Bernard B. Gasee

The applicant, an African Canadian employee, alleged discrimination based on race and colour after a senior manager repeatedly referred to his casual day attire as looking 'ghetto'.

The Tribunal found that while the manager may have intended the term to describe an urban style of dress, the word carries a powerful derogatory message associated with the Black community.

The Tribunal concluded that the repeated use of the term in a public workplace setting, despite the applicant's objections, created a poisoned work environment.

The corporate respondent was held vicariously liable, and the applicant was awarded $2,500 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The appellant appealed orders granting possession of a property to a company controlled by the respondent and refusing to set aside the possession order.

The appellant had signed an agreement to make monthly payments for occupancy but defaulted, making no payments since October 2007.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had independent legal advice, took the benefit of the agreement without honouring his obligations, and that his claims of duress and procedural irregularities were unfounded.

The tenant appealed the terms of relief from forfeiture granted by the application judge after being found in breach of a commercial lease for permitting loitering and failing to comply with the Liquor License Act.

The landlord cross-appealed, arguing the lease should have been terminated.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the application judge crafted a balanced remedy and properly exercised his discretion under the Commercial Tenancies Act.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the usage of a full laneway to access the back of her property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if usage could be established, it would merely provide an alternative second way to access the property and did not rise to the level of reasonable necessity for the better enjoyment of the property.

The applicant's husband, a taxi driver, was stabbed to death by a passenger while operating his taxi.

The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the death was not caused by an 'accident' as defined in the Schedule.

The arbitrator held that while the deceased was using the automobile for an ordinary purpose, the assault was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation and could not be considered a normal incident of the risk created by the use or operation of the vehicle.

The claim was dismissed.

The applicants obtained a judgment against a moving company after their belongings were stolen from a trailer parked on the street.

When the judgment went unsatisfied, they brought an application under s. 132 of the Insurance Act against the moving company's insurers.

The application judge found that the loss fell under the $1 million warehouse insurance limit rather than the $500,000 transportation insurance limit.

The Court of Appeal allowed the primary insurer's appeal in part, holding that the breach was a failure to deliver under the transportation contract, so the $500,000 transportation limit applied.

However, the Court upheld the application judge's finding that the insurer was liable for post-judgment interest and costs exceeding the policy limit.

The appellant appealed an order of a motion judge who proceeded while an appeal on a related matter was outstanding.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge should not have proceeded, but upheld the substantive result because the related appeal had since been dismissed.

The court varied the order to allow the appellant a two-month period to redeem the mortgage and set aside the costs order from the motion.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action against the respondent.

The Court of Appeal held that even if a soil engineering report had been admitted, it did not support the appellants' contamination claims, as there was no evidence regarding when the contaminants were placed, their effect on property value, or the property's potential use.

The Court found no genuine issue for trial on any of the causes of action and dismissed the appeal, awarding the respondent $5,000 in costs.

The applicant sought ongoing weekly income benefits and medical-rehabilitation expenses following a 1991 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer had terminated benefits in 1995 and sought repayment of overpaid amounts.

The arbitrator found that the applicant, with the assistance of his doctor, had shifted responsibility for a pre-existing back condition to the minor 1991 accident.

Video surveillance demonstrated the applicant engaging in vigorous exercise inconsistent with his claimed disability.

The arbitrator dismissed the claims for ongoing benefits and expenses, determined the correct quantum of weekly benefits based on pre-accident income, and ordered the applicant to repay $66,967.56 in overpaid benefits plus interest, finding he had deliberately misled the insurer.