Wholesale Discount Six Cylinder Intake Manifold to Florida Factories
Our company puts emphasis on the management, the introduction of talented personnel, and the construction of staff building, trying hard to improve the quality and liability consciousness of staff members. Our company successfully attained IS9001 Certification and European CE Certification of Wholesale Discount Six Cylinder Intake Manifold to Florida Factories, We sincerely welcome overseas customers to consult for the long-term cooperation and the mutual development.
Appellate lawyer, Brian Radnoff, provides a summary of Lerners’ Top 5 Ontario civil appeals decision from February 2015.
1. Meady v. Greyhound Canada Transportation Corp.
This appeal arises from a severe bus accident wherein a mentally disturbed passenger took over the steering wheel of a Greyhound bus resulting in a severe accident. In this decision, the Court of Appeal upheld a trial judge’s decision to disallow evidence from two experts on the standard of care. There was no issue with the trial judge’s findings that standard of care test applicable to both the bus driver and the police officers, who had previously dealt with the disturbed passenger, had been met and there was no breach in their duty. The appeal was dismissed.
2. First Elgin Mills v. Romandale Farms
This appeal involves a request for a rehearing of an appeal. The Court of Appeal had overturned a judge’s decision regarding the proper interpretation of a contract. The unsuccessful party requested a rehearing on the basis that the Court of Appeal’s decision had come out just after the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Sattva v. Moly Creston Corp. The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion indicating that the analysis would not have changed regardless of the standard applied and that no serious injustice would result if it declined to rehear the appeal.
3. Ibrahim v. Robinson
This appeal arose out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Michigan. The plaintiff sued in Ontario and the defendant contested the jurisdiction of the Ontario Court to hear the action. There was, however, a significant delay from when the action was commenced and a motion brought by the defendant contesting the jurisdiction was heard. Jurisdictional law had changed considerably during the time of the delay but despite this the motion judge ruled that the Ontario Court had jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision.
4. Moore v. Getahun
This issue in this appeal centres on the duties of experts and counsel’s interactions with experts. The trial judge in this matter implied that counsel for one of the parties had acted improperly by communicating with an expert witness about their report. The Court of Appeal determined that counsel had done nothing wrong and stated that communication is necessary between counsel and expert witnesses to properly prepare a report that assists the court in making its decision and if there were any questions about an expert’s report, those questions should be the subject of a cross-examination.
5. Westbell Networks Inc. v. Bell Canada
This appeal required the Court of Appeal to consider the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in Sattva v. Moly Creston Corp. regarding contractual interpretation and the amount of defence to be given to a trial judge’s contractual interpretation. The Court of Appeal confirmed the trial judge’s interpretation of the contract is to be given deference.