Daniel McConville

The appellants appealed a decision of the Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim in part.

During the hearing, the appellants unexpectedly concluded their evidence early.

As the respondent's witnesses were not immediately available to proceed the following day, the Tribunal vacated the next scheduled hearing date and adjourned the matter for continuation.

During an appeal regarding a new home warranty claim, the self-represented appellants alleged that they were being bullied by the opposing counsel and the Presiding Member.

The Presiding Member invited submissions on whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Finding no objective support for the allegations and noting that the appellants did not wish to start the hearing anew, the Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable apprehension of bias and continued the hearing.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their new home warranty claim.

At the outset of the hearing, the respondent and the added party brought motions to quash summonses issued for two witnesses.

The Tribunal granted the motions and quashed the summonses on the basis of undertakings from counsel that both witnesses would be produced to testify and be cross-examined at the hearing.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding a new home warranty claim.

Prior to the hearing, the Tribunal heard six preliminary motions.

The Tribunal dismissed the appellants' motions seeking a forced cash settlement, certificates of impartiality for witnesses, and the exclusion of certain expert reports.

The Tribunal partially granted the appellants' motion for document disclosure, ordering the added party to produce specific invoices and correspondence.

Finally, the Tribunal granted the respondent's motion to quash a summons issued to its President and C.E.O., finding he had no relevant evidence to provide.

Following reasons staying an application under s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991 and referring the dispute to arbitration, the successful parties sought partial indemnity costs of over $169,000.

The opposing parties argued that most pre‑hearing work related to issues that would ultimately be determined in arbitration and requested that costs be limited to $7,500.

The court rejected those submissions, holding that parties who refuse to narrow the scope of a hearing cannot later complain about the extent of pre‑hearing work undertaken.

Applying Rule 57, proportionality, and appellate guidance on fixing reasonable costs, the court reduced certain unexplained factum‑drafting time but otherwise accepted the bill of costs.

Costs of $155,292.66 inclusive of disbursements and HST were awarded.

Majority shareholders sought a stay of an oppression application brought by minority shareholders and related parties, relying on a broad arbitration clause in a shareholders’ agreement.

The court applied the competence‑competence principle under the Arbitration Act, 1991 and held that where it is arguable a dispute falls within the arbitration clause, the matter should be referred to arbitration for determination of jurisdiction.

Most claims, including oppression allegations, employment termination disputes, and share purchase issues, were closely connected to the shareholders’ agreement and therefore subject to arbitration.

Claims against non‑signatories and ancillary allegations were also stayed under the Courts of Justice Act as they depended on the core disputes.

The only exception permitted to proceed in court was a wrongful dismissal action by an employee who was not a party to the shareholders’ agreement.

The respondents purchased property formerly used as a municipal dump and sued the appellant municipality for negligence after discovering contamination.

The trial judge awarded damages for additional construction costs and stigma.

The Court of Appeal allowed the municipality's appeal, finding that the causal link was broken when the respondents rejected an offer to reverse the sale and chose to proceed with construction despite knowing the site was contaminated and would require significant remediation.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging sexual harassment sought production of undisclosed documents from a Crown Brief detailing the applicant's prior interactions with police.

The respondent argued the documents were relevant as similar fact evidence and necessary for full answer and defence.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the undisclosed documents, which primarily concerned domestic incidents and were not of a sexual nature or related to a workplace, were not arguably relevant to the allegations in the application.

The appellant home builder appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent purchasers $2,147.64 for disputed closing costs.

The dispute centered on the interpretation of a schedule in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale regarding whether closing costs were capped and included in the purchase price or payable as an extra.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the trial judge's admission of parol evidence regarding misrepresentations by the builder's agents, as the issue was sufficiently raised in the pleadings.

The court also held that the agreement contained an ambiguity, justifying the trial judge's reliance on extrinsic evidence of the negotiating history to interpret the contract in favour of the purchasers.