Following are this week’s summaries of the Court of Appeal
for Ontario for the week of September 20, 2021. The theme this week
was family law.
Congratulations to our own Ryan Kniznik for his success
in Muraven v. Muraven. In that case, the Court
dismissed an appeal addressing property, child support and
prejudgment interest issues.
In Meloche v. Meloche, the Court was asked to
answer the following question: Where a retired member spouse’s
pension payments are divided at source for family law purposes, can
the parties agree (or can a court order or can an arbitrator award)
that payment sharing continue to the non-member spouse’s estate
for the balance of the retired member spouse’s life? The motion
judge had answered that question in the negative. However, after an
exhaustive review of the relevant provisions of
the Pension Benefits Act and the Family
Law Act, the Court set aside that decision and answer the
question in the affirmative.
In Lalonde v. Agha, the Court dismissed the
appellant’s appeal from the trial judge’s order that the
parties’ religious marriage in Tennessee that was not formally
valid in that state because no marriage licence was obtained, was
nonetheless deemed valid in Ontario pursuant to s. 31 of
the Marriage Act, and therefore that the parties were
“spouses” under the Family Law Act.
In Smith v. Kane, the Court upheld the trial
judge’s decision that there was no breach of the standard of
care of a family doctor in failing to diagnose a rare condition
that resulted in the loss of the patient’s leg that could have
been avoided if there had been an earlier diagnosis.
In Johnson v Ontario, the Court determined that a
decision to deny an extension of time to a class member to opt out
of a class proceeding so that the class member could proceed with
his own individual action was a final order, not an interlocutory
order. The Court was of the view that the opt out right was of such
importance, that the denial of that right amounted to a decision
that affected substantive legal rights, and not merely procedural
rights. The order dismissing the class member’s motion for an
extension of time to opt out of the class proceeding was therefore
characterized as a final order. Ontario’s motion to quash the
appeal on the basis that the order was interlocutory and therefore
before the wrong court was dismissed.
Lastly, for our readers who have not yet heard about it, I would
like to introduce them to a new publication, Civil
Procedure & Practice in Ontario (CPPO).
The CPPO is a new free online resource jointly
published by the University of Windsor and CanLII. As most of our
readers probably know, CanLII is a not-for-profit organization
operated by the Federation of Law Societies of Canada and is
dedicated to assisting with access to justice through the free and
open dissemination of the laws of Canada to all members of the
public. The CPPO was written by a team of 135
leading litigators and experts in Ontario civil procedure, led by
Professor Noel Semple of Windsor Law School.
CPPO will serve as a guide to
Ontario’s Rules of Civil
Procedure, Courts of Justice Act,
and Limitations Act, and will be accessible not only
to practitioners, but to members of the public. It contains not
only the text of all these rules and statutory provisions, but also
commentary and annotations to all the relevant case law applying
and interpreting each rule and section. To access Civil
Procedure & Practice in Ontario, please click here, and make sure to bookmark the site for
easy access.
Together with my colleague, Natasha Rambaran, I had the
privileged and honour to contribute two chapters
to CPPO dealing with Rules 54 and 55 (Directing
a Reference and Procedure on a Reference). I would like to thank
Professor Semple for inviting me to participate in this very
worthwhile project.
I would encourage all of our readers to
consult CPPO in their daily practice, and to
spread the word among colleagues. In addition, the authors and
Professor Semple would welcome any feedback and ideas for
improvement, as the resource will not be static. The intention is
for CPPO to be continually updated and
refined.
A. Table of Contents
Civil Decisions
a. Smith v. Kane, 2021 ONCA 634
Keywords: Torts, Negligence, Medical
Malpractice, Standard of Care, Causation, Contributory Negligence,
Expert Evidence, ter Neuzen v. Korn, [1995] 3 S.C.R.
674, Kaiman v. Graham, 2009 ONCA 77, Whitby
(Town) v. G&G, 2020 ONCA 654, Samms Estate v.
Moolla, 2019 ONCA 220, Nattrass v. Weber, 2010
ABCA 64, McCann v. Hyndman, 2004 ABCA
191, Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC
33, Hajgato v. London Health Association (1982),
36 O.R. (2d) 669 (S.C.), Carmichael v. GlaxoSmithKline
Inc., 2020 ONCA 447, Rowlands v. Wright, 2009
ONCA 492, Gent and Gent v. Wilson, [1956] O.R. 257
(C.A.), Ellen I. Picard & Gerald B. Robertson, Legal Liability
of Doctors and Hospitals in Canada, 5th ed. (Toronto: Carswell,
2017)
b.
