Gerard V. Thompson

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to file an income loss report served less than 90 days before trial, contrary to Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing that the plaintiff had ample time to prepare the report over the 8-year history of the action.

The court held that 'undue delay' under Rule 53.08 refers to delay in the conduct of the trial, not the time taken to bring the matter to trial.

Since the defendant did not request an adjournment and there was no prejudice, the court granted the plaintiff leave to file the report.

The self-represented appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim against a lubrication facility for alleged negligence during a roadside service call.

The appellant claimed the respondent allowed rainwater into his truck's fuel system, causing extensive mechanical damage.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding the appellant failed to prove causation and noting the lack of expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error of fact or error of law in assessing the evidence and concluding the appellant had not met his burden of proof.

The self-represented appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim for $25,000 against the respondent for allegedly negligent truck maintenance.

The appellant claimed the respondent allowed rainwater into his truck's fuel system during a roadside repair, causing extensive engine damage.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding the appellant failed to prove causation and noting the absence of expert evidence.

On appeal, the Superior Court of Justice found no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence and dismissed the appeal.

The plaintiff brought a motion to prevent the administrative dismissal of his action for delay, establish a timetable, and amend his Statement of Claim to add a claim for shares in lieu of cash payment and to add a new corporate defendant.

The defendants opposed the amendment for shares, arguing it was a new cause of action barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found that the proposed amendment arose from the same factual situation as the original claim and was therefore not a new cause of action.

The court granted the motion to amend the pleadings, finding no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

During the hearing, it was revealed that the applicant had recently been criminally charged with fraud relating to his employment with the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal adjourned the hearing and subsequently ordered the deferral of the proceedings until the conclusion of the criminal matter to avoid inconsistent findings of fact and to protect the applicant's right to remain silent.

The Tribunal also granted the respondents' request to rely on additional documentation at the rescheduled hearing, as the applicant did not allege any prejudice from the late disclosure.

Following an appeal where the appellants achieved divided success, the Court of Appeal determined the appropriate costs awards for both the appeal and the trial.

The appellants were awarded reduced partial indemnity costs for the appeal to reflect their divided success.

For the trial costs, the respondents were awarded their agreed costs against the unsuccessful appellant, and a Sanderson order was made allowing the respondents to recover the trial costs they owed to the successful co-appellants from the unsuccessful appellant.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for unlawful conduct conspiracy and Purina liable for breach of contract, resulting in a $2 million damages award.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, dismissing the conspiracy claim because only Purina's conduct was unlawful.

The Court also reduced the breach of contract damages, holding that damages should be calculated based on the contract's 60-day termination clause, which was the least burdensome mode of performance.

The prejudgment interest rate was reduced to the statutory rate of 5.1 percent.

However, the $30,000 punitive damages award against Purina was affirmed due to its deceitful and reprehensible conduct in surreptitiously supplying a competitor in the respondents' exclusive territory.

The appellant appealed an order regarding funds collected by a receiver.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the funds collected by the receiver never lost their character as trust funds because they were not co-mingled with pre-receivership funds and remained identifiable.

The cross-appeal regarding the interpretation of s. 191.0.1(3) was also dismissed, as the provision imposes obligations on persons in Ontario arranging carriage of goods.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that there was no special relationship between the parties, as this conclusion was fully supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The applicant sought to set aside his expulsion from the YMCA, arguing he was denied natural justice because he was not given a hearing before being expelled for alleged public indecency in the men's shower.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the YMCA's by-laws permitted expulsion without a hearing when a member's conduct breached the law.

The court held that the YMCA acted in good faith, followed its own rules, and afforded the applicant adequate procedural fairness given the nature of the voluntary association and the prior warnings he had received.

The appellants, a secured creditor and an interim receiver, appealed a decision granting priority to carriers over funds collected by a bankrupt freight broker.

The broker had failed to maintain a separate trust account for carriers' charges as required by provincial regulation, instead co-mingled the funds while tracking them in an accounting system.

The Court of Appeal held that provincial statutory deemed trusts do not exclude property from a bankrupt estate unless they satisfy general trust principles, which require strict segregation.

Consequently, the co-mingled funds collected before the receivership lost their trust character and were subject to the secured creditor's interest.

However, the interim receiver was obligated to hold funds collected after its appointment in trust for the carriers.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing its claims against a corporate tenant's director for breach of trust and inducing breach of contract.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the commercial lease did not create a trust relationship.

Furthermore, the pleadings failed to establish the limited circumstances under which a corporate director or officer could be held personally liable for inducing a breach of contract by the corporation.

The Court of Appeal issued an endorsement on costs following an appeal where the appellant recovered a small judgment at trial but was unsuccessful on all other claims.

The court fixed costs at $1,000 for the trial and $1,000 for the appeal, payable by the respondent to the appellant.

The appellant employee signed an agreement authorizing the respondent employer to make deductions from his wages for cash shortages, despite others having access to the cash.

This contravened the Regulations under the Employment Standards Act.

When the appellant subsequently refused to work under this arrangement, the respondent treated his refusal as a resignation.

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant's refusal was justified in law and that treating it as a resignation constituted wrongful dismissal.

The appeal was allowed in part, awarding the appellant agreed damages for lost wages, but dismissing claims for aggravated damages and other torts.