H.L. v. Can. (A.G.), (2005) 262 Sask.R. 1 (SCC)
Judge | McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ. |
Court | Supreme Court of Canada |
Case Date | Monday December 13, 2004 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | (2005), 262 Sask.R. 1 (SCC);2005 SCC 25;8 CPC (6th) 199;333 NR 1;EYB 2005-89538;[2005] 8 WWR 1;24 Admin LR (4th) 1;[2005] SJ No 24 (QL);[2005] SCJ No 24 (QL);138 ACWS (3d) 852;262 Sask R 1;[2005] RRA 275;[2005] ACS no 24;JE 2005-845;347 WAC 1;251 DLR (4th) 604;29 CCLT (3d) 1;[2005] 1 SCR 401 |
H.L. v. Can. (A.G.) (2005), 262 Sask.R. 1 (SCC);
347 W.A.C. 1
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
....................
Temp. Cite: [2005] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.018
H.L. (appellant) v. Attorney General of Canada (respondent) and Attorney General for Saskatchewan (intervenor)
(29949; 2005 SCC 25; 2005 CSC 25)
Indexed As:H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.
April 29, 2005.
Summary:
The plaintiff claimed that he was sexually assaulted by Starr, while a member of a boxing club operated by Canada and administered by Starr on its behalf. He sued Starr and the Attorney-General of Canada (Attorney-General).
The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 208 Sask.R. 183, allowed the plaintiff's action, held that the Attorney-General was vicariously liable for Starr's actions and awarded damages.
The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 210 Sask.R. 114, awarded prejudgment interest from the date of service of the statement of claim.
The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 211 Sask.R. 114, determined the issue of costs. The Attorney-General appealed the finding of vicarious liability against it. Alternatively, it appealed the assessment of damages and the award of pretrial interest. The plaintiff cross-appealed the trial judge's assessment of damages.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 227 Sask.R. 165; 287 W.A.C. 165, allowed the Attorney-General's appeal with respect to the damage award for past and future loss of earning capacity and prejudgment interest. The court allowed the cross-appeal with respect to the cost of future care. The appeal and cross-appeal were otherwise dismissed. The plaintiff applied to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, pursuant to s. 37 of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Attorney-General applied for leave to cross-appeal.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 238 Sask.R. 167; 305 W.A.C. 167, allowed the applications. The Attorney-General discontinued the cross- appeal.
The Supreme Court of Canada, Bastarache, LeBel, Deschamps and Charron, JJ., dissenting in part, allowed the appeal in part and restored the trial judge's award for past loss of earnings, except where the errors imputed to him were "palpable and overriding".
Courts - Topic 8203
Provincial courts - Saskatchewan - Court of Appeal - Jurisdiction - General - [See Courts - Topic 8208].
Courts - Topic 8208
Provincial courts - Saskatchewan - Court of Appeal - Jurisdiction - Question of fact - The Supreme Court of Canada held that "the standard of review for inferences of fact, in Saskatchewan as elsewhere in Canada, is that of palpable and overriding error and its functional equivalents, including 'clearly wrong', 'unreasonable' and 'not reasonably supported by the evidence'." - The court held that the Court of Appeal Act, S.S. 2000, c. C-42.1, did not enlarge the scope of appellate review of findings of fact in Saskatchewan - It did not give the Court of Appeal a general jurisdiction to "rehear" trials - Appellate review in Saskatchewan had for a long time proceeded, and continued to proceed, on essentially the same basis as appellate review elsewhere in Canada - The appeal was a review for error, and not a review by rehearing - See paragraphs 1 to 17, 52 to 110 and 347.
Damages - Topic 1550
General damages - General damages for personal injury - Prospective loss of wages or earnings - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "The finding that a person has had emotional and substance abuse problems which in the past have impacted on his earning capacity is not in itself a sufficient basis for concluding on the balance of probabilities that this state of affairs will endure indefinitely." - See paragraph 152.
