The Supreme Court of Canada will hear six appeals this week, including Toronto businessman Robert Hryniak’s appeals that question the summary judgment procedure.
March 25 — Nova Scotia — Sable Offshore Energy Inc. v. Ameron International Corp.Civil procedure: Sable Offshore Energy and others sued several defendants as a result of paint failures on their offshore and onshore facilities. Some of the defendants entered into proportionate share settlement agreements, which allowed them to withdraw from the litigation, and left the remaining defendants responsible for their share of the loss. The defendants sought disclosure of the settlement amounts but the motions judge refused. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered the amounts to be disclosed.
Read the N.S. Court of Appeal’s
decision.
Other related news articles:
Toward an Even Playing Field: The Supreme Court of Canada to Rule on Disclosure of Amounts in Pierringer Settlements Prior to Trial, Canadian Appeals Monitor
Canadian Supreme Court will rule on disclosure of settlement amounts sums in multi-party cases, Gowlings Knowledge Centre
March 26 — Ontario — Hryniak v. Mauldin and Bruno Appliance and Furniture Inc. v. HryniakJudgments and orders: After Rule 20 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure was amended, there was controversy as to whether it’s appropriate for a motions judge to use the new powers to decide an action based on the evidence presented on a motion for summary judgment. To provide guidance to the profession, the Court of Appeal convened a panel of five judges to hear five appeals from decisions under the amended rule. It also appointed five amicus curiae to provide submissions on how the amended rule should be interpreted and applied. One of the appeals was Robert Hryniak’s motion to set aside the summary judgment ordered by the Superior Court of Justice based on the amended rule. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. In the second related case, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.
Read the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in
Mauldin v. Hryniak.
Read the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in
Mauldin v. Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP.
Other related news articles:
Supreme Court of Canada to hear Robert Hryniak appeals,
Financial Post Ontario Court of Appeal appreciates the power of summary judgment,
Financial Post Fraud ruling a legal first; Ontario judge awards US$2M damages at preliminary stage,
Financial Post March 27 — British Columbia — Vu v. R. Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Thanh Long Vu was charged with production of marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking after the police obtained a search warrant to enter a location on the suspicion of hydro theft and discovered a grow-op in the basement. Vu was acquitted after the trial judge determined that evidence obtained from the search of a laptop and cell phone was inadmissible due to an unreasonable search and seizure. The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown’s appeal and ordered a new trial.
Read the B.C. Court of Appeal’s
decision.
Read the B.C. Supreme Court’s
decision.
Other related news articles:
Top court to rule on search, seizure of electronic devices, Advocate Daily
Police search of Langley grow-op upheld,
Langley Times March 27 — Quebec — Buzizi v. R. Criminal law: Didier Buzizi was convicted of second-degree murder after stabbing a man to death in a Montreal club. He was sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 12 years.
Read the Quebec Court of Appeal’s
decision.
Other related news articles:
Child actor-turned-rapper Buzizi gets life sentence for murder, CTV News
Procès de l'ex-acteur Buzizi: ‘Je n'ai pas voulu le tuer,’ La PresseMarch 28 — Nova Scotia — Amaratunga v. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries OrganizationPublic international law: Tissa Amaratunga worked for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization from 1988 until 2005 when he was dismissed. Amaratunga sued Northwest for wrongful dismissal. Northwest claimed immunity as an international organization. The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia dismissed Northwest’s motion and determined that the matter could go to trial. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, stating that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter.
Read the N.S. Court of Appeal’s
decision.
