Good morning.
Please find our summaries of the four substantive civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario released last week.
In 4352238 Canada Inc. v. SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., the Court ordered the appeal to be heard in writing over the objection of one of the parties, finding there was nothing in the Courts of Justice Act or the Rules of Civil Procedure that prevented the Court from doing so in these extraordinary times.
Other topics covered last week included the disclosure of financial information by a limited partnership to its limited partners, stay pending appeal in a family law/substitute decisions context, and an appeal from an order dismissing an action as an abuse of process after the motion judge had refused to adjourn the motion for the third time.
Wishing everyone continued health and a productive week ahead.
Table of ContentsCivil Decisions
TriDelta Investment Counsel Inc. v. GTA Mixed-Use Developments GP Inc., 2020 ONCA 294
Keywords: Business Associations, Limited Partnerships, Disclosure, Financial Information, Civil Procedure, Applications, Procedural Fairness, Limited Partnership Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.16
Volk v. Volk, 2020 ONCA 297
Keywords: Family Law, Wills and Estates, Real Property, Matrimonial Home, Substitute Decisions, Powers of Attorney, Guardianship, Passing of Accounts, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Stay Pending Appeal, Substitute Decisions Act, RSO, 1990 c 30, Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 37.14, RJR-Macdonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 SCR 311
4352238 Canada Inc. v. SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., 2020 ONCA 303
Keywords: Civil Procedure, Appeals, Jurisdiction, Procedural and Natural Justice, Right to be Heard, Form of Hearing, In Writing, COVID-19, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, ss 2-9, 132-134, Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 61, R. v. Anderson, 2014 SCC 41, R. v. Cunningham, 2010 SCC 10, R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc., 2001 SCC 81, Courts of Justice Act, Rules of Civil Procedure, Practice Direction Regarding the Electronic Conduct of Matters During the COVID-19 Emergency
Laski v. BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc., 2020 ONCA 300
Keywords: Wills and Estates, Undue Influence, Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation, Civil Procedure, Procedural and Natural Justice, Adjournments, Issue Estoppel, Res Judicata, Khimji v Dhanani (2004), 69 O.R. (3d) 790 (C.A.)
Criminal Decisions
R. v. G., 2020 ONCA 296
Keywords: Criminal Law, First Degree Murder, Jury Instructions, R. v. Adan, 2019 ONCA 709, R. v. Calnen, 2019 SCC 6, R. v. MacKinnon (1999), 132 C.C.C. (3d) 545 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Poitras (2002), 57 O.R. (3d) 538 (C.A.), R. v. Azzam, 2008 ONCA 467, R. v. Khan, 2007 ONCA 779
R. v. P., 2020 ONCA 298
Keywords: Criminal Law, First Degree Murder, Trafficking, Criminal Code, ss. 185, 186, 492.1(1), R. v. Garofoli, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421, R. v. Lising, 2005 SCC 66, R. v. Green, 2015 ONCA 579, R. v. McKenzie, 2016 ONSC 242, World Bank Group v. Wallace, 2016 SCC 15, R. v. Shivrattan, 2017 ONCA 23, R. v. Paryniuk, 2017 ONCA 87, R. v. Vivar, 2009 ONCA 433, R. v. Riley (2009), 246 C.C.C. (3d) 552 (Ont. S.C.J.), R. v. Skeete, 2012 ONSC 737, Lewis v. The Queen, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 821, R. v. Darnley, 2020 ONCA 179, R. v. Sheriffe, 2015 ONCA 880, R. v. Salah, 2015 ONCA 23, R. v. Sarrazin, 2010 ONCA 577, R. v. Sanghera, 2012 BCSC 993
R. v. P., 2020 ONCA 299
Keywords: Criminal Law, Sentencing, Dangerous Offenders, Criminal Code, ss. 264, 718, 753.01, R. v. Boutilier, 2017 SCC 64, R. v. Steele, 2014 SCC 61, R. v. Boudreault, 2018 SCC 58
R. v. R., 2020 ONCA 302
Keywords: Criminal Law, Weapons Offences, Theft, Sentencing, Pre-Sentence Custody
R. v. G.V., 2020 ONCA 291
Keywords: Criminal Law, Sexual Assault, Evidence, Credibility, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7, 11(d), Criminal Code, s. 650, R. v. Laws (1998), 128 C.C.C. (3d) 516 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Peavoy (1997), 34 O.R. (3d) 620 (C.A.), R. v. White (1999), 132 C.C.C. (3d) 373 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Schell (2000), 148 C.C.C. (3d) 219 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Thain, 2009 ONCA 223, 243 C.C.C. (3d) 230, R. v. Jorgge, 2013 ONCA 485, 4 C.R. (7th) 170, R. v. M.D., 2020 ONCA 290, R. v. Cavan (1999), 139 C.C.C. (3d) 449 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Kokotailo, 2008 BCCA 168, R. v. Khan (1998), 126 C.C.C. (3d) 523 (B.C.C.A.), R. v. Marshall (2005), 77 O.R. (3d) 81, R. v. Quartey, 2018 ABCA 12, 430 D.L.R. (4th) 381, R. v. Gilbert, 2015 ONCA 927, 343 O.A.C. 199, R. v. Roble, 2004 CanLII 23106 (Ont. C.A.)
