Adam Lefler

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering him to pay $11,740 plus costs to the respondent for residential painting work.

The appellant argued the deputy judge ignored his evidence, erred in finding he breached the contracts, and improperly calculated damages and costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the deputy judge's factual findings and no error in the exercise of discretion regarding delay or costs.

The court also rejected the appellant's attempt to introduce fresh evidence on appeal.

The Applicant, a third mortgagee, challenged approximately $200,000 in charges and fees claimed by the Respondent, the first mortgagee, following a power of sale of vacant land.

The Applicant argued the charges were illegal, unenforceable, unsubstantiated, or penalties contrary to the Interest Act.

The court, exercising its power under Rule 14.05(3)(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, reviewed each disputed charge, disallowing many for lack of evidence or legal basis, including a three-month interest penalty and unjustified administrative and legal fees.

The court ordered the Respondent to pay $155,983.41 to the Applicant.

The plaintiff lawyer brought a motion for summary judgment in a mortgage action against the defendant corporation.

The mortgage was given as security for unpaid legal fees owed by the mother of the defendant's sole officer.

The defendant requested an adjournment of the summary judgment motion pending the resolution of applications to assess the plaintiff's legal accounts under the Solicitors Act.

The court granted the adjournment, finding that proceeding with the mortgage action before the assessments were completed would contravene the public policy underlying section 6(4) of the Solicitors Act.

The moving party, an evicted residential tenant, brought a motion to reinstate his tenancy pending the hearing of his appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision.

The Board had terminated his tenancy for seriously impairing the safety of others, finding that the tenant and his guests engaged in illegal activities, threatened other tenants, and caused a police raid.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found no serious issue to be tried regarding the tenant's claim of lack of notice, and held that the balance of convenience strongly favoured the landlord due to the safety risks posed by the tenant's activities.

The motion for a stay and reinstatement was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding them liable for $25,000 in damages plus costs for breaching a Buyer Representation Agreement (BRA) with the respondent real estate brokerage.

The appellants argued the trial judge made several factual and legal errors, including finding the BRA enforceable despite their claim that it was not adequately explained.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's conclusions that the appellants understood the BRA, deliberately bypassed the respondent to avoid paying commission, and engaged in unreasonable conduct warranting elevated costs.

The appellant auto repair shop appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its action for vehicle repair, towing, and storage costs.

The trial judge found that the respondent vehicle owner had not authorized the repairs and that the appellant had breached multiple provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding authorization.

The court also upheld the refusal to award damages on a quantum meruit basis, noting the appellant's unclean hands and lack of an equitable basis for relief.

The employer appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the employee damages for constructive dismissal, mental distress caused by workplace harassment, and costs.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the constructive dismissal damages from $1,250 to $625 because the employee had worked and been paid for the first week of the two-week notice period.

The court dismissed the appeal regarding mental distress damages, finding the pleadings were sufficient and the evidence supported the award.

The trial judge's costs award was also upheld.