David A. Weisman

The self-represented applicant sought an extension of time to seek leave to appeal a prior order.

The applicant had missed the deadline due to mistaken advice and confusion over obtaining case conference transcripts.

The court found the applicant had a continuous intention to appeal and that the delay was adequately explained.

The court granted a 30-day extension to file the leave motion materials, conditional upon the applicant first paying several outstanding costs orders from previous proceedings.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that awarded them damages against two respondents for a serious assault but dismissed the action against several other respondents.

The appellants challenged the trial judge's findings of fact regarding the involvement of certain respondents, the assessment of damages, the refusal to award punitive damages, and the refusal to make a Bullock or Sanderson order for costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact and holding that the damages and costs awards were within the trial judge's discretion.

The appellant tenant appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding a residential tenancy dispute.

The tenant had paid a full year's rent upfront, along with security and key deposits.

The trial judge awarded the tenant the return of deposits, compensation for a missing parking space, and $500 in punitive damages, while allowing the landlord's counterclaim for property damage.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the punitive damages and counterclaim findings but found the trial judge erred in failing to award interest on the entire prepaid rent balance as provided in the lease.

The appeal was allowed in part to award $826.97 in interest.

The defendants appealed a trial judgment ordering them to pay outstanding school fees, arguing the action was statute-barred.

The parents had tendered post-dated cheques to the school in May 1992, which were negotiated over the following months.

The court held that a post-dated cheque acknowledges a debt not only upon delivery but also when the funds are actually withdrawn from the debtor's account.

Because the cheques were negotiated within six years of the action being commenced, the limitation period was extended by part payment and the action was brought in time.

The appeal was dismissed.