Granville Nolley Cadogan

The appellants abandoned their appeal.

On consent, the Court of Appeal for Ontario ordered the appellants to pay costs to the respondent fixed at $6,150 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The complainant, a law clerk, alleged that the personal respondent, a lawyer and her employer, subjected her to sexual harassment, inappropriate touching, and reprisal.

The Tribunal found the complainant's evidence credible and concluded that the personal respondent engaged in a course of vexatious conduct, including inappropriate comments and touching, constituting sexual harassment and solicitation.

The Tribunal also found that the personal respondent committed a reprisal by reducing the complainant's hours to 'on call' after she rejected his advances, effectively terminating her employment.

The respondents were ordered jointly and severally to pay $25,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and $1,536 for lost wages, and the personal respondent was ordered to develop an anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policy.

The appellants moved for a stay of orders enforcing a writ of possession and directing the removal of their personal property from a residence, pending their appeal.

They argued that a landlord-tenant relationship existed, depriving the Superior Court of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no serious issue to be tried, as the appellants had previously claimed ownership of the property and the landlord-tenant argument was a last-ditch effort to avoid eviction.

The mortgagee appealed the trial judge's decision to reduce the interest rate on the mortgage and deny costs.

The Court of Appeal allowed the cross-appeal, holding that the mortgagee was entitled in law to the interest rate called for in the mortgage, and that delay in bringing the action within the limitation period did not justify a reduction.

The court also awarded costs of the trial and the appeal to the mortgagee, noting that success was no longer divided and the judgment exceeded the offer to settle.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the summary judgment, finding that there were significant contested issues of fact regarding compliance with a Separation Agreement, waiver, and fundamental breach.

Costs were reserved to the trial judge.