Anne M. Molloy

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing her claim for unpaid services against Tricaster, the shareholding company of the co-defendant Nucleus, and awarding costs of $15,339.44 to the respondents.

The appellant had obtained default judgment against Nucleus but could not collect because Tricaster seized Nucleus' assets under a General Security Agreement.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding that there was insufficient evidence to pierce the corporate veil or find an implied partnership.

However, the court allowed the appeal on costs, reducing the trial costs award to $7,500, finding the original amount disproportionately high given the modest amount at stake and the circumstances.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board awarding compensation to the complainant for alleged sexual and physical abuse.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board breached the duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide adequate reasons for preferring the complainant's uncorroborated evidence over conflicting evidence, and by relying on a medical report that was never disclosed to the appellants.

The Board's decision was quashed and costs were awarded to the appellants.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal ordering her eviction for allegedly assaulting another tenant.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the landlord's application, finding that the Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons for its credibility findings and failed to properly consider relief from eviction under s. 84 of the Tenant Protection Act.

The Court noted the tenant's lack of prior history of violence, her success in the related criminal proceeding, and her responsibility for four minor children.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision which found that his union did not breach its duty of fair representation under s. 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant, a temporary employee, argued the union should have pursued his wrongful dismissal grievance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Vice-Chair's conclusion that the union's decision not to proceed with the grievance was reasonable and entitled to deference.

Canada Post applied for judicial review of an arbitrator's decision reinstating 29 employees dismissed for theft.

The arbitrator ruled that evidence of the thefts was inadmissible because Canada Post failed to provide the employees with a report of their infractions within ten days, as required by the collective agreement.

Canada Post argued this interpretation was patently unreasonable because it prevented covert investigations of widespread criminal activity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation was not patently unreasonable as it was consistent with 20 years of arbitral jurisprudence and the collective agreement's stare decisis clause.

The minority shareholder applicant brought an oppression application under the Business Corporations Act after being dismissed from the respondent corporation.

The shareholders' agreement contained a mandatory arbitration clause and a specific mechanism for valuing and redeeming the shares of a departing employee.

The motions judge allowed the applicant's motion to have the dispute heard in court rather than by arbitration, relying on the Weber principle to avoid a potential deprivation of ultimate remedy.

On appeal, the Divisional Court reversed the decision, holding that the Weber principle does not generally apply to voluntary private arbitration agreements and that the parties must be held to their freely chosen dispute resolution mechanism.

The appellant, the Attorney General of Canada, appealed an order requiring it to respond to interrogatories and provide particulars of its legal position in a complex action brought by the respondent band.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Rules of Civil Procedure permit a party to be examined on its legal position to focus the issues and prevent surprise at trial.

The court found that the word 'matter' in the rules governing discovery is broad enough to include a party's position on a legal issue.