)

Appellate lawyer, Jasmine Akbarali provides a summary of Lerners' Top 5 Ontario civil appeals decisions from July and August , 2013.

Ramdath v. George Brown College- This was an appeal of a common issues trial brought by a class of students from George Brown against the College. The students were students of the College's International Business Management program. They alleged that the course calendar negligently represented that, upon completion of the program, they could apply for three industry designations when in reality, they had to take additional courses in order to be eligible. The trial judge found they reasonably relied on the course calendar. The Court of Appeal agreed and dismissed the appeal.

Barclays Bank PLC v. Devonshire Trust -- This appeal involved asset backed commercial paper and two credit swap agreements. Each party to the agreement reported to terminate the agreement early. Barclays alleged that it could terminate agreement early on the basis of Devonshire's insolvency when Barclay's had caused the insolvency by failing to make liquidity payments. The trial judge found that Barclays breached its obligation of good faith. The Court of Appeal agreed with trial judge and found that liquidity payment defeated the objective of agreement and Barclays acted in bad faith. The Court of Appeal found in favour of Devonshire.

Sferruzzi v. Allan- This case involved the proposed relocation of the custodial parent of a special needs child. Mason was an autistic child who needed constant care. He lived with his father; his mother had regular access. The father had suffered from the stress of looking after Mason. The father was in a relationship with a woman who lived in Pickering with their son. He wanted to move to Pickering with Mason and the mother opposed the move. The motion judge agreed with the mother. The Court of Appeal disagreed. It considered the fact that by moving to Pickering, Mason would benefit from being part of a blended family and having a happier, more stable custodial parent. In addition, although his access visits would be less frequent, the total time he would spend with his mother would remain the same. The court allowed the appeal.

Sabourin and Sun Group of Companies v. Laiken- This appeal concerned the duties of a solicitor representing a client who was subject to a Mareva injunction. The motion judge found the solicitor in contempt for breaching the order and then subsequently set aside that finding, concluding he had not breached the order deliberately. The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge should not have reversed her findings. The order had breached, and it was not necessary that the breach be deliberately contumacious. The Court of Appeal accepted that the solicitor's conduct was an error in judgment and concluded that the appropriate sanction was for the solicitor to pay the costs of the proceeding.

Henry v. Gore Mutual Insurance Company: Henry was left a paraplegic after a car accident. His mother took an unpaid leave of absence from work in order to care for him. The issue on the appeal was whether Henry had incurred an expense for attendant care beyond the hours of paid employment that his mother had given up. The insurer argued that the hours of paid employment that Henry's mother had given up were a measure of the attendant care costs that Henry had incurred. The Court of Appeal disagreed. It held that that economic loss was not a measure of reasonable and necessary attendant care benefits but was a threshold for entitlement to those benefits. The amount payable by the insurer was not reduced; it was responsible for the reasonable and necessary attendant care costs of looking after Henry.

Originally published on 19 Sep 2013

http://lernersappeals.ca/netletters

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.