Christopher Dilts

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application alleging the respondent unit owner breached a settlement agreement by continuing to smoke in her unit.

The respondent admitted to smoking in her unit on at least one occasion after the settlement agreement was executed.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the settlement agreement and ordered her to comply with the corporation's rules prohibiting smoking on the property.

The respondent was also ordered to reimburse the applicant for the $125 filing fee.

The complainant, an Operational Manager at a detention centre, grieved a three-day suspension imposed for damaging a computer monitor in a fit of anger.

The complainant argued the discipline was unwarranted because he was suffering from undiagnosed PTSD at the time, which mitigated his conduct, and that he was denied procedural fairness.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding no denial of procedural fairness.

Applying arbitral jurisprudence, the Board held that while the complainant was later diagnosed with PTSD, there was insufficient medical evidence establishing a causal nexus between the diagnosis and the specific act of workplace misconduct to excuse the behaviour.

The hearing of the complaint was adjourned on consent of the parties.

The Board cancelled the previously scheduled December hearing date and issued directions for the parties to work towards completing an Agreed Statement of Fact.

A timeline was established for drafting and responding to the Agreed Statement of Fact, with a teleconference scheduled to determine its status and any other procedural matters.

The plaintiff, Upscale Getaways Inc., brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing its action for delay.

The defendant, Lais Hotel Properties Limited, opposed the motion and sought an order for security for costs under Rule 56.09.

The court found that while there was egregious delay without reasonable explanation and no inadvertence, the plaintiff moved promptly to set aside the dismissal, and the defendant would suffer no prejudice given its ongoing counterclaim arising from the same facts.

The motion to set aside the dismissal was granted, and a timetable for the action was ordered.

The defendant's request for security for costs under Rule 56.09 was denied, as there was no conduct warranting such a term, but without prejudice to a motion under Rule 56.01.

Costs were awarded to the defendant.

The applicant sought declarations for a prescriptive easement over a portion of an adjoining property for a vehicle turnaround area and for ownership by adverse possession of a narrow strip of land on another adjoining property.

The court found that the applicant established all five criteria for a prescriptive easement, demonstrating continuous, uninterrupted, open, and peaceable use for over 20 years without permission, and that the use was reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the dominant tenement.

The court also found that the applicant established adverse possession of the strip of land for over 10 years prior to the land's conversion to Land Titles.

Both declarations were granted in favour of the applicant.

The parties sought costs following an interim injunction motion where success was divided.

The applicants claimed substantial indemnity costs of $12,695.50, alleging the respondents engaged in reprehensible conduct by disposing of farm animals.

The respondents claimed partial indemnity costs of $12,452.86, arguing they were largely successful.

The court declined to consider the allegations of missing livestock for the purpose of costs, noting such claims should be addressed through a claim for damages.

Finding that success on the motion was divided relatively equally, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs.

The respondent moved to dismiss the applicant's application for a constructive trust over a shared property, arguing the Superior Court of Justice, Family Court lacked jurisdiction.

The court found the application was properly brought in the Superior Court of Justice and that the Family Law Rules applied because the parties' arrangement was made in anticipation of cohabitation.

The respondent's motion was dismissed, his separate civil proceeding was permanently stayed, and he was enjoined from entering the property.

The appellant appealed from two orders: one striking his statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, and another declaring him a vexatious litigant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding that the statement of claim lacked factual underpinnings and that the appellant's history of numerous lawsuits supported the vexatious litigant declaration.

Costs of $7,000 were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judge's finding that the respondent employee had adequately mitigated his damages following wrongful termination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's decision was well supported by the evidence.

The respondent, who was in his fifties with limited education and had worked for the appellant for 19 years, faced diminished re-employment prospects, exacerbated by the lack of a reference letter and accusations of wrongdoing.

The Court held that the respondent made reasonable efforts to find comparable employment and was not obliged to accept non-comparable positions.