Damages - Topic 1550.1
General damages - General damages for personal injury - Pre-trial loss of wages or earnings - The plaintiff sued for damages caused by sexual assaults that occurred in his teens - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the trial judge erred in not reducing the plaintiff's damages for loss of past earnings to reflect the time that he spent in prison - The trial judge's finding that the sexual abuse caused the plaintiff's loss of income due to imprisonment was unsupported by the evidence and contrary to judicial policy - To compensate an individual for loss of earnings arising from criminal conduct undermined the very purpose of our criminal justice system - An award of this type, if available in any circumstances, had to be justified by exceptional considerations of a compelling nature and supported by clear and cogent evidence of causation - The paragraphs 137 to 144.
Damages - Topic 1550.1
General damages - General damages for personal injury - Pre-trial loss of wages or earnings - [See Damages - Topic 1765].
Damages - Topic 1765
Deductions for payments or assistance by third parties - By statute or government - Social welfare payments - The Supreme Court of Canada reiterated that social assistance payments were to be deducted from an award for loss of past earnings - See paragraphs 145 to 149.
Practice - Topic 8800
Appeals - Duty of appellate court regarding findings of fact - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "'Palpable and overriding error' is at once an elegant and expressive description of the entrenched and generally applicable standard of appellate review of the findings of fact at trial. But it should not be thought to displace alternative formulations of the governing standard. In Housen [S.C.C.], for example, the majority ... and the minority ... agreed that inferences of fact at trial may be set aside on appeal if they are 'clearly wrong'. Both expressions encapsulate the same principle: an appellate court will not interfere with the trial judge's findings of fact unless it can plainly identify the imputed error, and that error is shown to have affected the result. ... the test is met as well where the trial judge's findings of fact can properly be characterized as 'unreasonable' or 'unsupported by the evidence'." - See paragraphs 55 and 56.
Practice - Topic 8800
Appeals - Duty of appellate court regarding findings of fact - [See Courts - Topic 8208].
Cases Noticed:
Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, appld. [paras. 8, 159, 347].
Lensen v. Lensen, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 672; 79 N.R. 334; 64 Sask.R. 6, refd to. [paras. 11, 263].
Tanel v. Rose Beverages (1964) Ltd. (1987), 57 Sask.R. 214 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 11, 278].
Athey v. Leonati et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458; 203 N.R. 36; 81 B.C.A.C. 243; 132 W.A.C. 243, refd to. [paras. 28, 336].
Markling v. Ewaniuk, [1968] S.C.R. 776, refd to. [para. 42].
Kosinski v. Snaith (1983), 25 Sask.R. 73 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].
R. v. R.W., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122; 137 N.R. 214; 54 O.A.C. 164, refd to. [para. 56].
Assicurazioni Generali SpA v. Arab Insurance Group, [2003] 1 W.L.R. 577 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 58, 231].
Stein Estate v. Ship Kathy K, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 802; 6 N.R. 359, refd to. [para. 62].
Beaudoin-Daigneault v. Richard, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 2; 51 N.R. 288, refd to. [para. 62].
Goodman Estate v. Geffen, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 353; 127 N.R. 241; 125 A.R. 81; 14 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 62].
Toneguzzo-Norvell et al. v. Savein and Burnaby Hospital, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 114; 162 N.R. 161; 38 B.C.A.C. 193; 62 W.A.C. 193, refd to. [paras. 62, 246].
Hodgkinson v. Simms et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 377; 171 N.R. 245; 49 B.C.A.C. 1; 80 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 62].
Minister of National Revenue v. Schwartz, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 254; 193 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 62].
Harrington v. Harrington (1981), 33 O.R.(2d) 150 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 88].
Pelech v. Pelech, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 801; 76 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 88].
Board of Education of Long Lake School Division No. 30 of Saskatchewan v. Schatz (1986), 49 Sask.R. 244 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 92, 271].
S.S. Honestroom v. S.S. Sagaporack, [1927] A.C. 37 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 94, 233].
Sisson et al. v. PAK Enterprises Ltd. and Thompson (1987), 64 Sask.R. 232 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 95, 278].
Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 106].
Knight v. Huntington et al., [2001] Sask.R. Uned. 125; 14 B.L.R.(3d) 202; 2001 SKCA 68, refd to. [paras. 107, 283].
Bogdanoff v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance (2001), 203 Sask.R. 161; 240 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SKCA 35, refd to. [paras. 108, 283].
Brown v. Zaitsoff Estate (2002), 217 Sask.R. 130; 2002 SKCA 18, refd to. [paras. 108, 283].
Janiak v. Ippolito, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 146; 57 N.R. 241; 9 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 134].
M.B. v. British Columbia, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 477; 309 N.R. 375; 187 B.C.A.C. 161; 307 W.A.C. 161; 2003 SCC 53, appld. [paras. 147, 345].
Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20, refd to. [para. 148].
Fox v. Percy, [2003] H.C.A. 22; 214 C.L.R. 118, refd to. [para. 176].
Kourtessis et al. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 53; 153 N.R. 1; 27 B.C.A.C. 81; 45 W.A.C. 81; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 286, refd to. [para. 181].
Farm Credit Corp. v. Valley Beef Producers Co-operative Ltd. et al. (2002), 223 Sask.R. 236; 277 W.A.C. 236; 218 D.L.R.(4th) 86; 2002 SKCA 100, refd to. [para. 181].
Chieu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 84; 280 N.R. 268; 2002 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 187].
Hallberg v. Canadian National Railway Co. (1955), 16 W.W.R.(N.S.) 538 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 196].
Taylor v. University of Saskatchewan (1955), 15 W.W.R.(N.S.) 459 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 207].
Audergon v. La Baguette Ltd., [2002] E.W.C.A. Civ. 10, refd to. [para. 208].
Gray v. Turnbull (1870), L.R. 2 Sc. & Div. 53 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 213].
Bigsby v. Dickinson (1876), 4 Ch. D. 24 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 213].
Coghlan v. Cumberland, [1898] 1 Ch. 704, refd to. [para. 215].
Montgomerie & Co. v. Wallace-James, [1904] A.C. 73 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 217].
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Procter, [1923] A.C. 253 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 218].
Benmax v. Austin Motor Co., [1955] A.C. 370 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 218].
Annable v. Coventry (1911), 19 W.L.R. 400 (Sask. S.C.) affd. (1912), 46 S.C.R. 573, refd to. [para. 224].
Greene, Swift & Co. v. Lawrence (1912), 2 W.W.R. 932 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 225].
Miller v. Foley & Sons (1921), 59 D.L.R. 664 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 226].
Messer v. Messer (1922), 66 D.L.R. 833 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 226].
Monaghan v. Monaghan, [1931] 2 W.W.R. 1 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 226].
Kowalski v. Sharpe (1953), 10 W.W.R.(N.S.) 604 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 226].
Tarasoff v. Zielinsky, [1921] 2 W.W.R. 135 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 226].
Matthewson et al. v. Thompson et al., [1925] 2 D.L.R. 1211 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 226].
French v. French, [1939] 2 W.W.R. 435 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 226].
Wilson v. Erbach (1966), 56 W.W.R.(N.S.) 659 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 226].
Tanfern Ltd. v. Cameron-MacDonald, [2000] 1 W.L.R. 1311 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 229].
Whitehouse v. Jordan, [1981] 1 W.L.R. 246; [1981] 1 All E.R. 267 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 238].
Laurentide Motels Ltd. et al. v. Beauport (Ville) et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 705; 94 N.R. 1; 23 Q.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 244].
St-Jean v. Mercier, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 491; 282 N.R. 310; 209 D.L.R.(4th) 513; 2002 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 244].
Warren v. Coombes (1979), 142 C.L.R. 531 (H.C. Aust.), refd to. [para. 246].
Workmen's Compensation Board v. Greer, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 347; 1 N.R. 99; 7 N.B.R.(2d) 171, refd to. [para. 246].
Underwood v. Ocean City Realty Ltd. (1987), 12 B.C.L.R.(2d) 199 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 297].
