Gil Itzchak Fischler

The applicant, Marion Breukelman, sought to consolidate two civil proceedings (a civil action and an employment action) into her ongoing family law application.

The court granted the motion for consolidation, finding that the proceedings shared common questions of fact and law, particularly regarding the beneficial ownership of shares in a family business (R. Avis Surveying Inc.).

The court emphasized that consolidation would promote judicial efficiency, save legal expenses for the parties, and, most importantly, avoid the risk of inconsistent judgments across the related proceedings.

Despite concerns raised by the respondent and other parties about inconvenience, the court determined that the balance of convenience favoured consolidation, noting that the Family Law Rules provide tools for efficient case management.

Ace Marmon appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his wrongful dismissal action against SanMar Canada.

Marmon claimed he was fired without cause, while SanMar asserted he resigned or was terminated for insubordination after refusing temporary shipping duties at his regular pay rate.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or law by the Deputy Judge.

The court upheld the finding that Marmon's refusal constituted repudiation of an essential employment condition and insubordination, justifying dismissal.

The appellant employee appealed the dismissal of his Small Claims Court action for wrongful dismissal.

The employee had refused to perform temporary duties in the shipping department unless he was paid the higher wage rate associated with that position.

The employer treated this as a resignation or, alternatively, just cause for termination due to insubordination.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the employer's request was reasonable and lawful based on company policy and past practice, and that the employee's repeated refusals constituted a repudiation of an essential condition of his employment contract.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing an action alleging oppression under s. 248 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act arising from a corporation’s failure to satisfy a Small Claims Court judgment.

The plaintiff claimed the defendant, alleged to be a director, failed to ensure that the corporation maintained a reserve to pay its debt following corporate restructuring and insolvency.

The court held that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial because the evidence demonstrated the defendant was merely an employee under the control of another corporation and was not the controlling mind of the debtor company.

Even assuming he was a director, there was no evidence he participated in the alleged oppressive conduct.

Summary judgment dismissing the claim against the moving defendant was granted.