APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED
SCC No. Case Name Province of Origin Keywords 37760 Sa Majesté la Reine c. Marc Cyr-Langlois QC Criminal law – Evidence
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL DISMISSED
SCC No. Case Name Province of Origin Keywords 37469 Kevin David Patterson v. Canada (The Minister of Justice) et al. BC Extradition – Committal – Surrender 37696 Arland Richard Bruce v. Mark Steven Cohon et al. BC Courts – Jurisdiction – Labour Relations 37728 David Mandel et al. v. Morguard Residential ON Administrative law – Appeals – Board and Tribunals 35875 Shawn David Olfman v. RBC Life Insurance Company MB Civil procedure – Costs 37834 Construction de Castel inc. c. Ellen Paré, ès qualités de juge de la partie XV et autre QC Prerogative writs – Certiorari – Validity of search warrant 37695 Camions Daimler Canada ltée c. Camions Sterling de Lévis inc. et autres QC Civil liability – Duty to inform 37792 Her Majesty the Queen v. M.H. BC Criminal law – Appeals – Powers of Court of Appeal 37548 Gestion Éric Tardif inc., maintenant connue sous le nom de Entreprises T.B. inc. et autre c. Banque Royale du Canada QC Contract ‒ Suretyship ‒ Performance ‒ Obligation to inform 37759 Iranian Ministry of Information and Security et al. v. Edwards Tracy, by his Litigation Guardian, Charles Murphy et al. ON International law – Diplomatic immunity – Suspension of diplomatic relations 37788 Deborah Dieckmann v. Her Majesty the Queen ON Criminal law – Criminal Code offences 37784 Nazir Karigar v. Her Majesty the Queen ON Criminal law – Offences – Elements of offence 37794 Merchant Law Group LLP v. Attorney General of Canada on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada SK Civil procedure – Estoppel – Issue estoppel 37733 Estate of Henry Goldentuler v. Robert Crosbie et al. ON Damages – Quantum 37807 John Meulendyks et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen ON Criminal law – Bail hearing 37762 Aviva Insurance Company of Canada v. Erin Dittmann ON Automobile insurance – No-fault statutory accident benefits 37734 Brenlee Kemp on her own behalf and as Executrix of the Estate of Shannon Jean Kemp, deceased v. Vancouver Coastal Health Authority Ltd., dba Vancouver General Hospital et al. BC Appeals – Standard of review – Civil Procedure
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED
Her Majesty the Queen v. Marc Cyr-Langlois (Que.)
Criminal law – Evidence
Mr. Cyr-Langlois was charged with two counts of impaired driving.
He was stopped while driving his vehicle and taken to the police station for a breathalyzer test. He was put in an interrogation room around 12:58 a.m. The two police officers were busy taking the steps required for Mr. Cyr-Langlois to exercise his right to counsel and preparing the breathalyzer device. As a result, they failed to observe Mr. Cyr-Langlois during the 20 minutes preceding the breathalyzer test. The first blood alcohol test was administered at 1:08 a.m. and the second at 1:30 a.m. The results showed a blood alcohol level exceeding 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood.
At trial, the issue was whether the officer who had operated the breathalyzer instrument had completed the necessary observation period before administering the test and whether evidence that the observation period had not been complied with could deprive the Crown of the presumptions established by s. 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code. Judge Richer of the Court of Québec acquitted Mr. Cyr-Langlois of two counts of impaired driving. The Québec Superior Court allowed the Crown’s appeal and ordered a new trial. The Court of Appeal allowed Mc. Cyr-Langlois’ appeal and restored the acquittal.
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL DISMISSED
Kevin David Patterson v. Canada (The Minister of Justice), The Attorney General of Canada (On Behalf of The United States of America) (B.C.)
Extradition – Committal – Surrender
The United States of America requests extradition of Mr. Patterson to stand trial in the State of Washington on charges of murder in the first degree with a deadly weapon sentence enhancement, robbery in the first degree with a deadly weapon sentence enhancement, and theft of a motor vehicle, in respect of the murder of Mr. Bergeson and the theft of Mr. Bergeson’s motor vehicle, identification documents and credit cards. The Supreme Court of British Columbia issued the committal order on May 4, 2015 and the Minister of Justice made the order to surrender on October 17, 2015. A subsequent request for reconsideration of the surrender order was dismissed. The Court of Appeal dismissed a motion to adduce fresh evidence and dismissed both the appeal from the committal order and the application for judicial review of the surrender order.
