Gordon F. Luborsky

The appellants appealed a trial judgment, arguing the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error by failing to reconcile the lack of documentary evidence supporting the respondent's claim for sweat equity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the case turned on credibility and the trial judge was entitled to accept the respondent's evidence.

Applying the standard of review from Housen, the court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding an enforceable contract for the sale and delivery of shares to the respondent.

The trial judge found the contract was partly written and partly oral, with all essential terms agreed upon, including the provision of $1 million in shares priced at half market value as of the respondent's start date.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, noting there was a clear meeting of the minds and no palpable error.

The respondent's cross-appeal regarding the assessment of damages was also dismissed, as the trial judge was justified in fixing the assessment as of the notice of termination date.

Both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed with no costs.

The complainant, a transit driver, was dismissed after a series of incidents including invoking the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) to refuse to operate a streetcar he claimed had defective brakes.

He filed complaints alleging he was dismissed for invoking the OHSA and that his union breached its duty of fair representation by refusing to take his grievance to arbitration.

The Board dismissed both complaints, finding that the complainant was discharged for insubordination and his poor disciplinary record, not for invoking the OHSA.

The Board also found the union had properly investigated the grievance, considered its merits, and reasonably concluded it would not succeed at arbitration.