Cezary Paluch

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal denying him Income Replacement Benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable question of law.

The court held that the adjudicator's findings of fact were supported by the evidence, the correct 'but for' test for causation was applied, and there was no lack of procedural fairness during the hearing.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent insurer.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff’s action on summary judgment, the successful defendant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued the claimed amount was excessive and requested that no costs be ordered, asserting the dispute could have been avoided if the defendant had obtained a current appraisal when the property was sold.

The court held that the core issue had already been litigated and decided against the plaintiff in earlier injunction proceedings and that the plaintiff chose to re-litigate it.

Applying the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found the requested partial indemnity costs reasonable.

Costs were awarded to the defendant in the amount claimed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her application for a property transfer and child support, arguing the trial judge erred in his conduct of the trial and in finding a separation agreement invalid.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge appropriately assisted the self-represented appellant and ensured a fair trial.

The Court also upheld the finding that the separation agreement was invalid under the Family Law Act and unenforceable because the appellant had not paid the required consideration.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought leave to appeal, alleging procedural inadequacies at trial.

The Court of Appeal refused the application, finding no basis on the record to conclude that any procedural inadequacies occasioned a miscarriage of justice.