Law Times

PAGE 14 CaseLawLaw FEDERAL COURT Civil Procedure CHANGE OF SOLICITOR Reasons provided for order accorded with documentation filed Motion to remove respondent solicitor's certifi cate of service was dismissed. Appeal motion was dismissed. Applicant sought reconsideration on ground that order did not accord with reasons given for order and that matter that should have been dealt with was overlooked. Motion for re- consideration was dismissed. All documentation was duly con- sidered and validly served. No matter was overlooked. Reasons provided for order accorded with documentation fi led. Oleinik v. Canada (Privacy Commissioner) (Apr. 29, 2011, F.C., Scott J., File No. T-555-10) 201 A.C.W.S. (3d) 625 (12 pp.). Immigration JUDICIAL REVIEW Court affirmed that official activities against minorities could not be ignored Applicant sought judicial review of decision that dismissed his status of refugee. Respondent affi rmed that given applicant's rank in offi cial armed forces, applicant could not have ig- nored massacres that took place in Burundi in 1973, 1988 and 1991. Applicant claimed that respondent erred in applying concept of complicity by asso- ciation. Applicant affi rmed that respondent did not prove that he had any involvement with massacres and that his culpabil- ity had not been proved accord- ing to Criminal Code (Can.). Application not allowed. Court affi rmed that applicant had a high rank in military and that offi cial activities against ethnic minorities could not be ignored. Court affi rmed that decision was not unreasonable accord- ing to evidence presented. Bugegene v. Canada (Min- istre de la Citoyennete et de l'Immigration) (Apr. 27, 2011, F.C., Beaudry J., File No. IMM- 3825-10) Reasons in French. 201 A.C.W.S. (3d) 792 (12 pp.). Proceeds Of Crime GENERAL Adjudicator's decision to maintain minimal penalty was reasonable Accused applied for judicial review of a Minister's decision declining to exercise his discre- tion to remit a $250 penalty. Accused took issue with the ac- tions of an agent of the Canadi- an Border Services Agency, as a result of which the accused was fi ned $250 for carrying and not declaring currency of a value above $10,000 in contravention of the Proceeds of Crime (Mon- ey Laundering) and Terrorist Fi- nancing Act (Can.). It was clear that the accused had no inten- tion to hide the amount and he said that he did not know the law. Accused's funds were in foreign currencies and he did not realize it was of a value over $10,000 Canadian. No action was fi led to appeal the Minis- ter's decision as required by the Act. Application dismissed. Ac- cused fully explained his rea- sons to the tribunal and was given a full opportunity to be heard. Adjudicator's decision to maintain the minimal penalty was reasonable. Dobrovolny v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (May 10, 2011, F.C., Noel J., File No. T-927-10) 94 W.C.B. (2d) 519 (15 pp.). August 8, 2011 • LAw times Follow on www.twitter.com/lawtimes COURT DECISIONS Untitled-3 1 CaseLaw is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. CaseLaw is a weekly summary of notable unreported civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. Single or multiple copies of the full text of any case digested in this issue can be obtained by: 5/5/10 3:55:30 PM These cases may be found online in BestCase and other electronic resources from Canada Law Book. To subscribe, please call 1-800-565-6967. ONTARIO CIVIL CASES Appeal PROCEDURE Appellant sought indulgence of court but otherwise ignored court rules and orders Appellant served and fi led notice of appeal but failed to serve certifi cate respecting evi- dence. Appellant failed to pro- vide proof appellant ordered transcript of all oral evidence. Transcript was available on day of motion. No explanation was provided as to why appellant was not able to fi le transcript sooner. Appellant brought motion for extension of time to perfect appeal. Respon- dent brought cross-motion to dismiss appellant's motion, quash appeal or dismiss appeal for delay. Appellant's motion was dismissed. Cross-motion was allowed and appeal was quashed. It would not be just to allow appeal to continue. Appellant was subject to four unpaid costs orders. Appellant provided no evidence as to why appellant has not paid orders. Appellant sought indulgence of court but otherwise ignored court rules and orders. Appeal appeared to be academic. Serafi n v. Wellington (County) (Apr. 27, 2011, Ont. S.C.J., Lem- on J., File No. DC-10-0090-00) 201 A.C.W.S. (3d) 612 (9 pp.). Arbitration AWARD Arbitrator's decision