A. Irvin Schein

The appellant appealed the motion judge's refusal to set aside a registrar's dismissal order.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge failed to consider that the appellant did not receive the status notice or dismissal order, moved promptly to set it aside upon learning of it, and discovered the dismissal when attempting to set the action down for trial.

The dismissal order was set aside, and the appellant was granted 30 days to set the action down for trial.

The appellants appealed an order granting the respondent relief from forfeiture of a 10% interest in a land development project.

The respondent had acquired the interest from her former common-law husband through a matrimonial order, subject to the appellants' security interest for a loan.

After the husband defaulted, the respondent tendered full payment of the loan shortly after the deadline.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the respondent met the three-part test for relief from forfeiture, noting her conduct was reasonable and there was a substantial disparity between the value of the forfeited property and the damage caused by the breach.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, which denied its request to be reclassified to the manufacturing rate applicable to a company that owned 50% of its shares.

The Divisional Court held that the tribunal, as a specialized body protected by a privative clause, was entitled to curial deference.

The court found that the tribunal's conclusion that the companies were not 'associated' under the Act was not patently unreasonable and dismissed the application.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment, arguing the trial judge erred in concluding they waived their right to sue for damages arising from a secret $50,000 payment because the doctrine of waiver was not pleaded.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the trial judge alerted the appellants to the issue prior to argument, no objection was raised, and the appellants tolerated the circumstances for three years.

The court found no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment ordering them to pay the respondent over $200,000 in a dispute over whether funds advanced were personal loans or shareholder advances.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge exceeded his role by assessing credibility and making findings of fact where genuine issues for trial existed.

The Court also found a reasonable apprehension of bias due to inappropriate comments made by the motion judge during prior procedural motions, and ordered that all future proceedings be heard by a different judge.

The appellants challenged a judgment holding the mortgagor and certain original guarantors liable for a mortgage deficiency after sale under power of sale.

The central dispute concerned whether an extension agreement entered into with a subsequent purchaser discharged the guarantors, including under s. 9(4) of the Land Registration Reform Act and principles of novation.

The majority dismissed the appeal, holding the extension agreement did not extinguish the guarantors' liability, but allowed the lender's cross-appeal by restoring the $75,000 reduction and awarding solicitor and client costs.

A partial dissent would have allowed the guarantors' appeal on the basis that the extension discharged them.