Arland Richard Bruce v. Mark Steven Cohon, B.C. Lions Football Club Inc., Edmonton Eskimo Football Club, Calgary Stampeders 2012 Inc., Saskatchewan Roughrider Football Club Inc., Winnipeg Blue Bombers, Hamilton Tiger-Cat Football Club, Toronto Argonauts Football Club Inc., Compagnie Club de Football des Alouettes de Montréal, Capital Gridiron Limited Partnership, Capital Gridiron GP Inc. (B.C.)
Courts – Jurisdiction – Labour Relations
The applicant played professional football for various teams in the Canadian Football League (“CFL”). He claims he suffered concussions when playing for the B.C. Lions in 2012, was showing continued symptoms in 2013, while playing for the Montreal Alouettes, and continues to suffer from chronic traumatic encephalopathy, depression, paranoia, delusions, headaches and other problems. He brought an action in damages against the B.C. Lions Football Club Inc. and Compagnie Club de Football des Alouettes de Montreal for negligence, failure to warn and negligent misrepresentation. He argued that they knew or should have known that he should not play while displaying the ongoing effects of concussion and that they denied the proven link between repetitive traumatic head impacts and cognitive brain injury, downplayed the dangers and concealed information about technology to record and report head trauma. He brought similar claims of negligent misrepresentation against the CFL and its member clubs and its commissioner. The respondents defended the claim on the basis that the matter must be the subject of a grievance and arbitration. The Supreme Court of British Columbia struck the applicant’s claim in its entirety, holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the case since the dispute was one that had to be resolved through the grievance and arbitration process under the collective agreement. The Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissed the appeal.
David Mandel, Bruce Anelevitz and Francis McGeachy v. Morguard Residential (Ont.)
Administrative law – Appeals – Board and Tribunals
As a condition of being granted a building permit, Morguard Residental entered into an agreement with the City of Toronto (the “s. 37 Agreement”) in which it agreed that once the redevelopment was completed, Morguard Residental would provide the displaced tenants with replacement units in a newly constructed building at a specified rent and compensate them for moving costs. Morguard Residental also voluntarily offered to make available to the tenants temporary relocation rental units, at a reduced rent, in other buildings that it owned. The applicant tenants each took up this offer and were relocated to units in the Colonnade in Yorkville, Toronto. Under the tenancy agreements for the temporary relocation units, the tenants were to vacate the temporary units once the redeveloped replacement building was ready for occupancy. This dispute arose because the applicant tenants refused to engage in the process of vacating the temporary units and moving to the redeveloped property in accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreements. Morguard Residental issued eviction orders against the applicant tenants. In response, the applicant tenants sought relief against eviction from the Landlord and Tenant Board. The Board terminated the tenancies of each of the applicant tenants. The applicant tenants had the eviction orders reviewed under s. 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17. The Board denied the applicant tenants relief from eviction. On February 2, 2017, the court dismissed the appeals brought by the applicants under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17, from orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancies and ordering them evicted. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal.
Shawn David Olfman v. RBC Life Insurance Company (Man.)
Civil procedure – Costs
The applicant, Mr. Olfman, is a lawyer. In 1989, he purchased a disability insurance policy from the respondent insurer’s predecessor. In July 2009, he suffered a heart attack and returned to work in September of that same year. Mr. Olfman applied for benefits which the insurer acknowledged were payable for the period from the date of the heart attack until Mr. Olfman’s return to work. However, Mr. Olfman asserted that he continued to be entitled to benefits after his return to work because the definition of “total disability” in his policy was amended by a letter he received from the insurer which, he claimed, eliminated the requirement that he be unable to perform the important duties of his occupation. Mr. Olfman thus sued the insurer for payment of those benefits. The Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed the action. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave. Subsequent to that decision, the trial judge ruled that the respondent was entitled to costs. Mr. Olfman’s motion for leave to appeal that decision was denied.
Construction de Castel inc. v. Ellen Paré, in her capacity as justice under Part XV, Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (Que.)
