Bill Wong

The appellants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering them to pay damages for an illegal eviction.

They argued the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply because the tenant shared a kitchen or bathroom with the owner under s. 5(i).

The Divisional Court upheld the LTB's finding that the exemption does not apply when the owner is a corporation, as a corporation cannot 'live' in the premises or share facilities in the manner contemplated by the Act.

The court also dismissed the appellants' procedural fairness arguments, upholding the corrected damages award of $14,620.

The moving party sought leave to appeal from the decision of Gilmore J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $7,500 to the responding party F.K.Y. Investments Ltd. No costs were awarded to the Yeung responding parties as they did not file a factum.

The appellant appealed a trial decision finding that the deceased lacked the capacity to enter into a marriage with her shortly before his death.

The deceased was suffering from terminal cancer, Parkinson's disease, and pneumonia, and was heavily medicated.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding of incapacity based on medical and lay evidence regarding the deceased's physical and mental state.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's claims for monetary relief under the Family Law Act and the Succession Law Reform Act were denied.

The appellants appealed a motions judge's decision dismissing their action.

The Court of Appeal found that the issues raised in the statement of claim had already been fully canvassed and decided against the appellants in prior arbitration proceedings.

Applying the doctrine of issue estoppel, the court held that the appellants could not pursue litigation simply because they were unsatisfied with the arbitration results.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed an arbitrator's order that they could not arbitrate their claim for death benefits because they failed to file an adequate application within the 90-day time limit under subsection 59(3) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Director's Delegate found that the initial application filed by the appellants' former counsel was for funeral and travel expenses, not death benefits, and that the appellants did not attempt to argue a reasonable excuse for the delay under subsection 59(4).

The appeal was dismissed, but the appellants were awarded $500 in appeal expenses because the appeal raised novel issues of significance regarding the insurer's obligations.

The applicants, parents of a man fatally injured in a motor vehicle accident, claimed death benefits from the insurer.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing it was incomplete and submitted late under subsection 59(3) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator found that the application submitted by the applicants' former solicitor did not sufficiently indicate a claim for death benefits, but rather focused on funeral expenses and a Family Law Act claim.

As the applicants did not argue a reasonable excuse for the delay, the insurer was entitled to rely on subsection 59(3) to deny the claim.

The applicants were awarded their expenses for the hearing.