Blacklock v. Tkacz, 2021 ONCA 630
Keywords: Family Law, Motion, Estate,
Deceased, Retroactive Child Support, Decree Nisi,
Costs, Divorce Act, Family Law
Act, Family Law Rules, O. Reg.
114/99, Katz v. Katz, 2014 ONCA 606
c.
Meloche v. Meloche, 2021 ONCA 640
Keywords: Family Law, Motion, Question of
Law, Divorce, Equalization, Net Family Property, Pension, Estate,
Standard of Review, Correctness, Statutory Interpretation, Costs,
Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O.
1990, c. P.8, Family Law Act, R.S.O.
1990, Family Law Matters, O. Reg.
287/11, Divorce Act, Colucci v.
Colucci, 2021 SCC 24, Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002
SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, Harvey v. Talon International
Inc., 2017 ONCA 267, 137 O.R. (3d) 184, Bell
ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, 2002 SCC 42, [2002] 2
S.C.R. 559, Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. Canada,
2005 SCC 54, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 601, Hickman Motors Ltd. v.
Canada, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 336, 148 D.L.R. (4th)
1, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Old
Republic Insurance Company of Canada, S.H. v.
D.H., 2019 ONCA 454, 146 O.R. (3d) 625, Ruth Sullivan,
Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes, 6th ed. (Markham:
LexisNexis, 2014), Monsanto Canada Inc. v.
Ontario (Superintendent of Financial Services), 2004 SCC
54, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 152, Kendra D.M.G. Coats et al., Ontario Family
Law Practice 2020, Volume 2 (Toronto: LexisNexis Canada, 2019)
d.
Johnson v. Ontario, 2021 ONCA 650
Keywords: Torts, Negligence, Breach of
Charter Rights, Crown Liability, Civil Procedure, Class
Proceedings, Opting Out, Extension of Time, Appeals, Jurisdiction,
Final or Interlocutory, Class Proceedings Act, 1992,
S.O. 1992, c. 6, s. 9, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43,
s. 19(1), Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s.
24(1), Drywall Acoustic Lathing Insulation Local 675
Pension Fund v. SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., 2020 ONCA
375, Hendrickson v. Kallio, [1932] O.R. 675
(C.A.), Ball v. Donais (1993), 13 O.R. (3d) 322
(C.A.), Buck Brothers Ltd. v. Frontenac Builders
Ltd. (1994), 19 O.R. (3d) 97, Skunk v. Ketash, 2016
ONCA 841, Nutech Brands Inc. v. Air Canada, [2008]
O.J. No. 1065 (S.C.), 1250264 Ontario Inc. v. Pet Valu
Canada Inc., 2012 ONSC 4317, rev’d on other grounds 2013
ONCA 279, Currie v. McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada
Ltd. (2005), 74 O.R. (3d) 321 (C.A.), Western
Canadian Shopping Centres Inc. v. Dutton, [2001] 2 S.C.R.
534, Webb v. K-Mart Canada Ltd. (1999), 45 O.R. (3d)
389, Workmen Optometry v. Aviva Insurance, 2021 ONSC
3843, Dumoulin v. Ontario (Ontario Realty
Corp.), [2004] O.J. No. 2778, M.J. Jones Inc. v. Kingsway
General Insurance Co. (2003), 233 D.L.R. (4th) 285 (Ont.
C.A.), Smith Estate v. National Money Mart Company,
2008 ONCA 746, leave to appeal refused, [2008] S.C.C.A. No.
535, Fontaine v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018
ONCA 832, Locking v. Armtec Infrastructure Inc., 2012
ONCA 774, Hendrickson v. Kallio, [1932] 4 D.L.R. 580
(Ont. C.A.), Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. York
Ridge Developments Ltd. (1998), 116 O.A.C.
103, Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc. v.
Dutton, 2001 SCC 46, Paul M. Perell and John W. Morden, The
Law of Civil Procedure in Ontario, 2d ed. (Markham: Lexis-Nexis
Canada Inc., 2014), Kennedy, Gerard, Civil Appeals in Ontario: How
the Interlocutory/Final Distinction Became So Complicated and the
Case for a Simple Solution?, (2020) 45:2 Queen’s L.J. 243
e.
Skinner v. Skinner, 2021 ONCA 658
Keywords: Family Law, Spousal Support,
Child Support, Variation, Material Change in Circumstances,
Arrears, Imputing Income, Section 7 Extraordinary Expenses, Child
of Marriage, Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, Willick
v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670, Lavie v. Lavie,
2018 ONCA 10, 8 R.F.L. (8th) 14, Rosenberg v.
Rosenberg (2003), 42 R.F.L. (5th) 440 (Ont.
S.C.), Hickey v. Hickey, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 518
f.