R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9; 166 N.R. 245; 71 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 314].
R. v. Marquard (D.), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 81; 66 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 318].
Parker v. Saskatchewan Hospital Association, [2001] 7 W.W.R. 230; 207 Sask.R. 121; 247 W.A.C. 121; 2001 SKCA 60, refd to. [para. 318].
State Rail Authority of New South Wales v. Wiegold (1991), 25 N.S.W.L.R. 500 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 344].
Statutes Noticed:
Court of Appeal Act, S.S. 2000, c. C-42.1, sect. 12, sect. 13(b), sect. 14 [para. 81].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Andrews, N.H., A New System of Civil Appeals and a New Set of Problems, [2000] Cambridge L.J. 464, p. 465 [para. 229].
Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 179].
Hansard (Sask.) - see Saskatchewan, Hansard, Legislative Assembly Debates.
Hohfeld, Wesley Newcomb, Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning and Other Legal Essays (1923), p. 32 [para. 54].
Jolowicz, J.A., Court of Appeal or Court of Error?, [1991] Cambridge L.J. 54, generally [para. 233].
Jolowicz, J.A., The New Appeal: rehearing or revision or what? (2001), 20 C.J.Q. 7, pp. 7, 8 [para. 232]; 11 [para. 234].
Perell, Paul M., The Standard of Appellate Review and the Ironies of Housen v. Nikolaisen (2004), 28 Adv. Q. 40, pp. 48 [para. 293]; 52 [para. 292].
Royer, Jean-Claude, La preuve civile (3rd Ed. 2003), p. 324 [para. 244].
Saskatchewan, Hansard, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings, 1st sess., 24th Legislature (June 7, 2000), pp. 1625 [para. 105]; 1626 [paras. 10, 13, 82, 105].
Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 2002), pp. 158 to 162 [para. 189]; 582 [para. 107].
Zuckerman, Adrian A.S., Civil Procedure (2003), pp. 719 [para. 229]; 761, 762 [para. 174]; 765 to 768 [para. 57]; 769 [para. 175].
Counsel:
E.F. Anthony Merchant, Q.C., Eugene Meehan, Q.C., and Graham Neill, for the appellant;
Roslyn J. Levine, Q.C., and Mark Kindrachuk, for the respondent;
Barry J. Hornsberger, Q.C., for the intervener.
Solicitors of Record:
Merchant Law Group, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the appellant;
Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent;
Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the intervener.
This appeal was heard on December 13, 2004, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The court delivered the following reasons for judgment, in both official languages, on April 29, 2005, including the following opinions:
Fish, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Binnie, and Abella, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 155;
Bastarache, J., dissenting in part (LeBel and Deschamps, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 156 to 346;
Charron, J., dissenting in part - see paragraphs 347 and 348.
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Stetler v. Agriculture Appeal Tribunal, (2005) 200 O.A.C. 209 (CA)
...S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 211 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 50]. H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2005), 333 N.R. 1; 262 Sask.R. 1; 347 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 50]. Martineau v. Ministre du Revenu national, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 737; 328 N.R. 48, refd to. ......
-
Motkoski Holdings Ltd. v. Yellowhead (County), 2010 ABCA 72
...2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 35]. H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 401; 333 N.R. 1; 262 Sask.R. 1; 347 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 25, refd to. [para. Diegel v. Diegel, [2008] A.R. Uned. 304; 100 Alta. L.R.(4th) 1; 2008 ......
-
Ontario (Attorney General) v. Restoule, 2024 SCC 27
...ABCA 14; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653; H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 25, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 401; Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; Montréal (City) v. Montreal Port Autho......
-
R. v. Trochym (S.J.), (2007) 221 O.A.C. 281 (SCC)
...O.A.C. 280; 217 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 183; 651 A.P.R. 183; 2002 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 112]. H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 401; 333 N.R. 1; 262 Sask.R. 1; 347 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 25, refd to. [para. R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 1......
