Diana W. Dimmer

The appellant, a former Tim Horton's employee, was acquitted of criminal theft charges and subsequently sued her employer and the arresting officer for malicious prosecution, wrongful dismissal, and other claims.

A jury dismissed all her claims.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge misdirected the jury on the definition of theft and failed to properly outline her position.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice, as the jury was entitled to reach its factual conclusions based on the evidence.

The appellant, a former Tim Horton's employee, was charged with theft after management viewed a videotape and contacted police.

She was acquitted and subsequently sued the arresting officer and the restaurant owner for malicious prosecution, wrongful dismissal, intentional infliction of mental distress, and defamation.

A jury found against her on all issues.

On appeal, she argued the trial judge misdirected the jury on the definition of theft, failed to outline her position, and improperly allowed the defendants to expand the theft allegation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the jury's verdict and concluding the jury was properly instructed.

The City of Toronto appealed a decision ordering its Chief Building Official to issue building permits for sun rooms using sandwich panels and to evaluate the applicant's load test data.

The City argued that section 9(1) of the Building Code Act granted the official discretion to refuse to evaluate test results if the testing method was not specified in the Building Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that section 9(1) does not grant discretion to defeat applications relying on design methods authorized in the Building Code, such as load testing.

The court also upheld the motions judge's factual finding that the submitted data was adequate and dismissed the appeal on costs.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing its application to declare invalid and set aside two building permits issued for a nine-storey transitional housing and shelter building.

The appellant argued the Chief Building Official erred in classifying the proposed use as a 'hostel' rather than a 'crisis care facility' under the zoning by-law, and that the pending Municipal Shelter By-law appeal should have prevented the permits' issuance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's acceptance of the CBO's zoning compliance determination or the finding that the pending by-law appeal did not constitute 'applicable law' preventing the permits' issuance.

The appellants appealed an order amending a consent judgment regarding the submission of plans for the removal of support beams.

The motion judge amended the judgment to reflect the mutual intent of the parties, as the original language did not accomplish the goal of filing plans that would satisfy the City of Toronto's requirements for a building permit.

The Court of Appeal found the rectification was justified and dismissed the appeal, extending the deadline for submitting the plans on consent.

The appellants, anchor tenants in shopping centres, challenged the constitutionality of shortfall recovery provisions in the Municipal Act.

These provisions allowed commercial landlords to recoup property tax shortfalls from tenants.

The appellants argued this constituted indirect taxation, which is ultra vires the Province under section 92(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the provisions merely regulate the pre-existing transferability of a true land tax, which remains a valid direct tax.

The appellant hired a contractor to renovate his basement, which required underpinnings.

The contractor convinced the appellant to commence construction before obtaining a building permit.

When the permit was issued, the underpinnings were concealed.

The municipal building inspector relied on the contractor's assurances rather than conducting a thorough inspection.

The underpinnings were defective, causing flooding.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the municipality owed a duty of care to the appellant to conduct a reasonable inspection, despite the appellant's negligence in allowing construction without a permit.

The municipality was held jointly and severally liable with the contractor, with damages reduced by the appellant's contributory negligence.