Alan James McMackin

Following a civil trial, the court issued an amended judgment after it was brought to its attention that the claim against one defendant had previously been settled without costs at a pre‑trial conference.

Counsel had failed to advise the court of the settlement before judgment was rendered.

As a result, portions of the earlier decision that addressed findings relating to that defendant were vacated and set aside.

The amendment corrected the judgment to reflect that the settled defendant should not have been included in those findings.

The plaintiff purchased a swim spa from the defendant dealer, which was manufactured and distributed by the other defendants.

The plaintiff withheld $2,000 of the purchase price, claiming the installation was incomplete and the spa was defective and not fit for his intended purpose of a chlorine-free exercise environment.

The plaintiff sued for breach of contract and breach of implied warranties under the Sale of Goods Act.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action, finding he unilaterally terminated the contract by preventing the dealer from completing the installation, and that the spa's subsequent breakdowns were likely due to the plaintiff's improper maintenance and winterization.

The court granted the dealer's counterclaim for the unpaid $1,800 balance.

The parties, two dentists, practised together under a Cost Sharing Agreement containing an arbitration clause.

After their relationship broke down, the respondent sued for breach of contract, conversion, and malicious prosecution.

The appellant moved for a stay of proceedings under s. 7 of the Arbitration Act, which the motions judge dismissed on the basis that the malicious prosecution claim fell outside the arbitration agreement and the matters could not easily be separated.

The Court of Appeal held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal because a finding that a dispute falls outside an arbitration agreement is not barred by s. 7(6).

The Court upheld the motions judge's decision, finding no error in the refusal to grant a partial stay.

The appellant, a police officer, was charged with major service offences and appeared before the Deputy Chief of Police for trial.

He argued that the proceedings violated his right to an independent and impartial tribunal under section 11(d) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that section 11 does not apply to police disciplinary proceedings because they are neither criminal in nature nor involve true penal consequences, such as imprisonment.