-
Stetler v. Agriculture Appeal Tribunal, (2005) 200 O.A.C. 209 (CA)
...S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 211 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 50]. H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2005), 333 N.R. 1; 262 Sask.R. 1; 347 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 50]. Martineau v. Ministre du Revenu national, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 737; 328 N.R. 48, refd to. ......
-
Motkoski Holdings Ltd. v. Yellowhead (County), 2010 ABCA 72
...2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 35]. H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 401; 333 N.R. 1; 262 Sask.R. 1; 347 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 25, refd to. [para. Diegel v. Diegel, [2008] A.R. Uned. 304; 100 Alta. L.R.(4th) 1; 2008 ......
-
Ontario (Attorney General) v. Restoule, 2024 SCC 27
...ABCA 14; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653; H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 25, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 401; Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; Montréal (City) v. Montreal Port Autho......
-
R. v. Trochym (S.J.), (2007) 221 O.A.C. 281 (SCC)
...O.A.C. 280; 217 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 183; 651 A.P.R. 183; 2002 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 112]. H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 401; 333 N.R. 1; 262 Sask.R. 1; 347 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 25, refd to. [para. R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 1......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (April 4, 2022 ' April 8, 2022)
...c P4, s. 2, Cavanaugh v. Grenville Christian College, 2013 ONCA 139, Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 25, Whitby (Town) v. G & G 878996 LM Ltd., 2020 ONCA 654, Kaiman v. Graham, 2009 ONCA 77, Vivekanandan v. Terzian, 2020 ONCA 110, Sipsas v. 129......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (February 10 February 14, 2020)
...661, Hodkin v. Bigley, 20 R.P.R. (3d) 9 (C.A.), 1043 Bloor Inc. v. 1714104 Ontario Inc., 2013 ONCA 91, H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 25 Stoney Creek Centre Inc. v. 2459437 Ontario Inc., 2020 ONCA 119 Keywords: Contracts, Interpretation, Real Property, Mortgages, Sattva Capital......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (March 29 ' April 2, 2021)
...v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, Amertek Inc. v. Canadian Commercial Corp. (2005), 76 O.R. (3d) 241 (C.A.), H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 25, MacDougall v. MacDougall (2005), 205 O.A.C. 216 (C.A.) Fram Elgin Mills 90 Inc. v. Romandale Farms Limited, 2021 ONCA 201 Keywords: Contract......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (March 21 ' 25, 2022)
...Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16, s 118(1), Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, L. (H.) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 25, Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53, Jaegli Enterprises Ltd. v. Taylor, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 2 Tokarz v. Selwyn (Township), 2022 ON......
-
Deductions from Damages: Collateral Benefits
...74 BCLR (3d) 263 (CA) [ Jones ]. 126 (2002), 99 BCLR (3d) 256 (CA). 127 MB , above note 12; followed in HL v Canada (Attorney General ), [2005] 1 SCR 401 [ HL ]. Deductions from Damages: Collateral Benefi ts 513 As well, the Court rejected a policy-based exception of non-deductibility for s......
-
Table of cases
...[1970] 2 WLR 684 (CA) .............................................................................. 243 HL v Canada (Attorney General), [2005] 1 SCR 401, 251 DLR (4th) 604, [2005] SCJ No 24 ..................................................170, 512 HL Weiss Forwarding Ltd v Omnus, [1976] 1......
-
Table of cases
...General), [2006] 1 SCR 441, 266 DLR (4th) 675, 2006 SCC 13 ................................. 180 HL v Canada (Attorney General), [2005] 1 SCR 401, 251 DLR (4th) 604, 2005 SCC 25 ................................................................ 266 Hudon v United States Borax & Chemical Corp ......
-
Table of Cases
...H.(S.G.) v. Gorsline, 2004 ABCA 186, 354 A.R. 46 ............................................ 369 H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 401, 2005 SCC 25 ............ 368 Haddon v. Lynch, [1911] V.L.R. 5 (S.C.), aff’d [1911] V.L.R. 230 (F.C.) ............. 382 Haig v. Bamford (1......