David M. Goodman

The appellant purchaser appealed a trial judgment finding an Agreement of Purchase and Sale null and void.

The agreement was conditional upon the purchaser being approved to assume the first mortgage.

The trial judge found that the condition was not fulfilled, the purchaser had no intention of assuming the mortgage, and the condition could not be waived.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample support in the record for the trial judge's conclusions.

The applicant, a Black woman enrolled in an esthetics program, alleged discrimination on the basis of race and colour because the make-up kit provided by the respondent college did not contain products for darker skin tones.

She further alleged that she was expelled for complaining about the kit.

The Tribunal found that while the kit lacked products for all skin tones, this did not amount to discrimination in the provision of services.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant was expelled due to her ongoing negative behaviour and attitude, not because of her complaint.

The application was dismissed.

The tenant applied for leave to appeal an interlocutory order that imposed the payment of $74,555.50 as a term of adjourning the mortgagee's application for possession and arrears.

The tenant argued the motions judge failed to consider its claim for set-off based on repair expenses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the discretionary order and no conflicting decisions on the issue of a tenant's right to set-off against a mortgagee in possession in these circumstances.

The appellant appealed a finding of liability under the Sale of Goods Act and the dismissal of its counterclaim regarding a defective machine.

The respondent cross-appealed the damages award, seeking compensation for lost business.

The Court of Appeal upheld the liability finding, noting the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in determining the machine was not reasonably fit for its purpose.

However, the Court reduced the damages awarded for lost time during service calls to prevent overcompensation and allowed a portion of the counterclaim for moving expenses.

The cross-appeal for loss of business was dismissed as the claims were too speculative.

The appellant husband appealed a trial decision that imputed his income for child support purposes after he abandoned his successful independent electrical contracting business for a lower-paying salaried position.

The trial judge found him intentionally underemployed under s. 19(1) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, averaged his previous three years of corporate income, and grossed it up to account for the lower corporate tax rate he paid compared to a salaried employee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding of intentional underemployment and the gross-up of corporate income to ensure consistent treatment of spouses under the Guidelines.

The respondent wife's cross-appeal for increased spousal support was also dismissed.

Following the release of its decision on the appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario received and considered written submissions on costs.

The court awarded costs of the appeal to the respondent, fixed at $4,500 inclusive of GST.

The parties separated in 1989.

The husband, a disbarred lawyer who had been incarcerated for fraud, brought a claim for equalization of net family property in 1997, two years after the limitation period expired.

He moved for an extension of time under s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act.

The motions judge dismissed the motion, finding the husband did not meet the requirements of good faith and lack of substantial prejudice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the husband's appeal, finding that he failed to show apparent grounds for relief given the wife's overwhelming claim for an unequal division, and that his delay was not incurred in good faith.