Camille Melissa Dunbar

The plaintiff, a start-up, sought an urgent interlocutory injunction to compel the defendants to hand over the source code and software assets needed to operate its business, and to prevent the defendants from exploiting them.

The individual defendant, a co-founder and the plaintiff's Chief Technology Officer, argued that his corporate entity owned the intellectual property, which pre-dated the plaintiff's incorporation.

The plaintiff relied on assignment agreements executed by the defendant.

The motion judge granted the injunction, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding the assignment and employment status, irreparable harm to the plaintiff's business and reputation if denied access to the software, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The applicant attempted to file a human rights complaint on the final day of the limitation period but was delayed past 5:00 PM due to printing issues at the Tribunal office.

Tribunal staff refused to accept the application, and the Tribunal subsequently ruled the later filing was out of time.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision unreasonable, noting it failed to consider the applicant's good faith efforts to file on time and the severe consequences of denying the application.

The application was allowed and remitted to the Tribunal.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment following her without-cause dismissal by the defendant.

The court found summary judgment appropriate and determined that the defendant's severance offer of 11.5 months was not within the reasonable range.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court fixed the reasonable notice period at 16 months, capped at 15.5 months due to the plaintiff's successful mitigation.

The court awarded damages totaling $137,048.41, which included base salary, lost bonus, pension matching contributions, and benefits over the notice period.

Following earlier findings of professional misconduct, the discipline panel conducted a penalty and costs hearing by videoconference.

The parties presented a joint submission seeking a reprimand, revocation of registration, a five-year bar on re-application or reinstatement, publication, and fixed costs.

The panel accepted the joint submission, holding that the proposed order served public protection, maintained confidence in professional regulation, and advanced specific and general deterrence.

The panel considered revocation appropriate for sexual abuse or sexual misconduct findings and approved agreed costs of $15,000 inclusive of HST.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel found that a social work practicum student supervised by the member was a client within the meaning of the governing standards.

The panel accepted the student's evidence of repeated boundary violations, sexualized remarks, inappropriate personal conduct, and sexual touching occurring during and immediately after the placement relationship.

It held that the member failed to maintain professional boundaries, acted in a conflict of interest, and sexually abused a client within the statutory framework.

The panel further found the conduct dishonourable and unprofessional, though not disgraceful, and imposed a publication ban protecting the student's identity.

Nadia Minetto, an accounting manager, defrauded her employer, Wescom Solutions Inc. (WSI), by using its corporate credit card to purchase Apple products and reselling them.

Gabriel Fung, through his businesses GF International and Plus One Solutions, purchased over 10,000 Apple products from Minetto for $5.2 million in cash.

WSI obtained a consent judgment against Minetto and brought an action against Fung and his entities, alleging knowing receipt or wilful blindness to the fraudulent nature of the goods.

The court found that Fung was wilfully blind to the fact that the Apple products were stolen or fraudulently obtained from March 30, 2012, onwards.

Judgment was granted against Fung and his businesses for $5,094,674.72, plus interest, with a corresponding crossclaim for contribution and indemnity against Minetto.

The applicants sought a declaration that their insurers had a duty to defend and indemnify them in an underlying tort action, along with punitive damages and costs.

The insurers eventually acknowledged the duty to defend and indemnify for reasonable legal fees.

The court found the declaration issue moot due to the insurers' acknowledgment, assessed the reasonable costs for both the tort defence and the coverage dispute, and dismissed the claim for punitive damages, finding the insurers' conduct did not meet the high threshold for such an award.

In this addendum to a previous judgment, the Court of Appeal amended its declaration regarding the duty to defend under commercial general liability policies.

The court removed Royal & Sunalliance Insurance Company of Canada from the declaration, as it had settled prior to the appeal.

The court also removed a stipulation regarding a Professional Services Exclusion, which the insurers had withdrawn reliance upon.

Finally, based on a prior agreement between the parties, the court vacated its previous costs award and directed submissions for full indemnity costs.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision that their insurers had no duty to defend them in an underlying action regarding defective septic systems.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by applying the 'Your Work' exclusion after correctly identifying that the underlying pleadings raised the mere possibility of consequential damages.

Because consequential damages are not excluded by the 'Your Work' exclusion, the mere possibility of such claims triggered the insurers' duty to defend.

The appeal was allowed and a declaration compelling the insurers to provide a defence was granted.