All PIA flights are Non-smoking. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
In Kazi v. Qatar Airlines, 2013 ONSC 1370 (CanLII), the plaintiff boarded Air Canada flight 856 travelling from Toronto Pearson Airport to London Heathrow, and thereafter boarding a connecting flight to Doha, Qatar on Qatar Airlines, with an ultimate destination of Dhaka, Bangladesh.
The trip was, to put it mildly, an eventful ride. (more…)
As a follow-up to my recent post on the Court of Appeal for Ontario decision in Wang v. Lin, I’m quoted in an article by Christopher Guly in the The Lawyers Weekly March 8-13 issue: “When family breakdown spans the globe, from China to Canada“.
Court of Appeal window (Photo credit: lancea)
The Court of Appeal for Ontario in Zhang v. Hua Hai Li Steel Pipe Co. Ltd., 2013 ONCA 103 (CanLII), has reaffirmed that jurisdiction simpliciter is established by presence-based jurisdiction and consent-based jurisdiction (delivery of a Statement of Defence and other merit-based steps constitute attornment):
[5] In our view, the appeal should be dismissed but for reasons different from those given by the motion judge.
[6] This is not a jurisdictional case. The respondents live and were served in Ontario and the Ontario courts accordingly have jurisdiction. It is also significant that before the respondents brought the motion challenging the jurisdiction of the court, the appellants filed a statement of defence and took other steps in connection with the action. Even if the appellants had not been served within Ontario, they have attorned to the jurisdiction.
[7] The forum non conveniens issue is not relevant.
[8] We see no merit in this appeal and it is therefore dismissed.
swimming pool (Photo credit: freefotouk)
[4] For the reasons that follow, I would set aside the decisions of the Divisional Court and the Board. The interpretations they gave to s. 51(1) of the [Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1.] would make virtually every place in the province of Ontario (commercial, industrial, private or domestic) a “workplace” because a worker may, at some time, be at that place. This leads to the absurd conclusion that every death or critical injury to anyone, anywhere, whatever the cause, must be reported. Such an interpretation goes well beyond the proper reach of the Act and the reviewing role of the Ministry reasonably necessary to advance the admittedly important objective of protecting the health and safety of workers in the workplace. It is therefore unreasonable and cannot stand.
[5] In my view, a proper interpretation of the Act requires that there be some reasonable nexus between the hazard giving rise to the death or critical injury and a realistic risk to worker safety at that site. There is no such nexus here.
[6] Sometimes a swimming pool is just a swimming pool.
Blue Mountain Resorts Limited v. Bok, 2013 ONCA 75 (Ont. C.A.) per Blair, J.A.
Today’s decision of the Court of Appeal in Ontario in Martin v. ConCreate USL Limited Partnership, 2013 ONCA 72 (“ConCreate”) confirms that restrictive covenants in commercial agreements without a fixed term are unenforceable.
The tl;dr version: Restrictive covenants of indefinite duration and subject to consent of indeterminate third parties are unenforceable. (more…)
