Jim Hoare

The respondent distributor brought a motion for the production of financial and other documents used by the applicant dealer's expert in preparing a draft report on damages arising from the termination of their dealership agreement.

The applicant argued the motion was premature because the expert report was only a draft.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding the documents were relevant to the assessment of damages and that foundational documents relied upon by an expert must be disclosed to enable the opposing party to assess its position.

The applicant, a terminated farm implements dealer, brought a motion seeking the production of financial and sales documents from the respondent manufacturer and a successor dealership.

The applicant argued the documents were necessary to calculate damages based on the successor's financial performance.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the respondent did not have possession, control, or power over the successor's documents.

Furthermore, the Tribunal declined to order production from the successor dealership as a non-party, concluding that the requested documents were not relevant to the established method of calculating damages based on past performance, and that the prejudice of disclosing confidential information to a competitor outweighed any unfairness to the applicant.

The appellant, a farm implement dealer, appealed the non-renewal of its dealer agreement by the respondent manufacturer.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the Farm Implements Act and Ontario Regulation 123/06 by failing to provide the required written notice with full reasons and an opportunity to cure before deciding not to renew the agreement.

The Tribunal determined that the regulation applied retrospectively to the existing contract, removing the respondent's unfettered right to not renew.

The Tribunal awarded the appellant damages for loss of profits based on a two-year reasonable notice period and for obsolete assets, totaling $139,846 plus pre-judgment interest.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought weekly income benefits.

Prior to the accident, he and his wife ran a business, with the applicant performing heavy labour and administrative duties.

Following the accident, the applicant's wife took over the administrative duties, though the applicant remained physically capable of performing them.

The arbitrator found that the reallocation of duties was a lifestyle decision rather than a result of the accident.

Consequently, the arbitrator declined to alter the pre-accident income allocation, finding that the applicant's post-accident income exceeded the benefits payable.

The claim for further benefits was dismissed, but the applicant was awarded his arbitration expenses.