Amanda Marie Chapman

The appellant appealed from a motion judge's order dismissing her wrongful dismissal claim.

The motion judge dismissed the claim on two independent grounds: first, that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction because the claim arose from the interpretation and application of a collective agreement; and second, that the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the limitation period issue alone, finding that although the appellant's claim was discoverable in late April or mid-May 2020, limitation periods were suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic until September 14, 2020.

The two-year limitation period therefore commenced on September 14, 2020, and expired on September 14, 2022.

The appellant commenced her claim on October 27, 2022, which was outside the limitation period.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order awarding sole custody of the parties' twelve-year-old son to the respondent, along with ancillary orders.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: (1) that the trial judge failed to give proper weight to the son's expressed preferences; (2) that the trial judge's reasons were inadequate because they did not specifically refer to the factors in section 24(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act; and (3) that the trial judge misunderstood or misapplied the law relating to joint custody in parallel parenting mode.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no substantiation for any of the appellant's contentions and affirming the trial judge's fact-based decision.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment on three grounds: the trial judge's credibility assessments, alleged collusion by one respondent with witnesses, and prejudice from a five-month trial adjournment.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's credibility findings were adequately explained within the context of the entire judgment and were warranted on the evidence.

The court found no evidentiary support for the collusion allegation, noting that the witnesses' trial testimony was inconsistent with the "will-say" statements allegedly prepared by the respondent, making collusion implausible.

The court rejected the adjournment argument, holding that absent demonstrated actual prejudice or a request for an earlier date at trial, a five-month adjournment does not presumptively require a new trial.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant's employment was terminated in October 2012.

In December 2012, the appellant entered into a settlement agreement and release with the respondent.

In October 2014, the appellant commenced an action for wrongful dismissal, defamation, and conversion of his book of business.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss under Rule 21.01(3)(d) based on the settlement agreement and release.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding no breach of good faith, no fraudulent misrepresentation, and that the settlement agreement was neither unconscionable nor unenforceable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge improperly treated the Rule 21.01(3)(d) motion as a summary judgment motion and made findings of fact that were inappropriate at that stage.

The defendants sought costs following a 20-day trial where the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed and the defendants succeeded on their counterclaim.

The court awarded the first group of defendants costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to the plaintiffs' reprehensible conduct, which amounted to elder abuse.

The second group of defendants was awarded partial indemnity costs, as the claims against them were not found to be vexatious.

Total costs of over $325,000 were awarded against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs, a couple who sponsored the immigration of the wife's elderly parents (the Nikityuks) from Russia, sued the parents and the YMCA (and an employee) for inducing breach of contract, negligence, conspiracy, and defamation after the parents moved out of their shared home into social housing.

The Nikityuks counterclaimed for fraud, misrepresentation, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty, seeking damages for lost capital and a constructive trust on the home.

The court dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims, finding no malice or unlawful conduct by the YMCA defendants.

The court granted the Nikityuks' counterclaim, finding that the plaintiffs had financially abused the Nikityuks, breached their contract and fiduciary duties, and committed civil fraud by misrepresenting investment returns on the Nikityuks' capital, which was subsequently lost in the stock market.

The Nikityuks were awarded damages for their lost capital, interest, a constructive trust on the Innisfil property, and punitive damages.

Robert Connor, an investment advisor, was terminated by Scotia Capital Inc. for breaching internal policies and IIROC rules.

He subsequently signed a settlement agreement and release.

Connor later initiated a civil action against Scotia for wrongful dismissal, defamation, and conversion of his book of business.

Scotia brought a motion to dismiss the action, asserting the enforceability of the settlement agreement and release.

The court analyzed Connor's claims that Scotia breached a duty of good faith, made fraudulent misrepresentations, that the agreement was unconscionable, and that it was unenforceable due to his mental state and lack of legal advice.

The court found no merit in Connor's allegations, concluding that the settlement agreement and release were valid and enforceable.

Consequently, Scotia's motion was granted, and Connor's action was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff, Ronald Dawson, brought an unsuccessful summary judgment motion in his wrongful dismissal action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial, including evidentiary conflicts and credibility issues.

The defendant, Colt Food Services Limited, sought substantial indemnity costs for the motion.

The court, exercising its discretion, reserved the costs of the summary judgment motion to the trial judge.

This decision was based on the finding that the work done for the motion would facilitate the trial process, and a significant costs award against the plaintiff, who faced financial hardship, would impede his access to justice.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in his wrongful dismissal and human rights claim against his former employer.

