4 total
Appeal dismissed; Small Claims Court properly struck multiple subsequent actions based on cause of action estoppel.
The appellant commenced an action in Small Claims Court against the respondent business bureau for libel and breach of contract, which was dismissed after trial.
The appellant subsequently commenced multiple separate actions against the business bureau, its employees, and its legal counsel.
A Deputy Judge struck these subsequent actions under Rule 12.02 of the Rules of the Small Claims Court based on cause of action estoppel.
The appellant appealed.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Deputy Judge's application of the doctrine of cause of action estoppel or Rule 12.02.
Summary judgment granted to snow removal contractor but denied to property owner in slip and fall case.
The plaintiff was injured in a slip and fall on snow accumulated near a curb in a commercial parking lot.
The property owner and the snow removal contractor brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the action.
Applying the framework from Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the property owner's liability, as there were questions about the parking lot design and the adequacy of the snow removal plan.
However, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims against the snow removal contractor, finding it had fulfilled its contractual obligations.
Costs awarded to plaintiff against corporate defendant; successful individual defendant denied costs due to conduct.
In a costs decision following an appeal, the plaintiff sought costs against the defendants, and the individual defendant sought costs having successfully appealed the personal judgment against him.
The court awarded the plaintiff its trial disbursements and appeal costs against the corporate defendant.
However, the court denied the individual defendant his costs, despite his success on appeal, because he was the primary actor who caused the plaintiff's loss and obfuscated the corporate relationships.
Personal liability set aside; judgment entered against corporate entity as plaintiff did not rely on personal capacity.
The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding him personally liable for unpaid invoices for poker tournament services provided by the respondent.
The trial judge had found a partnership or joint venture existed between the appellant and another individual, avoiding the need to pierce the corporate veil.
The Divisional Court held this was a palpable and overriding error, as the respondent's own evidence was that it believed it was dealing with the corporate entity, not the appellant personally.
The court set aside the personal judgment against the appellant and replaced it with a judgment against the corporate defendant.
