David C. Moore

The respondent, a middle manager for the former City of North York, was terminated following municipal amalgamation and unsuccessful job competitions.

The trial judge awarded 116 weeks' pay in lieu of notice, including an extension for bad faith conduct under Wallace, finding the employer's competition process was 'sloppy'.

The Court of Appeal allowed the employer's appeal, holding that the employer's conduct did not amount to bad faith or unfair dealing justifying a Wallace extension.

The court reduced the notice period to the 80 weeks originally offered by the employer.

The respondent's cross-appeal seeking reinstatement on the basis that he was an office holder was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Ontario Human Rights Commission refusing to deal with his age discrimination complaint on the basis that it was filed outside the six-month limitation period.

The applicant argued that the Commission breached the rules of natural justice by providing insufficient reasons and that its decision was patently unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission's screening function attracts a standard of patent unreasonableness, the reasons provided were adequate for an administrative screening decision, and the decision to dismiss the complaint for untimeliness was supported by the evidence.

The appellants appealed a decision finding oppressive conduct and breach of fiduciary duty.

The motion judge found that the corporation was represented to the respondent investor as the owner of a specific technology, but the individual appellant deliberately withheld title to the patents for his own purposes.

The Divisional Court upheld the findings, noting that the investor was entitled to rely on the representations made and that the doctrine of reasonable expectations applied.

The court also upheld the remedy, which included declaring the corporation the owner of the process and directing an accounting for profits derived from a related contract.

The appeal was dismissed.

Appeal and cross-appeal in a solicitor's negligence action arising from corporate and estate transactions involving an executor who became president and shareholder of a corporation in which the estate held shares.

The court held that the law firm's retainer in relation to the initial transaction was limited and did not impose a duty to warn of the risk of beneficiary claims, particularly given the sophistication and role of the client.

However, the firm did owe a duty to warn in relation to a later acquisition transaction in which it was involved in all aspects and knew the estate was excluded.

The court upheld the trial judge's lost chance analysis, apportionment of fault, and nominal damages award.

The appellant husband appealed an order granting the respondent wife exclusive lifetime possession of the matrimonial home under the Family Law Reform Act, arguing it was invalid or inoperative due to paramountcy when joined with a maintenance order under the Divorce Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that an order for exclusive possession is not a support order, and the provisions of the two statutes are not mutually exclusive.

The Court found no conflict between the federal and provincial legislation, as they confer independent jurisdictions in relation to different subject matters that complement each other.