Deborah Berlach

In an addendum to its earlier reasons dismissing the appellant's appeal and allowing the respondent Conservation Authority's cross-appeal, the Court of Appeal addressed the respondent Crown's cross-appeal regarding trial costs.

The trial judge had declined to award the successful Crown its costs because it failed to communicate its change in position regarding a land exchange, which could have avoided the appellant's damages.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion under section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and dismissed the Crown's cross-appeal on costs.

The appellant sued the Crown and the Conservation Authority for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation arising from an aborted land exchange.

The trial judge dismissed the contract claim but found the Conservation Authority liable for negligent misrepresentation, awarding reduced damages due to a failure to mitigate.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal on damages and allowed the Conservation Authority's cross-appeal, finding that the appellant had not detrimentally relied on the misrepresentation and that the failure of a related sale transaction was not caused by the misrepresentation.

The appellant, who operated a residential home, sought a declaration that his insurers had a duty to pay for his legal representation at a coroner's inquest following the death of a resident.

The appellant argued the inquest constituted a 'claim' under his insurance policy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while an inquest is an investigation, it does not involve a claim because it cannot establish civil responsibility or liability.

The respondent was dismissed from his position as executive director of the appellant association for sexually harassing female employees.

The trial judge found that the conduct occurred outside the workplace and was consensual, concluding there was no just cause for dismissal.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge's decision, finding that the trial judge failed to account for the power imbalance between a supervisor and employees, and erred in characterizing work-related social events as outside the workplace.

The Court held that the respondent's pattern of sexually harassing conduct created an intolerable work environment and constituted just cause for dismissal.

The respondent employees were hired by the corporation to provide services at a gold mine in West Africa.

The corporation failed and was unable to pay salaries, vacation pay, and expenses.

The employees sued the directors under s. 131(1) of the Ontario Business Corporations Act for these amounts.

The motion judge granted summary judgment, finding the directors liable for the unpaid expenses.

The directors appealed, arguing that expenses do not constitute wages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that under s. 131(1), expenses incurred by an employee in the course of providing services constitute a debt of the corporation for which its directors are liable, up to the statutory limit.

The directors of an insolvent corporation appealed an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act, arguing that two senior officers (one of whom was also a director) should not be entitled to recover unpaid wages from the directors because of their senior positions and knowledge of the company's financial situation.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the appeal, finding that the plain language of the Act does not exclude senior officers or directors from claiming unpaid wages from the directors of an insolvent corporation.