Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
I'm Brian Radnoff, Commercial Litigation partner at Lerners LLP
and Chair of the appellate practice group. The
appellate group Netletter for November 2013
has many fascinating cases. First, Central Sun Mining and
Vector Engineer - this is a case that answers the question
whether professionals who do a report
for activities in a country outside of Canada, and when the professionals
themselves are based outside of Canada,
whether they can still be sued in Ontario for the work they did
if it was for company with head office in Toronto. The answer is
yes they can. Second, Lauzon and AXA
Insurance- this case answers to question whether an insurer
who has started an appraisal process under the Insurance Act
to investigate a claim made by an insured can still take advantage of the
provisions
under the Insurance Act permitting the insurer
to examine the insured under oath. The answer is
the insurer can do that - can do the examination under oath.
The third case, Bennett Estate and Iran. This is a case involving
US plaintiffs attempting to enforce judgment against the state of Iran
in Canada for a terrorist act that Iran committed in
Israel. In this case, Canadian potential plaintiffs were attempting to intervene
because enforcing the US judgement in Canada
would result in fewer assets for the Canadian plaintiffs.
The Canadian plaintiffs were permitted to intervene. The fourth case
is Dickerson and 1610396 Ontario.
This case answers the question whether
a defendant who has been convicted criminally
and civily of assaulting someone and who has been ordered to pay damages
for that assault, can avoid having to pay those damages
by making a proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
The answer is they cannot avoid the claim. Despite the proposal under the
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act
they're still required to pay to the plaintiff a damage award for
intentionally causing injury to the plaintiff.
And the final case this month is Arora
and Whirpool. This is an attempt to certify
a class action proceeding in relation to front-
loading washing machines, which people
know, who have them, can be quite smelly and the plaintiffs in this case were attempting
to complain that they had overpaid for these defectively designed
washing machines. The Court of Appeal refused to certify the class action.
Please go to www.lernersappeals.ca
to read the November 2013 Netletter and also
to read the Top 5 Canadian Political Scandals.