Helen Pelton

The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because it had recently retained counsel who was unavailable on the hearing date, and because a proposed witness was medically unavailable.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that retaining counsel late is not an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment.

The Tribunal also held that the witness's unavailability did not require an adjournment, as her evidence could be heard at a later date or by teleconference if ruled admissible.

Following dismissal of an appeal from an arbitration award in a personal injury action, the successful plaintiffs sought costs on a full indemnity basis, alleging egregious conduct by the municipal defendant, including rejection of a mediation settlement and pursuit of an appeal with little prospect of success.

The defendant argued that costs should be awarded on the ordinary partial indemnity scale and disputed the quantum claimed.

The court held that while the defendant’s conduct and delay could be considered when determining the amount of costs, it did not justify full or substantial indemnity costs.

The court emphasized that costs must reflect a fair and reasonable contribution by the unsuccessful party rather than the exact amount spent by the successful litigant.

Certain claimed amounts relating to earlier Court of Appeal motions were excluded.

The defendant municipality appealed an arbitration award arising from a personal injury claim after the injured party was hurt while tobogganing on municipal reservoir property.

The arbitrator found the municipality fully liable under s. 3 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act, rejecting arguments that the plaintiffs willingly assumed the risk under s. 4, that the property constituted a utility right‑of‑way, or that the plaintiffs were contributorily negligent.

The municipality argued the arbitrator committed errors of law in applying the duty of care, in rejecting contributory negligence, and in awarding damages under the Family Law Act.

The court held that the challenged findings involved questions of fact or mixed fact and law, which were not reviewable on a limited statutory appeal restricted to questions of law.

Even if reviewable, the arbitrator’s conclusions were reasonable and consistent with applicable legal principles.

The applicant alleged that the respondent reprised against her for filing a previous sexual harassment application against the respondent's husband.

The respondent allegedly made loud and aggressive remarks about the applicant's sexual history at a public event.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

Finding that the applicant had referenced potentially relevant testimony to substantiate her claims, the Tribunal concluded the application must proceed to a full hearing on its merits.

The parties' Agreement to Arbitrate provided for an appeal directly to the Court of Appeal on a question of law.

The appellant filed the appeal in the Court of Appeal, but the court held that it lacked jurisdiction, as parties cannot confer jurisdiction by agreement and the Arbitration Act does not provide for direct appeals to the Court of Appeal.

The court declined to transfer the matter under s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act, leaving the appellant to pursue remedies in the Superior Court.

The licensee appealed the denial of a stay of rulings that fined him $5,000, suspended him for one year, suspended several of his horses, and held purse monies pending a court injunction.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel dismissed the appeal and denied the stay, citing the seriousness of the conduct, the licensee's prior probation for anger management, and the negative public perception of granting a stay.

The applicants, comprising twelve female employees of the Hamilton Police Service, the Hamilton Police Services Board, and the Chief of Police, sought judicial review of a Hearing Officer's decision.

The Hearing Officer had quashed a Notice of Hearing containing twenty-four charges of police misconduct, including sexual harassment, against the respondent police officer due to a failure to serve the notice within the six-month statutory period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that none of the applicants had standing.

The court held that the female employees were barred by the Police Services Act from bringing a complaint against a fellow officer, and that binding appellate authority precluded the Chief of Police and the Police Services Board from seeking judicial review of a disciplinary decision they could not directly appeal.

The appellant, an exclusive supplier of jump ropes to the respondent Foundation for 19 years, sued for reasonable notice of termination after the Foundation ended the relationship.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding the Foundation had grounds to terminate without notice due to the appellant's difficult behaviour, an overbearing report, and refusal to reduce inflated prices.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $24,882.30, representing the return of a deposit paid for a baling system machine.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred in finding the partnership, rather than the corporation, was a party to the contract.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the trial judge's conclusions regarding the parties to the contract, the breach of contract, and the dismissal of the counterclaim based on credibility findings.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.