Lalonde v. Agha, 2021 ONCA 651
Keywords: Family Law, Marriage,
Validation, Definitition of Spouse, Equalization of Net Family
Property, Marriage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.3, s. 4 and
31, Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 1(1),
Tennessee Code Annotated, The Marriage Act, 1896,
S.O. 1896, c. 39, s. 29, Alspector v.
Alspector (1957), 9 D.L.R. (2d) (Ont.
C.A.), Debora v. Debora (1999), 167 D.L.R. (4th)
759 (Ont. C.A.), Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re),
[1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, Berthiaume v. Dastous, [1930] 1
D.L.R. 849 (P.C.), Brook v. Brook (1861), 11
E.R. 703 (H.L.), Porteous v. Dorn et al., [1975] 2
S.C.R. 37, Powell v. Cockburn, [1977] 2 S.C.R.
218, Peppiatt v. Peppiatt (1916), 30 D.L.R. 1
(Ont. C.A.), Kerr v. Kerr and Ontario (Attorney
General), [1934] S.C.R. 72, Clause v.
Clause (1956), 5 D.L.R. (2d) 286, Breakey v.
Breakey (1846), 2 U.C.Q.B. 349, Smith v.
Waghorn, 2012 ONSC 496, Dutch v.
Dutch (1977), 1 R.F.L. (2d) 177 (Ont. Co.
Ct.), Harris v. Godkewitsch (1983), 41 O.R. (2d)
779 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), Kanafani v. Abdalla, 2010 ONSC
3651, Chhokar v. Bains, 2012 ONSC 6602, Aden
v. Mohamud, 2019 ONSC 6493, Moza and Thusu (Re), 2021
ONSC 1552, Friedman v. Smookler, [1964] 1 O.R. 577, Ayoub
v. Osman, 2006 CanLII 9309 (Ont. S.C.), Isse v.
Said, 2012 ONSC 1829, Jama v. Basdeo, 2020 ONSC
2922, Walker, Janet, Castel & Walker: Canadian Conflict of
Laws, loose-leaf (ReI. 82-9/2020), 6th ed. (Markham, Ont.:
LexisNexis Butterworths, 2005) vol. 2, Payne, Julien D. and Marilyn
A., Canadian Family Law, 8th ed. (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2020) H.R.
Hahlo, Nullity of Marriage in Canada: With A Sideways Glance At
Concubinage And Its Legal Consequences, (Toronto: Butterworth &
Co. (Canada), 1979), Riddell, William Renwick, The Law of Marriage
in Upper Canada, (1921) 2 Can Historical Rev 226
Short Civil Decisions
g.
Public Guardian and Trustee v. Zammit, 2021 ONCA
648
Keywords: Wills and Estates, Powers of
Attorney, Public Guardian and Trustee, Substitute
Decisions Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c.30, s.32(1) and
s.38(1), RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney
General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311, Ogden Entertainment
Services v. United Steelworkers of America, Local 440 (1998),
38 O.R. (3d) 448 (C.A.)
h.
31 Kingsbury Inc v. Delta Elevator Company Limited, 2021
ONCA 656
Keywords: Civil Procedure, Appeals,
Abandonment, Costs
i.
Maynard v. Mississippi Mills (Municipality), 2021 ONCA
639
Keywords: Municipal Law, By-Laws, Civil
Procedure, Striking Pleadings, No Reasonable Cause of Action,
Jurisdiction, Ontario Land Tribunal Act, S.O.
2021, Local Land Appeal Tribunal Act, S.O.
2017, Country Pork Ltd. v. Ashfield (Township),
60 O.R. (3d) 529, Grabe v. Ottawa (City), 2019
CanLII 107083, Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule
21.01(1)(b)
j.
College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v Schoelly, 2021
ONCA 655
Keywords: Civil Procedure, Appeals,
Mootness
k.
Markham (City) v. AIG Insurance Company of Canada, 2021
ONCA 649
Keywords: Civil Procedure, Appeals,
Costs
l.
Jonas v Akwiwu, 2021 ONCA 641
Keywords: Child Support, Retroactive
Variation, Effective Date of Variation, Material Change in
Circumstances, Delay in Application, Fresh Evidence on Appeal,
Palmer Test, R. v. Palmer, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759
m.
Hanna & Hamilton Construction Co. Ltd v. Robertson,
2021 ONCA 660
Keywords: Bankruptcy and Insolvency, Debt
Surviving Bankruptcy, Civil Procedure, Procedural and Natural
Justice, Reasons, Appeals, Lack of Reasons, Appeal
Allowed, R. v. Sheppard, [2002] 1 SCR 869
n.
Diamond v. Berman], 2021 ONCA 653
Keywords: Family law, Spousal Support,
Variation, Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines
To view the full article please click here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be ought
about your specific circumstances.