Prerogative writs – Certiorari – Validity of search warrant
In the context of a police investigation into the municipal government of St‑Constant, the respondent Judge Ellen Paré issued search warrants, one of which was for the head office of the applicant Construction de Castel inc., a construction company.
When the police executed the search warrant at Construction de Castel inc., they created a mirror image of all the computer data on the company’s computers. Construction de Castel inc. filed a motion for certiorari to have the search warrant quashed. It argued that Judge Paré had exceeded her jurisdiction by authorizing the police to intercept private communications found on hard drives without complying with the requirements set out in the Criminal Code. The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the motion for certiorari and validated the search warrant. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Daimler Trucks Canada Ltd. v. Camions Sterling de Lévis inc., Centre de l’auto de St-Nicolas inc. and Pierre Corriveau (Que.)
Civil liability – Duty to inform
The respondent Camions Sterling de Lévis inc. is a company that operated a Sterling heavy‑duty truck dealership. It is owned by the respondent Centre de l’auto St-Nicolas inc., which is itself under the control of the respondent Pierre Corriveau, the sole shareholder of Camions Sterling de Lévis inc. Mr. Corriveau is an experienced businessman who has been working in the heavy‑duty truck industry since 1972 and who has been in charge of the business of Camions Sterling de Lévis inc. since 1997 as either shareholder or director. In 2008, the applicant Daimler Trucks Canada Ltd. informed its North American dealers that it would stop producing Sterling trucks but that some dealers would be given an opportunity to enter into new agreements solely for parts and service for Sterling trucks. In 2009, Camions Sterling de Lévis inc. accepted Daimler’s offer and signed a new agreement limiting its activities to maintenance and the supply of parts for Sterling trucks. In 2010, Mr. Corriveau, as the shareholder of Centre de l’auto St-Nicolas inc., signed a letter of intent to purchase the shares of Camions Sterling de Lévis inc. Further to a discussion between Mr. Corriveau and a Daimler representative, the change in the share ownership of Camions Sterling de Lévis inc. was approved by Daimler, and the transaction took place on August 31, 2010. In December 2011, Daimler sent Camions Sterling de Lévis inc. a first notice of resiliation advising it that the agreement would terminate in April 2012. In March 2012, Daimler postponed the termination date for the agreement to July 1, 2012. In February 2013, the respondents brought legal proceedings against Daimler for damages resulting from the resiliation of the dealership agreement. At the Quebec Superior Court, the motion by Centre de l’auto de St-Nicolas inc. and Pierre Corriveau to institute proceedings was allowed, the motion by Camion Sterling de Lévis inc. to institute proceedings was dismissed, and the cross demand by Daimler Trucks Canada Ltd. was dismissed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
Her Majesty the Queen v. M.H. (B.C.)
Criminal law – Appeals – Powers of Court of Appeal
M.H. was convicted of one count of sexual assault and two counts of assault. After his conviction, M.H. brought an application to reopen the trial based on the failure of his counsel to cross-examine the complainant on text messages sent to him by the complainant. The application was dismissed. The Court of Appeal granted the application to adduce fresh evidence and allowed the appeal. The conviction was set aside and a new trial was ordered.
Gestion Éric Tardif inc., now known as Entreprises T.B. inc., and Gestion D. Mercier inc. v. Royal Bank of Canada (Que.)
Contract ‒ Suretyship ‒ Performance ‒ Obligation to inform
The applicants, Gestion Éric Tardif inc., now known as Entreprises T.B. inc., and Gestion D. Mercier inc., signed acts of suretyship in which they undertook jointly and solidarily to pay up to $50,000 of the debts owed by the debtor, L’Autre Version 2014 inc., a restaurant, to the respondent, the Royal Bank of Canada. On January 15, 2016, L’Autre Version 2014 inc., of which Gestion D. Mercier inc. was the principal shareholder, declared bankruptcy. To minimize its risk having regard to the suretyship, Gestion D. Mercier inc. communicated with representatives of the Royal Bank of Canada to ensure that the company’s property would be sold by private tender so that it would go to the highest bidder. Gestion D. Mercier inc. did so because it considered the trustee’s valuation of the property very low. Although the Bank expressed interest in proceeding quickly by private tender, it ultimately decided to sell the property to the lessor of the immovable property where the debtor was located for an amount close to the amount of the trustee’s valuation. In return, the lessor agreed not to charge any rent. The applicants contested the action that the Bank instituted to make them honour the acts of suretyship they had signed, arguing in defence that the Bank had sold the company’s property at a low price without informing them. The Court of Québec allowed the application in part and the Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.
