Davit D. Akman

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that awarded him damages for constructive dismissal but dismissed his claims for aggravated damages, punitive damages, and intentional infliction of mental distress arising from workplace verbal abuse.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the employer's conduct, while creating a poisoned work environment, did not rise to the level required for additional damages.

The respondent's cross-appeal regarding the trial judge's costs award was also dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision granting a bar order in a class proceeding.

They argued the motion judge lacked jurisdiction under ss. 12 and 13 of the Class Proceedings Act to make the order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the bar order appropriately limited the plaintiff's claim against non-settling defendants to their proportionate liability, in accordance with established principles.

The appellant newspaper sought intervenor status to challenge sealing and protective orders made in respect of material filed on a motion for a Mareva injunction against the respondents.

The motion judge dismissed the newspaper's motion.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the motion judge erred in refusing to grant the newspaper intervenor status, failing to give sufficient weight to the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press.

The Court set aside the order, granted the newspaper intervenor status for the limited purpose of challenging the protective order, and remitted the balance of the motion to the Superior Court for a new hearing.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order directing the receiver to file a Payments Report detailing distributions made by the insolvent companies.

The applicant argued the report could prejudice his ongoing criminal proceedings in the United States.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the receiver's duty is to the economic interests of the estate's stakeholders, not to protect a stakeholder's personal interest in avoiding prejudice in foreign criminal proceedings.

The proposed appeal was found to lack prima facie merit.