to order defendant to buy back plaintiff's vehicle was reasonable Application by defendant for order setting aside award of ar- bitrator. Arbitrator concluded i) completing and mailing in the order form in this issue; or ii) calling CaseLaw's photocopy department at (905) 841-6472 in Toronto, (800) 263-3269 in Ontario and Quebec, or (800) 263-2037 in other provinces; or iii) faxing a copy of the completed order form to (905) 841-5085. that cause of paint chipping from plaintiff 's vehicle was design of vehicle. Arbitrator ordered that defendant manu- facturer buy back vehicle. Ap- plication dismissed. Arbitrator's decision to order defendant to buy back plaintiff 's vehicle was reasonable on evidence before him. Arbitrator asked himself correct question. Ford Motor Co. of Canada, Ltd. v. Lachapelle (Apr. 14, 2011, Ont. S.C.J., Hainey J., File No. CV-10-413231) 201 A.C.W.S. (3d) 618 (7 pp.). Civil Procedure PLEADINGS Counterclaim based on allegation of gross negligence was one that was tenable in law Motion by defendants for leave to amend their statement of defence and counterclaim. Plaintiff commenced action for damages for wrongful dismissal and defamation. Defendants sought to amend statement of defence and counterclaim by relying on defence of qualifi ed privilege, relying on plaintiff 's lack of competence as grounds of her dismissal, and advancing counterclaim against plaintiff for gross negligence. Motion granted. Counterclaim based on allegation of gross negligence was one that was tenable in law and appeared to have some evi- dence to support it. Defendant's proposed amendments did not constitute abuse of process. Stemmler v. Brantcord Ware- housing Inc. (May 9, 2011, Ont. S.C.J., Kent J., File No. CV-11- 174-SR) 201 A.C.W.S. (3d) 660 (5 pp.). Corporations DIRECTORS Finding by trial judge that personal CANADIAN LAW LIST 2011 YOUR INSTANT CONNECTION TO CANADA'S LEGAL NETWORK Inside you will find: an up-to-date alphabetical listing • • • and judges in Canada; contact information boards, commissions and Crown corporations; legal and government contact information of more than 58,000 barristers, solicitors and Quebec notaries, corporate counsel, law firms for the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada, Federal Cabinet Ministers, departments, related to each province for the Courts of Appeal, Supreme Courts, County and District Courts, Provincial Courts, law societies, law schools, Legal Aid, and other law-related offices of importance. MORE THAN A PHONE BOOK Hardbound • Published February each year • On subscription $146 • L0084-8573-26084 • One-time purchase $162 • L0084-8573 • ISSN 0084-8573 Visit canadalawbook.ca or call 1.800.387.5164 for a 30-day no-risk evaluation Prices subject to change without notice,to applicable taxes and shipping & handling. CANADA LAW BOOK® www.lawtimesnews.com CLL - 1-4 page - 5X.indd 1 5/25/11 9:38:07 AM defendant was not alter ego of company was supported by evidence Appeal by trustees of deceased's estate from decision dismissing action against personal and cor- porate defendant. Claim arose from contracts for renovations to home of deceased. Appeal dismissed. Evidentiary record confi rmed that appellant knew that he was dealing with cor- poration, rather than with per- sonal defendant in his personal capacity. Finding by trial judge that personal defendant was not alter ego of company was sup- ported by evidence. Chandaria Estate v. Stewart (Apr. 28, 2011, Ont. S.C.J. (Div. Ct.), Wilson, Swinton and Low JJ., File No. 346/10) 201 A.C.W.S. (3d) 697 (5 pp.). Labour Relations COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT Defendants in breach of contract with members for failing to hold leadership election Motion by plaintiff s for declara- tory relief requiring defendants to conduct leadership election for union. Plaintiff s were union- ized employees. Plaintiff s sub- mitted that defendants breached union's Constitution in fail- ing to hold leadership election, which was long overdue. Mo- tion granted. Defendants were in breach of contract with mem- bers. Th ere should have been leadership election almost one year prior to date of motion. It was clear that meaning of Con- stitution was that fi rst leadership election should take place with- in one year of fi rst leaders having successfully negotiated collective agreement. Th ere was no reason to deny plaintiff s relief because of equity's clean hands doctrine. Adi v. Datta (Apr. 21, 2011, Ont. S.C.J., Perell J., File No. 10-CV-

• Cover
• Project Management
• Caledonia Settlement
• Focus On Corporate/Commercial Law