Peter Allan Cumming

The defendants appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the plaintiff $10,000 for unpaid overtime.

The sole issue on appeal was whether the trial judge unreasonably refused the defendants' request for an adjournment.

The Divisional Court found that the defendants had ample time to prepare and move for a sealing order prior to trial, and failed to provide medical evidence supporting the individual defendant's absence.

The appeal was dismissed, as the defendants failed to establish a basis to overturn the trial judge's discretionary refusal of the adjournment.

The plaintiff bank demanded payment of an outstanding loan and obtained an ex parte order under Rule 20.01(2) to serve a summary judgment motion with its statement of claim.

The defendants sought an adjournment, which the Master refused, granting summary judgment.

On appeal, the defendants argued that Rule 20.01(1) precludes hearing a summary judgment motion before a statement of defence is filed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Rule 20.01(2) allows for an accelerated return of the motion where special urgency is shown, requiring the defendant to expeditiously file a defence and respond.

The Law Society brought a motion to quash the appellant's appeal to the Divisional Court.

The appellant sought to appeal a decision of an Appeal Panel that had quashed her appeal of a Hearing Panel's decision to recuse itself.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the decision appealed from was interlocutory and that the statutory right of appeal under the Law Society Act only applies to final decisions or orders.

The respondent union council brought a motion to quash the applicant employers' application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The Board had previously ruled that a 1999 settlement agreement was unenforceable against the union council, allowing a related employer application to proceed.

The employers sought judicial review to prohibit the Board from proceeding, arguing the application was an abuse of process and breached the settlement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to quash, finding that the threshold issue of whether the union council was bound by the settlement should be reviewed prior to the Board hearing the merits.

The court also dismissed the union council's alternative motion to strike an affidavit, admitting the evidence for the judicial review.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a trial judge's order awarding wasted costs against him and his counsel personally, following an adjournment necessitated by counsel's failure to respond to Requests to Admit.

The appellant's counsel argued he was not given proper notice that costs might be awarded against him personally.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding that the solicitor had objective notice of the possibility of personal costs and was given a full opportunity to be heard.

The trial judge made no error in principle in exercising her discretion.

The appellant vendor appealed a decision of the License Appeal Tribunal awarding compensation to the respondent purchasers for breaches of a new home purchase agreement.

The vendor argued it was not liable for providing grey siding instead of antique rose, oak cabinets instead of natural maple, and for a delay in closing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the vendor breached specific contractual obligations regarding the finishes and failed to provide an occupancy permit on closing, justifying the purchasers' refusal to close and entitlement to compensation.