Evert Van Woudenberg

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding wrongful dismissal and awarding 22 months' notice, eight months' Wallace damages, and $25,000 in punitive damages.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of no cause for termination and the 22-month notice period.

However, the Court reduced the Wallace damages to four months, finding the employer did not act in bad faith by pursuing unproven allegations of dishonesty, withholding a reference letter, or couriering the respondent's belongings.

The $25,000 punitive damages award was upheld due to the employer's oppressive conduct in blacklisting the respondent's relatives and unlawfully deducting funds from her account at another bank.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellants sought leave to commence an action against a court-appointed Receiver for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

The motion judge dismissed the request, finding that the Receiver's conduct had already been scrutinized and approved in three previous proceedings.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, agreeing that issue estoppel and abuse of process barred the appellants from re-litigating the same facts and arguments.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $15,000.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding the eastern boundary of a traversing easement.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by drawing the boundary adjacent to the appellant's house and over part of her front lawn, rather than reflecting the historical use of the property.

The appeal was allowed, and the judgment was varied to limit the easterly boundary of the traversing easement and adjust the possessory title accordingly.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondents $1,173,960 in compensatory damages and $150,000 in punitive damages for breach of a construction management contract.

The respondent had worked for 17 months without pay before being abruptly terminated on the eve of his entitlement to substantial compensation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly interpreted the contract to assess damages, properly declined to consider mitigation as it was not pleaded, and appropriately awarded punitive damages given the appellant's reprehensible conduct.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment ordering them to repay $47,000 improperly withdrawn from a letter of credit and $7,786.56 for cleaning and grading costs.

The respondents cross-appealed the dismissal of their claim for an alleged overpayment of interest on a vendor take-back mortgage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions regarding the letter of credit draw, issue estoppel, or the mortgage interest payments.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's decision regarding the terms of a financial advance.

The trial judge found that the money was advanced with an obligation to repay on demand only in the event of separation or divorce, a condition that did not arise.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, noting they were well justified on the evidence and owed significant deference.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an order setting aside an ex parte Anton Piller order.

The motion judge had set aside the order due to material non-disclosure, including the failure of the plaintiff, a status Indian, to disclose that his undertaking as to damages was unenforceable under s. 89(1) of the Indian Act, and the failure to present a complete factual picture.

The Divisional Court found that while the failure to disclose the Indian Act provision might not alone justify setting aside the order, the overall material non-disclosure regarding the business relationship justified the motion judge's decision.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs obtained an ex parte Anton Piller order, which was subsequently set aside by a Superior Court judge.

The plaintiffs sought to appeal the setting aside of the order and brought a motion before a single judge of the Court of Appeal for a stay pending appeal.

The Court of Appeal judge determined that the order setting aside the Anton Piller order was interlocutory, not final, because it did not determine the real matter in dispute between the parties.

Consequently, the appeal belonged in the Divisional Court, and the motion for a stay in the Court of Appeal was dismissed.

The respondents sought to develop land subdivided via testamentary devise, a method that bypassed Planning Act controls.

When they applied for building permits, the appellant Town delayed processing and passed an interim control by-law, followed by a zoning amendment increasing minimum lot sizes, effectively halting the development.

The trial judge found the Town acted in bad faith, quashed the zoning amendment, and ordered the issuance of building permits and damages.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings of bad faith and the order for building permits, finding no palpable and overriding error, but allowed the appeal in part to adjust the interest rate on damages and the scale of costs.