Iranian Ministry of Information and Security, Islamic Republic of Iran, Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps v. Edwards Tracy, by his Litigation Guardian, Charles Murphy, Elizabeth Cicippio-Puleo, Estate of Helen Fazio, Estate of Domenic Cicippio, David B. Cicippio, Eric R. Cicippio, Richard Dennis Cicippio, Thomas J. Cicippio, Estate of Paul V. Cicippio, Allen John Cicippio, Estate of Rose Abell, Anthony Cicippio, Estate of Alexander Cicippio, Nicholas B. Cicippio, Estate of Joseph J. Cicippio Jr., Estate of Marla Bennett, Michael Bennett, Linda Bennett, Lisa Bennett, American Center for Civil Justice, Inc., as Assignee for Christine Higgins, Katie L. Marthaler, Herman C. Marthaler, III, Matthew Marthaler, Kirk Marthaler, Richard W. Wood, Kathleen M. Wood, Shawn M. Wood, Francis Heiser, Denise M. Eichstaedt, Anthony W. Cartrette, Lewis W. Cartrette, Thaddeus C. Fennig, Catherine Fennig, Paul D. Fennig, Mark Fennig, Catherine Adams, Mary Young, Daniel Adams, Elizabeth Wolf, Patrick D. Adams, John E. Adams, William Adams, Michael T. Adams, Christopher R. Nguyen, Bridget Brooks, James R. Rimkus, Anne M. Rimkus, Steve K. Kitson, Nancy A. Kitson, Lawrence E. Taylor, Vickie L. Taylor, Starlin A D. Taylor, Dawn Woody, Bernadine R. Beekman, Tracy M. Smith, Jonica L. Woody, Timothy Woody, Ibis S. Haun, Senator Haun, Milagritos Perez-Dalis, Cecil H. Lester, Sr., Judy Lester, Cecil H. Lester, Jr., Judy Lester, Cecil H. Lester, Jr., Jessica F. Lester, Shyrl L. Johnson, Kevin Johnson, Jr., Nicholas A. Johnson, A Minor, by his Legal Guardian Shyrl L. Johnson, Michael Morgera, Thomas Morgera, Marie R. Campbell, Bessie A. Campbell, James V. Wetmore, George M. Beekman, Che G. Colson, Bruce Johnson, Estate of Brent E. Marthaler, Estate of Sharon Marthaler, Estate of Michael Heiser, Estate of Gary Heiser, Estate of Patrick P. Fennig, Estate of Christopher Adams, Estate of Thanh Van Nguyen, Estate of Sandra M. Wetmore, Estate of Kendall Kitson, Jr., Estate of Kendall K. Kitson, Sr., Estate of Nancy R. Kitson, Estate of Joshua E. Woody, Estate of Leland Timothy Haun, Estate of Christopher Lester, Estate of Kevin J. Johnson, Sr., Estate of Millard D. Campbell, Estate of Peter J. Morgera, Estate of Justin R. Wood, Estate of Earl F. Cartrette, Jr., Estate of Brian Mcveigh, Estate of Joseph E. Rimkus, Estate of Jeremy A. Taylor, Estate of Laura E. Johnson, Paul Alexander Blais, Estate of Curtis Taylor, Maria Taylor, Cielito Valencia, Luz Southard, Steven Wolfe, Sonya Turner Broadway, Diana Campuzano, A Vi Elishis, Gregg Salzman, Elisa Nili Cirilo Peres Benrafael, Yonatan Mishael Ben-Rafael, A Minor by his Litigation Guardian Elisa Nili Cirilo Peres Ben-Rafael, Ralph Goldman, Noa Ruth Benrafael, Judith Goldman Baumgold and Naomi Goldman - and - Attorney General of Canada (Ont.)
