Helen M. Pierce

The plaintiff, a 65-year-old general manager, was terminated without cause or notice after five years of employment when the defendant corporation was shut down.

The defendant abandoned its defence at trial.

The court awarded nine months' notice, equivalent to $48,749.94.

The court declined to deduct the plaintiff's post-termination earnings from inferior positions, finding he was forced to accept them to mitigate his damages.

The court also awarded $7,500 in exemplary damages due to the defendant's bad faith conduct in blackening the plaintiff's character in the community.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) which found that its natural gas gathering pipelines were properly assessed as 'pipe lines' under s. 25(1) of the Assessment Act for municipal tax purposes.

The appellant argued the pipelines were gathering lines, not transmission lines, and that the OEB should have applied the technical industry meaning.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the OEB's decision, finding it was reasonable for the OEB to apply the ordinary meaning of the words 'transportation or transmission' and to infer from assessment roll numbers that the pipelines had been previously designated as transmission pipelines.

The intervener, Ontario Petroleum Institute, brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence in the form of an affidavit on an appeal.

The respondent, Ontario Energy Board, brought a cross-motion to vary a previous order granting leave to file the evidence.

The Divisional Court treated the motions as a single issue of whether to admit the affidavit.

Applying the Palmer test, the court admitted the affidavit but ordered redactions of irrelevant facts and inadmissible opinion evidence.

On an application for judicial review, a preliminary issue arose regarding the admissibility of two affidavits filed by the applicants containing evidence that was not before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The respondents objected to the admissibility of the affidavits, but no formal motion to strike or for leave to introduce the evidence had been brought.

The Divisional Court held that the onus is on the party seeking to file fresh evidence to bring a motion for leave in advance of the application.

The court adjourned the matter to permit the applicants to bring such a motion.

The self-represented appellants appealed a Rule 21 motion decision that dismissed their claim against a former police chief as statute-barred.

The appellants argued the limitation period began when they received less redacted police records, rather than the initially redacted records.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the motions judge's conclusion that the appellants had sufficient facts to base their claim upon receiving the initial redacted records.

The appeal and the request for leave to appeal costs were dismissed.

The applicant owns two adjacent lots used for aggregate extraction.

The Planning Board took the position that one of the lots was zoned Rural, prohibiting extraction.

The applicant applied for a declaration under the Aggregate Resources Act that no zoning by-law prohibits the operation of pits and quarries on the lot, arguing it had a legal non-conforming use.

The court found that the lot had been used continuously for aggregate extraction since 1952, prior to the zoning by-law, and that the use had not been abandoned or intensified.

The court granted the declaration, confirming the legal non-conforming use.

The plaintiff moved to amend her statement of claim to include damages for the destruction of her vehicle and associated punitive and aggravated damages.

The defendants opposed, arguing that a punitive damage claim is not stand-alone, there was no independent actionable wrong for property damage, and it would constitute an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that punitive damages are not available for Family Law Act claims in fatal accidents, the property damage claim was statute-barred, and punitive damages require an independent actionable wrong which was absent in this case.

The applicant wife initiated a proceeding for divorce, child support, spousal support, and other relief.

The respondent husband sought joint custody and termination of spousal support.

The court dismissed the divorce claim as neither party wished to proceed.

Joint custody was ordered, and child support was adjusted upward based on the husband's income.

Spousal support was ordered to continue but with a step-down reduction schedule, and retroactive spousal support was dismissed due to lack of evidence and delay.

Claims for retroactive special expenses and pension division were dismissed.

The court also declined jurisdiction on a bankruptcy-related order.

Mr. Milani was convicted of multiple home invasion sexual assaults and related offences committed between 1985 and 1987.

The court determined a fit sentence, considering the Kienapple principle for multiple convictions, the circumstances of the four incidents, the offender's background, and the profound impact on victims.

The Crown sought 20 years to life, while the defence proposed 5-8 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 20 years imprisonment, along with ancillary orders including a lifetime weapons prohibition, communication prohibition with victims, DNA sample submission, and sex offender registration.

The plaintiffs moved for certification of a class action against the Crown for systemic negligence and breach of fiduciary duty regarding the failure to advance compensation claims for former Crown wards who suffered abuse or neglect.

The court granted the motion, certifying common issues related to duty of care, standard of care, breach, fiduciary duty, aggregate damages, and punitive damages.

The court found a class action to be the preferable procedure, promoting access to justice, judicial economy, and behaviour modification, despite the Crown's arguments regarding over-broad class definition and alternative compensation avenues.

The plaintiff, a salesman with over fifteen years of service, claimed damages for wrongful or constructive dismissal, workplace harassment, and discrimination based on disability under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The defendant denied the allegations, arguing the contract was abandoned or frustrated, and that the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages.

The court found no objective basis for the plaintiff's harassment claims, no constructive dismissal, and concluded that the employment contract was frustrated due to the plaintiff's inability to return to work.

