Aliamisse O. Mundulai

The applicant, a doctoral student, sought judicial review of a university tribunal's decision finding he violated the student code of conduct due to disruptive behaviour towards his supervisor.

The tribunal imposed restrictions on his contact with the supervisor and access to the laboratory.

The applicant also sought an order of mandamus to compel the university to provide him with a new supervisor.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the tribunal accorded the applicant procedural fairness and that the restrictions were within the adjudicator's authority.

The court also declined to issue mandamus, as the applicant had no clear legal right to be provided with a supervisor against a professor's will.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal regarding the nature and extent of injuries suffered in a workplace accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, applying the highest level of deference to the Tribunal's assessment of medical evidence and credibility.

The court also ordered the applicant to pay costs to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board for improperly adding them as an intervenor without an order.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's decision regarding an oral contract, arguing that the trial judge made findings of credibility and fact not supported by the evidence.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge did not misread or misinterpret the evidence, and that her findings regarding the settling of accounts were supported by the record.

The court concluded there was no palpable or overriding error and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs of $2,000 to the respondents.

The father sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that permitted the mother to travel to Turkey with their four-and-a-half-year-old child for several months.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order, which was based on the best interests of the child, and noting that the issue did not involve matters of public importance as required by Rule 62.02(4).

The appellants appealed an order enforcing Minutes of Settlement signed after mediation.

They argued their solicitor lacked authority to settle, the agreement was signed under duress, the settlement should not have been approved for the minor plaintiffs, and the agreement was not binding because a release was never signed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the solicitor had ostensible authority, there was no evidence of duress, the motion judge did not err in approving the settlement for the minors, and the requirement to sign a release did not prevent the Minutes from being a binding agreement.

The appellants appealed their convictions and intermittent sentences.

They argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence, failed to refer to character evidence, and that they required an interpreter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding that even if evidence was misapprehended, the verdicts would inevitably have been the same due to cogent bystander evidence.

The court also found no merit in the character evidence and interpreter arguments.

The sentence appeals were dismissed as the intermittent sentences were not unreasonable.