George G. Vuicic

The appellant school board appealed a trial decision finding it liable for a proportionate share of retirement gratuities owed to teachers transferred during a school board reorganization.

The trial judge found that while the agreement between the boards did not fall under s. 135(26.1) of the Education Act, it was still a valid and enforceable agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Education Act does not preclude agreements outside of s. 135(26.1), the agreement was not vitiated by mutual mistake, and the appellant's liability was not limited to the initial estimated amount.

Following the reorganization of Ontario school boards, the appellant and respondent school boards entered into an agreement to share the liability for retirement benefits of transferred teachers.

The appellant later argued the agreement was invalid because it did not fall under section 135(26.1) of the Education Act and was vitiated by common mistake.

The Court of Appeal held that the Act does not preclude boards from making binding agreements outside of section 135(26.1).

The Court also found no fundamental mistake that would void the agreement and refused to cap the appellant's liability at the initial estimated amount.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a decision declaring that Regulvar Ontario was not a 'person resident in a designated jurisdiction' under the Fairness is a Two-Way Street Act (Construction Labour Mobility), 1999.

The Act restricted access to construction jobs in Ontario for persons resident in Quebec.

Regulvar Ontario's head office was in Ontario, but 30% of its shares were held by Regulvar Quebec.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's use of the de jure control test from Duha Printers, finding that Regulvar Quebec did not control Regulvar Ontario directly or indirectly.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant Crown appealed a declaration that the respondent, Regulvar Ontario, was not a 'person resident in a designated jurisdiction' under the Fairness is a Two-Way Street Act.

The Act restricts construction access for corporations controlled directly or indirectly by residents of Quebec.

Regulvar Quebec owned 30% of Regulvar Ontario's shares, with the rest held by individuals who were directors or officers of Regulvar Quebec.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's use of the de jure control test, finding that Regulvar Quebec did not have the ability to elect the majority of the board of directors.

The appeal was dismissed.