Arrell J.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently negotiated a $5,000 settlement with the defendants' insurance adjuster, signing a final release.

The plaintiff later commenced an action, arguing the release should be set aside due to unconscionability, negligent misrepresentation, or duress.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action based on the release.

The court found no overwhelming power imbalance, no duty of care owed by the third-party adjuster to the plaintiff, and no evidence of duress.

The motion was granted and the action dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision upholding the employer's refusal to pay a grievor for sick days and holidays.

The employer had rejected the grievor's medical notes after a supervisor overheard a rumour that the grievor planned to call in sick and manipulate her blood pressure to obtain a note.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably admitted the rumour evidence not for its truth, but to explain why the employer requested further medical information.

The court upheld the arbitrator's conclusion that the union failed to meet its onus of proving illness due to the insufficiency of the medical notes provided.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Child and Family Services Review Board.

The applicant had complained about the Children's Aid Society's failure to respond to his request to correct records and facilitate access to his children.

The Board ordered the CAS to comply with complaint review procedures, which the CAS subsequently did.

When the applicant attempted to complain further about the CAS's response, the Board closed its file.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that the Board was functus officio after issuing its final decision and had no jurisdiction to hear further complaints on the matter.

The parties were involved in a long-standing dealership agreement that deteriorated over time.

The plaintiff originally obtained a consent interlocutory injunction preventing the defendant from terminating the agreement, which remained in place for nearly ten years without the matter proceeding to trial.

The defendant successfully moved to dissolve the injunction due to inordinate delay, but the plaintiff subsequently obtained a fresh interim injunction from a different judge after receiving a new termination notice.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the dissolution of the original injunction, finding no reversible error.

However, the court allowed the defendant's appeal and set aside the fresh injunction, concluding that the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors and that the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured continuing the hostile business relationship.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding damages and costs to the respondents for breach of a contract to purchase bakery equipment.

The trial judge found the appellants waived conditions in the offer to purchase by signing a lease, did not repudiate the offer, and that the individual appellant was personally liable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact or mixed fact and law.

The court also upheld the costs award, finding it was within the trial judge's discretion and not disproportionate.