Christopher John Niemeier Du Vernet

The plaintiff sought default judgment in a wrongful dismissal action after the defendant was noted in default and unsuccessful in attempts to set aside that default.

The court accepted the uncontested evidence that the employer failed to accommodate the employee’s deafness and subjected the employee to humiliating treatment culminating in termination.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded 24 months’ pay in lieu of notice and damages for loss of benefits.

The court also awarded damages for discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and punitive damages due to the employer’s egregious conduct and failure to accommodate disability.

Total damages exceeded $109,000 plus interest and costs.

The applicant sought to overturn a firearms officer's decision to revoke his licence to possess and acquire firearms.

The firearms officer revoked the licence based on concerns about the applicant's responsibility and discipline as a gun owner, citing a pattern of aggressive and irrational behaviour, multiple criminal harassment charges, a bitter feud with his cousin, threatening communications with a former girlfriend, and a suicide attempt.

The court upheld the revocation, finding the firearms officer's decision was clearly reasonable and that the applicant lacked the responsibility and discipline required of gun owners.

The court found the applicant's credibility severely compromised by his inconsistent statements and pattern of refusing to accept adverse decisions.

The appellant challenged a motion judge’s refusal to set aside a noting in default, arguing that the finding that it was merely delaying trial was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal held that the impugned finding was justified on the record and accepted the motion judge’s view that the pleading complaints amounted to clutching at trivialities.

Because that finding was central to the refusal to set aside the default, appellate intervention was unwarranted.

The appeal was dismissed with partial indemnity costs fixed at $8,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

Following the dismissal of a motion seeking consolidation of an action and an application concerning ownership of a cottage, the court determined the appropriate costs payable to the successful defendants.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized that costs must be fair and reasonable rather than reflective of actual legal expenses.

The court assessed the roles played by counsel, the relative simplicity of the motion, and the absence of extensive responding materials.

Several defendants were awarded reduced partial indemnity costs reflecting their limited participation, while the defendant who prepared the principal responding materials received a higher award.

The unsuccessful moving party was ordered to pay the fixed costs to each successful defendant within ninety days.

The plaintiff lawyer brought a motion for summary judgment for unpaid legal fees against a former client.

The client counterclaimed for the return of fees already paid, alleging professional misconduct and incompetence.

The court found the lawyer had provided exemplary service, successfully establishing a novel tort at the Court of Appeal on a deferred fee basis.

The court granted partial summary judgment, dismissing the counterclaim and declaring the lawyer acted competently, while referring the quantum of fees to an assessment officer.

The appellant discovered that the respondent, a fellow bank employee who was in a relationship with the appellant's former husband, had repeatedly accessed her private banking records without authorization.

The motion judge dismissed the appellant's claim, finding that Ontario law did not recognize a tort of invasion of privacy.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, formally recognizing the tort of intrusion upon seclusion in Ontario.

The court awarded the appellant $10,000 in damages, finding the respondent's deliberate and repeated actions were highly offensive and caused distress.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing its claims against the respondents for allegedly agreeing to engage in unlawful conduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly concluded the allegations were based entirely on assumptions, speculation, and embellishment.

Leave to appeal the motion judge's costs award was denied, and the respondents were awarded costs of the appeal on a substantial indemnity scale due to the appeal being entirely meritless.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application for rescission of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale and brought a motion to stay the appeal pending a subsequent action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to stay, finding the subsequent action was based on facts known at the time of the original application.

The Court also dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's interpretation of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale regarding the appellants' right of access.