Christopher D.J. Hacio

The applicant housing co‑operative sought termination of a member’s membership and occupancy rights following complaints regarding smoking in hallways and smoke affecting other tenants.

The co‑operative’s board had previously warned the member that eviction could follow further complaints but later voted to terminate membership at a meeting held without providing the statutory notice required under s. 178(2)3 of the Co‑Operative Corporations Act.

The court held that the earlier warning letter did not constitute adequate notice of the later board meeting nearly three years later.

It also rejected the argument that the member had agreed to voluntarily relinquish her membership and tenancy during settlement negotiations.

The application to enforce the eviction and termination of membership was dismissed.

The appellants were injured in a bus collision in 2000 and commenced an action against several defendants in 2001.

In 2006, after the expiry of the former two-year limitation period under the Highway Traffic Act, they sought to add a doctor as a party defendant.

The Court of Appeal held that the transition provision in s. 24(3) of the Limitations Act, 2002 applied, which barred the proceeding.

While the court confirmed that the common-law doctrine of special circumstances remains available to extend a former limitation period under the transition provisions, it upheld the motion judge's finding that no special circumstances existed because the appellants had made a deliberate decision not to sue the doctor before the limitation period expired.

The appellant tripped and fell on a ramp while exiting the respondent's store, sustaining injuries including a torn rotator cuff.

At trial, the judge awarded $13,598 in damages after finding the appellant 50% contributorily negligent and concluding her shoulder injury was not caused by the fall.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors by ignoring medical and lay evidence regarding causation and misapplying the principles of causation and apportionment.

The Court reduced the appellant's contributory negligence to 15% and reassessed damages, awarding a total of $104,044.41.

In an addendum to its previous decision, the Court of Appeal for Ontario declined to reconsider its decision regarding the stay of the judgment, noting its variation of the motion judge's order was largely cosmetic.

The respondent was awarded costs fixed at $4,000.

The appellants appealed the summary dismissal of their negligent misrepresentation claim against the respondent bank, and the partial judgment granted on the respondent's claim on a mortgage guarantee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the misrepresentation appeal, finding no evidence that the bank falsely represented a third party's financial status or implied he would personally guarantee the loan.

On the guarantee claim, the Court held that the motion judge properly granted judgment but varied the order to grant the full amount of $869,091.18, while staying $246,000 of that judgment pending the determination of the appellants' counterclaim for an improvident sale.

The appellant mortgagee appealed the dismissal of its action against a guarantor on summary judgment.

The motions judge had found that the guarantor was discharged due to a change in the principal contract.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the sale of shares of the principal debtor corporation to third parties did not vary the contract between the principal debtor and the mortgagee, nor did it breach the guarantee contract.

The appellant was granted summary judgment on the guarantee in the amount of $869,091.18.