R. v. M.D., 2020 ONCA 290
Keywords: Criminal Law, Sexual Assault, Defences, Honest but Mistaken Belief in Consent, Evidence, Credibility, Criminal Code, ss. 271, s. 650(1), 684, 686, R. v. G.V., 2020 ONCA 291, R. v. White (1999), 132 C.C.C. (3d) 373 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Schell (2000), 148 C.C.C. (3d) 219 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Thain, 2009 ONCA 223, R. v. Cavan (1999), 139 C.C.C. (3d) 449 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Kokotailo, 2008 BCCA 168, R. v. Khan (1998), 126 C.C.C. (3d) 523 (B.C.C.A.), R. v. Marshall (2005), 77 O.R. (3d) 81, R. v. Peavoy (1997), 34 O.R. (3d) 620 (C.A.), R. v. Jorgge, 2013 ONCA 485, R. v. Brown, 2018 ONCA 9, R. v. Roble, 2004 CanLII 23106 (Ont. C.A.)
R. v. P.W., 2020 ONCA 301
Keywords: Criminal Law, Child Pornography, Evidence, Search Warrants, Sentencing, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 8, 24(2), Criminal Code, ss. 161, 487, Kienapple v. R., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729, R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353, R. v. Mann, 2004 SCC 52, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59, R. v. Mian, 2014 SCC 54, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 689, R. v. Mack, 2014 SCC 58, [2014] 3 S.C.R. 3, R. v. Le, 2019 SCC 34, R. v. Kitaitchik (2002), 166 C.C.C. (3d) 14 (Ont. C.A.), CanadianOxy Chemicals Ltd. v. Canada(Attorney General), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 743, R. v. McGuffie, 2016 ONCA 365, R. v. Schulz, 2018 ONCA 598
CIVIL DECISIONS
TriDelta Investment Counsel Inc. v. GTA Mixed-Use Developments GP Inc., 2020 ONCA 294
[Doherty, Juriansz and Paciocco JJ.A.]
Counsel:
Simon Bieber and Michael Darcy, for the appellants
Christopher Naudie and Lauren Tomasich, for the respondents
Keywords:Business Associations, Limited Partnerships, Disclosure, Financial Information, Civil Procedure, Applications, Procedural Fairness, Limited Partnership Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.16
facts:
This appeal concerns three limited partnerships in which the appellants are the general partners, and the respondents ("TriDelta") are limited partners. The partnerships were formed to acquire interests in various real estate development projects. These interests were ultimately acquired through "project companies" controlled by the limited partnerships and managed by the same person who controls all of the shares of the general partners.
TriDelta does not have a direct interest in the project companies or their assets. TriDelta holds units in the limited partnership. Under the limited partnership agreements (the "LPA"), TriDelta's investment in the limited partnerships is to be recouped from the profits, if any, earned through the development of the projects.
The working relationship between...
