Annette Casullo

The defendant sought leave to appeal a motion judge's order that allowed the plaintiffs to add her as a defendant in her personal capacity after the presumptive expiry of the limitation period.

The motion judge had made a final determination that the claim was not discoverable until December 2010, effectively precluding a limitation defence at trial.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision to make a final fact-finding determination on discoverability during a gatekeeping motion, and concluding that the scope of a motion judge's power under Rule 5.04 is a matter of general importance.

The appellant appealed an order declaring him a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant argued his proceedings were brought in good faith based on a belief that the respondents misappropriated funds from their late mother, and that the motion judge improperly considered non-judicial proceedings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the record supported the conclusion that the appellant was unreasonably obsessed with the cause and that extra-judicial proceedings were relevant to assessing the bona fides of his court proceedings.

The appellant sued his former solicitor for negligence regarding the sale of a taxi business, claiming the solicitor failed to advise him of a discrepancy in interest payments under the sale agreement.

The trial judge found the solicitor negligent but dismissed the action because the appellant failed to prove damages.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, noting that without the solicitor's negligence, the sale would not have occurred, and the appellant provided no evidence that the business was worth more than the amount received.

The appellant appealed an order finding that his mother lacked capacity to grant a power of attorney, as well as a s. 140(1) order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the arguments regarding procedural fairness and capacity, finding the trial judge's conclusions fully warranted by the evidence.

However, the Court set aside the s. 140(1) order because it was not sought on a timely basis, was not argued, and no reasons were given for it.

Leave to appeal costs was dismissed, and costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondents.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's claim for non-earner benefits, the parties were unable to resolve the issue of expenses.

The arbitrator found that the insurer was entitled to its reasonable expenses as the successful party.

However, because the applicant's claim involved a novel factual issue regarding her ability to practice her religious faith, the arbitrator applied a 40% discount to the insurer's expenses.

The applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's expenses assessed at $4,085.16.

The appellant purchaser appealed a summary judgment finding no genuine issue for trial in a real estate dispute.

The purchaser argued the respondent vendor was obligated to disclose the failure to conduct a final inspection of a porch and was therefore guilty of misrepresentation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no legal basis for such an obligation, and concluded the purchaser had no right to refuse to close or demand an abatement in the purchase price.

The applicant was seriously injured at work and received WSIB benefits.

The WSIB failed to recognize a potential third-party claim against the equipment manufacturer and did not send the applicant an election form.

When the applicant later sought to sue the manufacturer, the WSIB ruled his receipt of benefits constituted a deemed election and refused to allow him to withdraw his claim without immediate repayment of all benefits.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court quashed the decision, finding the WSIB made a patent error in finding a deemed election where the applicant was uninformed, and improperly applied an inflexible rule rather than exercising its discretion based on the merits of the case.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for non-earner benefits.

The insurer denied the claim.

At arbitration, the adjudicator found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life as a result of the accident.

While her life changed post-accident, she continued to engage in substantially all of her pre-accident activities, particularly her religious activities, and her reduced functioning was largely attributable to marital breakdown rather than the accident.

The application for non-earner benefits and interest was dismissed.