The plaintiff alleged he was terminated without cause, while the employer maintained he resigned or abandoned his position.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that there were genuine issues requiring a trial due to significant conflicts in the evidence regarding the circumstances of the plaintiff's departure, his medical condition, and mitigation efforts.

The court declined to use its discretionary fact-finding powers, concluding that a fair and just determination required a full trial.

The applicants brought an application for specific performance of an oral agreement for the respondents to store their furniture and paintings until they moved to Argentina.

The respondents claimed some of the antique furniture was given to them as a gift.

The court found the respondents failed to prove an intention to donate and ordered specific performance for the return of the items.

However, the court dismissed the applicants' claims for damages related to shipping containers and storage costs due to vague evidence.

The plaintiff, Sky High Roofing & Sheet Metal Inc., brought a motion for an interim order under Rule 44 for the return of three pieces of equipment from the defendant, Scott Bennett.

The equipment was initially delivered to the defendant for storage, and while discussions about a potential purchase occurred, no written agreement was finalized.

The court found a triable issue regarding whether a purchase agreement was ever reached and that the plaintiff failed to establish unlawful detention by the defendant, a prerequisite for relief under Rule 44.01.

The motion was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs to the defendant.

The applicant, an occasional teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on age and disability, as well as reprisal, after being removed from the supply list for refusing an independent medical examination.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the age discrimination and reprisal claims as having no reasonable prospect of success, but allowed the disability discrimination claim to proceed.

The Union was also granted intervenor status.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside the noting of pleadings closed in a motor vehicle accident subrogated claim brought by an insurer under s. 258(1) of the Insurance Act.

The court considered whether the defendant had been properly served with the statement of claim and whether an arguable defence existed.

Evidence showed the claim had been left with a person who no longer resided in the same household as the defendant and mailed to an address that was not his place of residence, contrary to Rule 16.03(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that valid service had never been effected and that denying the defendant the opportunity to defend would breach natural justice given the size of the judgment and the existence of a potential defence.

The noting in default was set aside and the defendant was granted leave to deliver a statement of defence.

A long‑term employee brought a motion for summary judgment following termination for alleged insubordination related to sales to a delinquent customer.

The employer asserted just cause and argued that the written employment agreement providing twelve months’ notice was unenforceable.

The court found that the employment agreement was valid and enforceable, noting that the employer prepared the agreement, signed it, and implemented its terms, including a salary increase tied to the contract.

Applying the contextual approach to just cause for dismissal, the court held the alleged conduct did not amount to wilful disobedience or insubordination justifying summary termination, particularly given the employee’s exemplary record and lack of documented warnings.

Summary judgment was granted and the employee was awarded damages equal to twelve months’ salary pursuant to the contractual notice provision.

Following a family law trial involving child support, spousal support, and net family property equalization, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court assessed which party achieved greater success and evaluated the parties’ settlement offers and litigation conduct.

The applicant obtained more favourable results on child support and s.7 expenses, while spousal support was not ordered due to her inability to pay.

Although success on property equalization was somewhat mixed, the applicant’s offer to settle was substantially closer to the trial outcome and the respondent’s offer was found unreasonable, particularly given his failure to propose any child support.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a personal guarantee executed by a shareholder of a corporate borrower for an operating line of credit.

The defendant guarantor argued that the claim should be dismissed for delay and that his liability ended after he sold his shares, the borrower declared bankruptcy, and a co‑shareholder agreed to indemnify him.

The court held that the wording of the continuing guarantee preserved liability despite changes in ownership, bankruptcy of the borrower, or insolvency of an indemnifier.

The court also found that the action’s delay did not justify dismissal because the case was document‑driven and no actual prejudice was established.

Summary judgment was granted to the bank for the guaranteed amount.

The moving party sought to set aside an ex parte order permitting the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim to add the moving party, a former estate solicitor, as a defendant.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts on the ex parte motion, including prior proceedings, the involvement of other counsel, and facts relevant to the limitation period.

The court also determined that any claim against the solicitor was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 because the plaintiffs discovered the material facts giving rise to the claim no later than November 25, 2009.

As the two‑year limitation period had expired before the solicitor was added as a defendant, the proposed claim constituted an untenable plea.

The ex parte order was therefore set aside and costs were awarded to the moving party.

The appellant brought a tort claim against his former wife following the final settlement of their matrimonial litigation.

The motion judge dismissed the claim, finding the appellant was precluded from proceeding.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, noting the appellant knew all necessary facts at the time of the matrimonial settlement and failed to pursue the claim or reserve his right to do so.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.