In Aylmer Meat Packers Inc. v. Ontario, 2011 ONSC 4470 the Honourable Justice Chapnik granted partial summary judgment on the motion of Attorney General of Canada (“AGC”), one of two government defendants, striking out the claim for trespass from the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim, but otherwise holding that the plaintiff’s claims for losses suffered by meat spoiling during an investigation by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food described in the plaintiff’s action for conversion or trespass to chattels and negligence may proceed in the usual course.
The AGC had argued that since the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (“CFIA”) carried out a lawful search, seizure, and detention and it was the Provincial authorities who prohibited the meat from being sold, it cannot be found liable in tort for trespass, conversion or trespass to chattels.
The motion judge held with respect to the claim for trespass, that whilst a person entering land with authority may become a trespassers ab initio if the authority is abused “the abuse must amount to a positive, wrongful act, as opposed to an omission or non-feasance and the abuse triggering the trespass ab initio must be related to and take away the entire reason of the entry”. The motion jduge held that there was no genuine issue to be determined at trial regarding the abuse of authority, since the parties agreed that the CFIA had lawful justification to enter the plant by way of search warrant issued to the CFIA and given the complexity of the search and the lack of evidence showing that the CFIA was in the plant for any longer than a time period of just under a month.
However, with respect to the claims for conversion or trespass to chattels, the court held that the issue whether or not CFIA exceeded their jurisdiction in the manner of detention of meat products was a question that can be determined only after a trial. The motion judge reasoned that there were questions of fact as to who had care and control over meat products at certain points of the investigation, including responsibility for the freezer at the time of the alleged malfunction, or whether the handling of the meat was done wrongfully. Similarly, with respect to the negligence claim, there was a question as to what the duty consisted of and whether it was breached in the circumstances and the motion judge found that the allegations of certain actions by CFIA were disputed and require assessments of credibility and of the evidence.
Heydary Hamilton PC has been involved in a substantial number of summary judgment motions, including a number of leading cases. Here is a sample of cases where we have acted for clients succeeding in motions for summary judgment:
Bruno Appliance v. Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, 2010 ONSC 5490
Harster Greenhouses v. Visser International, 2011 ONSC 2608
Brief informational summaries about commercial and other litigation matters in the courts of Ontario and other developments are periodically published on this website. They are intended to be a general comment or general discussion, not legal advice and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Should you require legal advice, please contact info@heydary.com or 416 972 9001.