International law – Diplomatic immunity – Suspension of diplomatic relations
In 2012, Parliament enacted the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, S.C. 2012, c. 1 (“JVTA”). The legislation granted victims of terrorism the ability to sue terrorists and foreign states that have materially contributed to terrorism and terrorist-sponsored attacks. The respondents hold judgments issued by courts in the United States for the sponsorship of terrorism by one or more of the applicants (collectively, “Iran”). In 2012, Canada suspended diplomatic relations with Iran. The respondents later sued in Ontario to enforce their judgments under the provisions of the JVTA against Iranian assets remaining within Canada. Iran did not defend the respondents’ enforcement actions, and ultimately a series of judgments and enforcement orders were granted. Iran then moved unsuccessfully to set aside the judgments and orders in a series of motions before a judge of the Ontario Superior Court. Justice Hainey dismissed Iran’s motions to set aside, vary or stay the enforcement orders and judgments.The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, except for judgments based on acts of terrorism that occurred prior to January 1, 1985, because the JVTA does not apply prior to that date and therefore, those judgments could not be enforced.
Deborah Dieckmann v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)
Criminal law – Criminal Code offences
The applicant, Ms. Dieckmann, was charged with seven counts of fraud over $5,000 for operating, together with named co-conspirators, a scheme to divert millions of dollars from the Canadian Revenue Agency (the “CRA”). The Crown alleged that companies controlled by Ms. Dieckmann and the co-conspirators contracted with various legitimate companies to provide payroll-related services, including the remitting of various source deductions, such as income tax and Canada Pension Plan contributions, to the CRA. Instead of remitting the funds to the CRA, the co-conspirators directed the funds, through a series of corporate shells and bank accounts, to their own personal use. The amount of the fraud totalled $5.7 million. After a four-month trial, the jury convicted Ms. Dieckmann on all seven counts of fraud. The trial judge sentenced Ms. Dieckmann to four years’ imprisonment and imposed a fine of $1,285,930 in lieu of forfeiture. In default of payment of the fine, Ms. Dieckmann received an additional five years in jail. The Court of Appeal dismissed both her appeals against convictions and against sentence.
Nazir Karigar v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)
Criminal law – Offences – Elements of offence
Mr. Karigar was the paid agent of a group of Canadian companies that wanted to secure a major contract from Air India for the provision of facial recognition software and related equipment. The Crown alleged that Mr. Karigar assumed a leading role in a conspiracy to offer bribes to Air India officials and India’s former Minister of Civil Aviation in order to influence the bidding process. Mr. Karigar was convicted of agreeing to offer a bribe to a foreign public official contrary to s. 3 of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, S.C. 1998, c. 34. The appeal from conviction was dismissed.
Merchant Law Group LLP v. Attorney General of Canada on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (Sask.)
Civil procedure – Estoppel – Issue estoppel
Prior to the signing of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (“IRSSA”), Merchant Law Group (“MLG”) initiated actions against Canada on behalf of Indian Residential School survivors on both an individual and a class basis. While the settlement of those actions was being negotiated, Canada’s representative developed serious concerns about the outstanding fees and disbursements and the number of retainers MLG claimed. As a result, he required that a process for verifying the claimed fees and disbursements be included in the IRSSA, which was signed in May 2006 included an agreement that Canada would pay MLG no less than $25 million, and no more than $40 million in legal fees and disbursements for legal work done in advancing Indian Residential School claims from 1997-2005: Art. 13.08(2). The IRSSA was approved in Sparvier v. Canada (Attorney General), 2006 SKQB 533. When Canada appealed a portion of that decision, MLG’s fees were found to be “reasonable”: Canada (Attorney General) v. Sparvier, 2007 SKCA 37. In Fontaine v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 SKQB 271, it was determined that MLG was entitled to $25 million in fees without verification, and Canada was ordered to pay that amount to MLG and to complete the verification process.
Once MLG had provided the last of its billing records and retainer agreements, a review indicated that the records contained illegitimate time entries and excessive disbursements. In 2015, Canada launched a fraud action against MLG claiming damages for fraud, deceit and fraudulent misrepresentation. MLG applied to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, and for being scandalous, vexatious and an abuse of process. The chambers judge struck the statement of claim in its entirety; the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal and set the chambers judge’s order aside.
