4 total
Motion to amend pleadings to allege litigation misconduct for removing file labels dismissed as legally untenable.
The plaintiff in a solicitor's negligence action brought a motion for leave to amend her statement of claim to add allegations of litigation misconduct against the defendants' counsel.
The proposed amendments related to the removal of labels from boxes containing the plaintiff's files before they were delivered.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed amendments did not arise from the same factual matrix as the original claim and did not disclose a legally tenable cause of action for litigation misconduct.
The court also noted the motion appeared to be brought primarily for tactical reasons to bolster a separate motion to remove the defendants' counsel.
Employer failed to prove alleged misconduct; wrongful dismissal damages awarded.
An employee brought a wrongful dismissal action after being terminated for alleged anti‑Semitic remarks about the employer’s owners.
The employer asserted just cause based on reports from an undercover investigator and later relied on after‑acquired evidence.
The court found the investigator’s evidence unreliable and determined the employer had failed to conduct an adequate investigation or prove the alleged misconduct on a balance of probabilities.
Just cause was not established.
The court awarded 12 months’ reasonable notice damages and dismissed claims for aggravated, punitive, and Wallace damages.
Open building permit constituted valid objection to title.
The applicant purchaser sought a declaration that an open building permit relating to a garage constituted a valid objection to title under an agreement of purchase and sale for residential property.
The respondent estate argued the permit was inconsequential because no work had been undertaken and the permit merely authorized construction rather than requiring it.
The court held that an outstanding building permit creates potential exposure to municipal inspections, work orders, remedial construction, and litigation, thereby affecting the purchaser’s use and enjoyment of the property.
Given the uncertainty surrounding whether the permit could be closed and the potential cost of compliance, the permit constituted a defect going to the root of title.
The purchaser’s requisition requiring the permit to be closed was therefore valid and the respondent had not shown good title.
Application for judicial review dismissed; OLRB decision on construction work and estoppel was reasonable.
The employer brought an application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.
The Board had upheld a union grievance, finding that fire restoration work at a Petro-Canada site was 'construction work' under the Labour Relations Act and governed by the provincial agreement, rather than the General Presidents' Maintenance Agreement.
The employer argued the Board erred in its application of the doctrine of estoppel and lacked jurisdiction to issue supplemental reasons.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board had jurisdiction to issue supplemental reasons and that its decision on the nature of the work and the application of estoppel was reasonable.
