The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge’s decision staying the Manitoba version of Merchant Law Group’s class action litigation concerning cell phone system access fees in Hafichuk-Walkin et al v BCE Inc et al, 2016 MBCA 32, finding “little in the way of a legitimate reason for what are, in substance, “carbon copy” class actions involving the same plaintiffs, defendants, lawyers and allegations being allowed to proceed in two different jurisdictions once a final certification of a class action has occurred in one jurisdiction and all appeals of the certification are exhausted” (para. 57). “An unconditional stay to end an unnecessary duplicitous proceeding properly advances the principles of judicial economy, consistency, finality and the integrity of the administration of justice which are core values at the roots of the abuse of process doctrine,” according to the court, which agreed with the conclusion of appeal courts in Nova Scotia and Alberta that maintaining class actions outside of Saskatchewan (where the matter is certified and going to trial) is “nothing more than a form of insurance for the possibility of an unsuccessful result in that jurisdiction on the claim of unjust enrichment. That is inappropriate and amounts to an abuse of process.” (paras. 60 and 56) As noted in this Davies post, Manitoba is the fifth province to stay duplicative class actions under the abuse of process doctrine.

Section 18 of The Court of Queen’s Bench Small Claims Practices Amendment Act, SM 2014, c 30, makes it clear that it does not apply to claims filed prior to the coming into force of the legislation, according to the court in Chahal v SPS Trucking Inc et al, 2016 MBCA 29. This makes sense, said the court, in light of the significant differences in the appeal procedure between the former Act and the amending Act. The court denied the defendants’ application for leave to appeal the second motion judge’s decision ordering that their small claims appeal from a default judgment proceed as provided for under the former Act.

In dismissing an appeal from a motion judge’s decision not to grant summary judgment in Hyczkewycz v Hupe, 2016 MBCA 23, the court made the following comments concerning reasons on such motions: Judges deciding motions for summary judgment are strongly discouraged from making statements about law, where the law is in dispute, if they are referring that same legal issue back for determination by another judge. A short endorsement that the moving party has not met the test for summary judgment for a stated reason(s) is all that is required. Making statements as to the interpretation of a law in a case where the responsibility will fall to another judge in the same case to interpret that same law is an unnecessary use of judicial resources and, more importantly, jeopardizes judicial comity; the trial judge is placed in the difficult position of potentially having to disagree with a colleague. (para. 5)

Munro et al v Canada (Attorney General) et al, 2016 MBCA 31 – the court upheld the application judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to former students to intervene in an appeal taken by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs from a decision dismissing its application to set aside a deemed abandonment of appeal concerning the IRSSA. Patient v. Attorney General of Canada et al, 2016 MBQB 63 – this is the first Manitoba decision to apply the Carter 2015 criteria to permit a patient a physician assisted death. The application was not opposed and, after an individual- and fact-specific limited inquiry, the court found that the applicant met the articulated criteria (competent adult, consents to termination of life, suffering from grievous and irremediable medical condition that is intolerable and cannot be alleviated by treatment). Fawley et al. v. Mosleneko, 2016 MBQB 59 – the court granted an administratrix leave to commence a wrongful death action against her deceased sister’s boyfriend (who had been acquitted of arranging the killing of the deceased), notwithstanding expiry of the applicable limitation period for bringing such an action. Culbertson et al v. The Assiniboine Credit Union Limited et al, 2016 MBQB 46 – given the unique circumstance in this case, in which relevant records had been destroyed, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion to examine three non-parties. Romana v. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation et al., 2016 MBQB 33 – the CBC’s motion to strike out parts of a statement of claim pertaining to an alleged breach of privacy under the federal Privacy Act and discrimination under The Human Rights Code of Manitoba was dismissed. The court found that it was not plain and obvious that a privacy action must fail nor that the discrimination claim was foreclosed by previous decisions.

The Court of Queen’s Bench has given notice (Payment of Fees and Charges) that, effective April 4, 2016, personal and business cheques can no longer be used to pay filing and probate fees. See the notice for details of the regulations and exceptions concerning law firm cheques. The court also issued a Practice Direction (Small Claims Appeals Docket) concerning the once per month small claims appeals docket, which commenced February 1, 2016.

The Ontario Superior Court decision in Doe 464533 v N.D., 2016 ONSC 541, introducing a new tort allowing individuals to sue for invasion of privacy, continues to attract commentary, with recent articles being published by Torys LLP, Legal Feeds, and Lawyers Weekly, among many others. The perils of overreaching – this Lawyers Weekly article discusses how overreaching in personal injury cases may be behind the trend toward skeptical juries and lower awards. Maximizing tort settlements during bankruptcy – this Lawyers Weekly article provides an overview of the interplay between tort personal injury settlements and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. New Edition of the Sedona Canada Principles for E-Discovery – this CyberLex post reviews the changes made to the Sedona Canada Principles in the recently published 2d edition of Sedona Canada Principles Addressing Electronic Discovery.

Self-Represented Litigants and the Family Law File – self-represented litigants present particular challenges in the family law context. Justice Michael Thomson and several experienced counsel will provide practical advice and tips for dealing with SRLs at this lunch program on April 20, 2016. Aboriginal Law Series – this series concludes with a unique opportunity to explore Indigenous Legal Traditions at Turtle Lodge on Sagkeeng First Nation, on May 17, 2016.

Ethical Issues for Civil Litigators: What to Do, When to Do It, and Who to Call – this half-day CBA online program on April 18, 2016 will give you a framework to navigate the thorny ethical quandaries civil litigators encounter every day. Test your ethical radar by responding (anonymously) to a series of scenarios parsed by the expert panel.