Graydon Sheppard

The appellant entered into a vehicle lease with the respondent through an agent, Fleet Financial Inc. The agent arranged a second lease with different terms and subsequently defaulted on payments to the respondent.

The respondent sought repossession of the vehicle after a 14-month delay.

The trial judge granted repossession, finding the agent acted for the appellant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant must bear the consequences of his agent's default.

The appellants sued their former lawyer, alleging he entered into a settlement with their property insurer without proper authority and breached his fiduciary duty by providing a statement to the insurer's counsel confirming the settlement.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding that the appellants had made an informed decision to settle and that, even if the lawyer had been negligent, the appellants suffered no damages because the settlement amount exceeded what they could have reasonably recovered under the policy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings of fact were supported by the evidence and there was no palpable and overriding error.

The appellant commenced an action for false arrest, false imprisonment, and abuse of process against the respondents, including a lawyer who had allegedly urged police to arrest her.

The motions judge dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under rule 21.01(3)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the police conducted their own independent investigation and made their own decision to arrest the appellant, meaning the action against the lawyer had no chance of success.

The respondent commenced a wrongful dismissal action after being terminated.

The appellant employer brought a motion to dismiss the action, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the respondent was covered by a collective agreement.

The motions judge dismissed the motion, finding the respondent exercised managerial functions and was not an employee under the Labour Relations Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motions judge lacked jurisdiction to determine the respondent's status.

Under the exclusive jurisdiction model, the question of whether a dispute is arbitrable must be determined by an arbitrator.

The action was stayed pending arbitration.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of discreditable conduct arising from an off-duty assault on a contractor he believed had stolen his rings.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission reviewed the penalty and found that the hearing officer failed to give sufficient weight to significant mitigating factors, including the appellant's unblemished ten-year service record, his acceptance of responsibility, his pursuit of counselling, and the victim's forgiveness.

The Commission varied the penalty from dismissal to a one-year demotion to fourth class constable.

The complainant, a police constable, requested light duties during the latter stages of her pregnancy due to safety concerns for herself and her fetus.

The Police Services Board denied her request, relying on a policy that prohibited modified work programs, and forced her to take an unpaid leave of absence.

The Board of Inquiry found that the policy constituted both direct and adverse effect discrimination on the basis of sex.

The respondents failed to establish that the policy was a bona fide occupational qualification or that they had accommodated the complainant to the point of undue hardship.

The complainant was awarded lost wages and general damages for mental anguish.