All claims were dismissed.

The applicant husband and respondent wife separated after a six-year marriage.

The husband sought a declaration of resulting trust over three properties registered solely in the wife's name, as well as funds in a joint bank account.

The court found that the presumption of resulting trust was not rebutted for the properties, granting the husband a beneficial half-interest in each.

The court also found the joint bank account funds were jointly owned.

The court resolved disputes over the valuation of the husband's business shares at the date of marriage, preferring the wife's expert valuator, and determined the value of various disputed chattels, including tools and an engagement ring.

The husband's claim for an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act was dismissed.

The wife was ordered to pay an equalization payment to the husband.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for operating a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug (Zopiclone).

He argued that his sections 7 and 8 Charter rights were breached and that the trial judge erred in finding he had the requisite mens rea, as he was taking the medication on a doctor's recommendation.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made no errors of law, reasonably concluded the appellant voluntarily ingested a sedative he knew could impair his driving, and properly dismissed the Charter motions.

The applicants, a municipality and its mayor, sought declaratory and injunctive relief against a resident who sent vexatious and abusive communications and engaged in unauthorized road maintenance.

The applicants argued the resident's conduct triggered the town's workplace harassment policy under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The court dismissed the application for a declaration, finding the policy did not apply to a non-employee harassing the mayor at her separate, full-time workplace.

The court also dismissed the request for an interlocutory injunction, applying the RJR-MacDonald test and concluding the applicants failed to establish a serious issue to be tried or irreparable harm.

The Crown brought a pretrial motion to admit fingerprint evidence obtained during a prior investigation of a break-in for which the accused was previously acquitted.

The Crown argued the evidence was necessary for the narrative of the police investigation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the prejudicial effect of admitting evidence of prior discreditable conduct far outweighed its probative value, as it risked the jury engaging in impermissible propensity reasoning.

The court permitted the Crown to lead only a neutral statement regarding the reopening of the investigation.

In a proposed class proceeding by former Crown wards alleging systemic failure by the Crown to facilitate compensation claims for abuse, the defendant moved to compel answers to refused cross-examination questions and to mark child welfare files as exhibits on the certification record.

The court held that questions about whether the proposed representative plaintiffs had made Criminal Injuries Compensation Board claims or civil claims, and the outcomes of any civil claims, were relevant to commonality, preferability, and representative plaintiff suitability, and ordered those questions answered in writing.

Questions about limitation periods and whether claims were still possible were held irrelevant to certification and potentially intrusive on privilege.

The request to mark the child welfare files as exhibits was dismissed as overbroad, prejudicial, and directed toward merits rather than certification issues.

The defendants brought motions for security for costs against the plaintiff, who was suing for negligent investigation and malicious prosecution.

The plaintiff argued he was impecunious and that an order would deny him access to justice.

The court found the plaintiff was impecunious but that his claim was almost certain to fail because the underlying criminal proceedings did not terminate in his favour (he pleaded guilty to two charges).

The court ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs, but reduced the amount sought by the defendants to avoid blocking access to the courts, ordering $15,000 to each set of defendants payable in instalments.

The defendants, including the Thunder Bay Police Services Board and the Attorney General of Canada, brought a motion to transfer a civil action from Toronto to Thunder Bay.

The plaintiff opposed, citing concerns about a fair trial due to local family prominence, publicity, judicial conflicts, and financial hardship.

The court granted the transfer, finding that the interests of justice favored Thunder Bay because a substantial part of the events, damages, and subject matter were located there.

The court emphasized the local community's interest in allegations of police misconduct and the convenience for the majority of parties and witnesses residing in Thunder Bay.

The plaintiff's concerns about fairness and judicial bias were dismissed as speculative or manageable.

The unrepresented parties, Nathalie Mary Doucet (Applicant) and Shanny Doucet (Respondent), proceeded to trial to resolve issues arising from their separation, including the validity of a separation agreement, child support (retroactive and ongoing), spousal support (retroactive and ongoing), and s. 7 expenses.

The court set aside the child and spousal support provisions of the separation agreement, finding the negotiation process unsatisfactory and the terms non-compliant with the Divorce Act objectives.

The court then determined Mr. Doucet's income, calculated and ordered retroactive and ongoing child support, and proportionate sharing of s. 7 expenses.

A lump sum non-compensatory spousal support was awarded to Ms. Doucet, but her claim for ongoing spousal support was dismissed.

The City of Thunder Bay sought an order for certiorari to quash a Justice of the Peace's order awarding $100 in costs to the defendant, Gurpreet Singh-Sidhu, under the Provincial Offences Act.

The defendant had not testified at trial, and the prosecution had withdrawn its case.

The court found that a defendant who does not testify is not a "witness" under s. 60(2) of the Act and is therefore not eligible for witness fees or expenses.

Consequently, the Justice of the Peace erred in awarding costs.

The application for certiorari was granted, and the costs order was quashed.