D. Adams

The plaintiff brought a motion to remove the defendants' law firm from the record due to a conflict of interest.

The law firm had previously represented the plaintiff in labour and employment matters, during which it received confidential information relevant to the current litigation involving alleged employee poaching by the defendants.

The court found that the law firm received relevant confidential information, the matters were sufficiently related, and the confidentiality screens implemented were inadequate.

The motion to remove the law firm was granted to preserve public confidence in the administration of justice.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding him $21,000 for breach of a flooring contract, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to find fraud, failing to award damages for a technical assault, and failing to award punitive damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of damages or findings of fact.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondents and set off against outstanding costs orders owed to the appellant.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding him $21,000 for breach of contract and $32,000 in costs, seeking increased damages, punitive damages, and damages for assault.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of damages or refusal to award damages for a technical assault and alleged fraud.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondents and set off against the costs previously awarded to the appellant.