George Theodor Florea

The appellant employer appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent employee statutory severance pay.

The appellant argued that it was exempt from paying severance under s. 9 of the Employment Standards Act because its loss of a school bus route contract to a new provider, combined with an agreement to introduce its employees to the new provider, constituted a 'sale of a business'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Deputy Judge's finding that the mere expiry of a contract and introduction of employees to a competitor did not constitute a transfer or sale of a business entity.

The plaintiff claimed adverse possession of a disputed area of land.

The court analyzed the three requirements for adverse possession: actual possession, intention to exclude the owner (animus possidendi), and the true owner being out of possession.

The court found that the plaintiff's predecessor in title, Mr. Malfara, did not meet these requirements as he did not actually use the land and had no intention to exclude the true owner.

Consequently, the plaintiff's claim for adverse possession was dismissed.

The defendants' counterclaim for trespass was granted, awarding $500 in damages, and a permanent injunction was issued against the plaintiff.

Costs were awarded to the defendants.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment by Emir Kovacevic and that the corporate respondent failed to adequately deal with the situation.

The applicant requested to add Mr. Kovacevic as a personal respondent and to amend the remedy sought from $250,000 to $500,000.

The Tribunal granted both requests, finding that the corporate respondent might not be vicariously liable if Mr. Kovacevic is not a directing mind, and that amending the remedy at this stage is appropriate.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel, which upheld a Hearing Panel's finding of professional misconduct and the penalty of revocation of his licence.

The misconduct involved overcharging a family law client, failing to explain irrevocable directions, and failing to keep the client informed.

On appeal, the appellant raised new issues regarding the burden of proof and the sufficiency of the Hearing Panel's reasons.

The Divisional Court allowed the new issues to be raised but dismissed them on the merits, finding that the Hearing Panel did not reverse the burden of proof and that its reasons were sufficient under the Newfoundland Nurses standard.

The court also upheld the global assessment of the lawyer's fees without expert evidence and confirmed the penalty of revocation.