Ian McLean

The moving parties sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an interlocutory order dismissing their Rule 21 motion challenging the court’s jurisdiction over a wrongful dismissal claim brought by a probationary police officer.

The court considered the test under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires either a conflicting decision or a reason to doubt the correctness of the order combined with issues of sufficient importance.

The court found a conflicting decision concerning whether disputes involving probationary police officers fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitrators or police disciplinary regimes.

Given the potential conflict and broader importance for labour law and police discipline frameworks, leave to appeal was granted.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to set aside a default judgment on a promissory note.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge that while the default was explained and there was no delay, the appellants failed to present a valid defence on the merits.

The balance of prejudice favoured the respondent, as no payments had been made.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed an order striking out portions of its statement of claim against two defendants.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the amended statement of claim lacked sufficient facts to support the bald allegation of negligent misrepresentation.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that awarded the respondent a 56% equity interest in a leased truck as a remedy for the appellants' failure to provide reasonable notice of termination of an employment agreement.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred, as the lease agreement did not confer an ownership interest prior to the exercise of the purchase option.

The Court determined the respondent was entitled to $6,000 in damages for two months' notice.

However, the Court also found the respondent breached the lease by failing to return the truck when he stopped making payments, causing a $6,000 loss in depreciation to the appellants.

The Court allowed the appeal, striking the equity award and finding the offsetting damages cancelled each other out, with no costs awarded.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment regarding a real estate transaction involving misrepresentations.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding no evidentiary basis to hold Mona Dreiser liable for the misrepresentations and dismissing the action against her.

The Court also found the trial judge's damages award amounted to double recovery, as the respondent had already received clear title through the discharge of a vendor-take-back mortgage.

Damages were varied to $3,500, representing the difference between the amount paid and the actual market value.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to quash two municipal bylaws regulating dog kennels.

The appellant alleged the bylaws were passed in bad faith, were discriminatory, and acted in restraint of trade.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the applications judge's findings that the bylaws were reasonable, in the public interest, and not passed with illegality.