Estate of Henry Goldentuler v. Robert Crosbie, Olga Leyenson, Mark Koskie, Gail Yattavong and KLC Law Firm (Corporation) (Ont.)
Damages – Quantum
The respondent Mr. Crosbie entered into a contractual arrangement with the applicant’s law firm whereby for a 50/50 sharing of profits, he would bring files to work on as a paralegal in exchange for the firm providing supervision and overhead expenses. Mr. Crosbie and others took files from the applicant’s law firm upon their departure to the respondent firm and were held liable to the applicant in damages arising from breaches of their duties of loyalty, good faith and avoidance of conflict of interest and self-interest. At issue is the quantum of damages. Since the respondents’ defence had been struck for failure to pay a previous award of costs, no one appeared on their behalf. The Ontario Court of Appeal awarded Mr. Goldentuler’s estate general, special and punitive damages totalling in excess of $600,000. The estate argues that this has not been sufficient disincentive for a breach of fiduciary duty and seeks a disgorgement of profits for the 120 files taken.
John Meulendyks, Mark Meulendyks v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)
Criminal law – Bail hearing
Mark Meulendyks (the “accused”), was charged with a number of narcotic offences. On March 23, 2016, he was released on a $50,000 recognizance with his father, John Meulendyks, (the “surety”) as the sole surety. The recognizance contains a number of terms including a term that the accused was to remain within his residence every day of the week, at all times except for a number of listed exceptions in the recognizance. The surety agreed to have the accused live at his home to ensure that he could fulfill his obligation of supervision. Mark Meulendyks breached the house arrest condition and was arrested for breach of his bail. John Meulendyks was ordered to forfeit the sum of $25,000.
Aviva Insurance Company of Canada v. Erin Dittmann (Ont.)
Insurance – Automobile insurance – No-fault statutory accident benefits
Ms. Dittmann sustained serious burns to her lower body when the entire contents of a cup of coffee she ordered at a McDonald’s drive-through spilled as she attempted to transfer the cup into the cup holder in her vehicle.
The trial judge determined that Ms. Dittmann was impaired as a result of an accident as defined in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, O. Reg. 34/10. She was therefore entitled to accident benefits in accordance with her insurance policy. The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurer’s appeal, holding that the motions judge did not err in his application of the causation test in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
Brenlee Kemp on her own behalf and as Executrix of the Estate of Shannon Jean Kemp, deceased v. Vancouver Coastal Health Authority Ltd., dba Vancouver General Hospital, David Sweet, Riyad B. Abu-Laban, Steven Sutcliffe, Dean Chittock - and between - Brenlee Kemp on her own behalf and as Executrix of the Estate of Shannon Jean Kemp, deceased v. David Sweet (B.C.)
Appeals – Standard of review – Civil Procedure
Ms. Kemp’s mother died in Vancouver General Hospital’s emergency department when resuscitation attempts failed. Ms. Kemp, as executrix of her mother’s estate, made claims in negligence and battery against the health authority (operating as the hospital), some hospital staff and physicians, in relation to the death and a previous hospital visit. Ms. Kemp also claimed for her own nervous shock. The defendants applied for summary judgment dismissing the action. The motions judge dismissed all claims but for a claim in battery against the emergency doctor. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Ms. Kemp and allowed an appeal by the emergency doctor, dismissing the claim in battery against him.
Matthew Estabrooks Partner
D. Lynne Watt Partner
Jeff Beedell Partner
Guy Régimbald Partner
Graham S. Ragan Partner
Brian A. Crane, QC Partner
Robert E. Houston, QC Partner
With more than 1,400 legal professionals in 18 cities worldwide, we provide our clients with in-depth expertise in key global sectors and a suite of legal services at home and abroad. We see the world through our clients’ eyes, and collaborate across countries, offices, service areas and sectors to help them succeed, no matter how challenging the circumstances.
+1 416 862 7525
© 2018 Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP. All rights reserved.
Unsubscribe | Update Settings
Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP is a member of Gowling WLG, an international law firm comprising the members of Gowling WLG International Limited, an English Company Limited by Guarantee, and their respective affiliates. Each member and affiliate is an autonomous and independent entity. Gowling WLG International Limited promotes, facilitates and co-ordinates the activities of its members but does not itself provide services to clients. Our structure is explained in more detail on our Legal Information page.