Helen M. Pierce

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision which found that no settlement agreement existed between the parties.

The appellant argued the motion judge provided insufficient reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge applied the correct legal test, adequately summarized the viva voce evidence, and reasonably concluded there was no meeting of the minds.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Fire Safety Commission confirming an inspection order that required the appellant to remedy fire alarm audibility levels in its residential building.

The appellant argued the Fire Marshal lacked jurisdiction to issue the technical guideline used by the inspector and that the inspector fettered his discretion.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the appeal, finding the Fire Marshal had statutory authority to issue the guideline, the guideline was discretionary rather than mandatory, and the Commission reasonably concluded the inspection order was necessary to ensure fire safety.

The applicant sought judicial review of a supplementary award by a Board of Arbitration that granted improved vacation benefits for part-time nurses.

The original award had increased vacation entitlements for full-time nurses but was silent on part-time nurses.

The Board issued a supplementary award, stating the omission was an oversight and rejecting the applicant's argument that it was functus officio.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision that it was not functus officio was reasonable, as the omission was an error in expressing the manifest intention of the Board and the Board remained seized of the implementation of the award under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The appellant appealed two orders made by the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court found that the appellant failed to identify any errors in either of the orders.

The appeal was dismissed with no costs.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to certify a class action against a smartphone manufacturer regarding a product recall.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's findings that the pleadings failed to disclose a viable cause of action due to lack of particulars and lack of contractual privity.

The court also agreed that the appellant failed to establish common issues, as the expert evidence on damages was not grounded in the facts of the case and individual trials would be necessary to determine harm.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict awarding $55,000 in damages following a motor vehicle accident, arguing the assessment was inconsistent, unreasonable, and out of proportion to the injuries.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no obvious inconsistency in the jury's findings.

The court held that the verdict was reasonable, as the jury was entitled to assess the plaintiff's credibility and prefer the evidence of the respondent's medical expert over the appellants' expert.

At a status hearing, the court considered whether to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for delay under Rule 48.14(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action, which involved a shareholder dispute, had been commenced in 2012 and was inextricably linked to a separate application to wind up the corporations.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, having made a strategic decision to await the outcome of the application before proceeding with the action.

Finding that the defendants would suffer prejudice if the action proceeded, the court dismissed the action for delay.

The plaintiffs sought enhanced costs after successfully resisting the defendants' motion to set aside a partial summary judgment.

The defendants argued for fixed costs, citing no reprehensible conduct and potential financial hardship.

The court, applying Rule 57.01(1) factors, the contractual "reasonable sums" clause, and the proportionality principle under Rule 1.04(1.1), found the plaintiffs' claim for $15,011.88 disproportionate.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $5,000.00, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, to be paid by the defendants within 60 days.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment against the defendant for unpaid tree harvesting charges totaling $80,672.01.

The defendant, who was self-represented, claimed an Aboriginal or Métis right to harvest trees and argued the fees were unconstitutional.

However, the defendant failed to file any affidavit evidence to support his Métis status, his constitutional claims, or to dispute the calculation of the fees.

The court granted the summary judgment motion, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim.

The defendants moved to set aside a partial summary judgment granted against them based on promissory notes and a general security agreement.

They argued accident or mistake in failing to attend the original motion and raised defences of non est factum and equitable set-off.

The court found that while the failure to attend was due to mistake, the proposed defences lacked merit.

The defence of non est factum was not supported by evidence, and equitable set-off is not available for claims on bills of exchange.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs would suffer greater prejudice if the judgment were set aside, and therefore dismissed the motion.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding a contract for the purchase of a bicycle and related services.

The trial judge had ordered specific performance and rescission as remedies.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the Small Claims Court lacks jurisdiction to grant equitable relief, such as specific performance or rescission, unless it is in the form of a money judgment or the return of personal property within its monetary limit.

The appeal was allowed in part, setting aside the equitable remedies and substituting a money judgment of $16.97 for discounted accessories.

The applicant father sought to confirm a provisional order from Manitoba terminating his child support obligation for his adult son.

The mother opposed, arguing the son remained a child of the marriage due to post-secondary studies and medical issues.

The court found the son ceased to be a child of the marriage after high school, but re-qualified during an 18-month period of post-secondary education.

The provisional order was confirmed with a variation, terminating support temporarily, reinstating it during the son's studies, and then terminating it permanently.

The plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment for monies loaned to the defendants, secured by two promissory notes and a general security agreement.

The defendants pleaded non est factum and equitable set-off but failed to file responding affidavits or appear at the motion.

The court granted partial summary judgment, finding that equitable set-off is not a valid defence to a claim on a promissory note and that the defence of non est factum was not supported by evidence.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs on a full indemnity scale, adjusted for double-claiming and legal education time.

The plaintiff sought a declaration that she suffered a catastrophic impairment following a 2013 motor vehicle accident, entitling her to enhanced statutory accident benefits.

The defendant insurer argued her impairment stemmed from pre-existing mental health and addiction issues.

The court applied the 'but for' test for causation, finding that despite her pre-existing vulnerabilities, the accident triggered a conversion disorder that catastrophically impaired her functioning.

The court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to attendant care benefits even if she had not actually paid for them out of pocket, as requiring an insured to finance their own care would defeat the remedial purpose of the legislation.

The defendant, completely successful at a jury trial where plaintiffs claimed $4.5 million, sought partial indemnity costs of $180,787.95.

The plaintiffs opposed, arguing the lack of a Rule 49 offer to settle should deny costs and that the quantum was excessive.

The court affirmed that costs should follow the event, even without a formal offer, and ordered costs against all plaintiffs jointly and severally.

The court reduced the defendant's claimed fees by disallowing law clerk attendance at trial and adjusting hourly rates for counsel and law clerks.

Expert report costs were also reduced from $27,912.50 to $15,000.00.

Travel costs for counsel and the instructing client were allowed due to the trial's transfer to Thunder Bay at the plaintiffs' convenience.

The mother brought a motion seeking leave to relocate the children from Thunder Bay, Ontario, to Whitehorse, Yukon Territory.

The father opposed the move and sought to set aside minutes of settlement, vacate a restraining order, and obtain specified access.

The court adjourned the mobility issue, deeming it premature without a report from the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The existing restraining order against the father was vacated due to a lack of objective evidence of ongoing risk.

The divorce was severed from corollary issues, while other ancillary matters were adjourned.

The offender, Ronald Philip Beer, was convicted of sexual assault committed in 1992, which resulted in the victim conceiving and raising a child alone.

The Crown sought a sentence of five to six years, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court determined that a conditional sentence was legally available despite the offence predating the sentencing scheme, applying s. 11(i) of the Charter.

However, considering the severe, life-altering impact on the victim, the resulting pregnancy, the offender's lack of remorse, and the pre-sentence report indicating a risk of re-offending, the court found denunciation and deterrence to be paramount.

The court sentenced the offender to four years of incarceration, along with ancillary orders including a DNA sample, a 10-year weapons prohibition, lifetime Sex Offender Information Registration, and a non-communication order with the victim.

The plaintiff, having succeeded in a wrongful dismissal action, sought substantial indemnity costs.

The defendant challenged the quantum and the plaintiff sought personal costs against the defendant's solicitor for litigation conduct, including abandoning the defence at trial.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs until the offer to settle date and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, significantly reducing the claimed amount.

The court also ordered the defendant's solicitor to personally pay a portion of the costs due to dereliction of duty and dismissive conduct.

The appellant mother, S. (D.), sought an order to extend the time to file a notice of appeal against a Crown wardship order for her three children.

The original order, making the children Crown wards with limited supervised access, was issued on April 24, 2017, and the appeal limitation period expired on May 24, 2017.

The motion for extension was filed nearly a year later.

The court applied the five-factor test from Issasi v. Rosenzweig, considering the appellant's intention to appeal, the length and explanation for delay, prejudice to the children, merits of the appeal, and the justice of the case.

The court found insufficient evidence of timely intention to appeal, an unreasonable delay, significant prejudice to the children's permanency planning, and a lack of merit in the proposed appeal.

Consequently, the motion to extend time was dismissed, emphasizing the imperative for expeditious resolution in child welfare matters and the best interests of the children.

The appellant, an involuntary psychiatric patient diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming her attending physicians' finding that she was incapable of managing her property.

The appellant argued the assessment was flawed and that her limited income negated the need for property management.

The Superior Court of Justice applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Board's decision.

The court found that the appellant's delusional beliefs regarding property ownership and marriage prevented her from understanding information relevant to her housing and discharge planning, thereby satisfying the test for incapacity.