James F. Diamond

The plaintiff brought a wrongful dismissal action seeking damages after his employment ended following an extended absence related to claimed depression and anxiety.

The employer moved for summary judgment arguing the employee abandoned or voluntarily resigned by failing to comply with the employer’s short‑term disability plan requirements, failing to provide required medical documentation, relocating provinces without notice, and refusing to return to work despite multiple warnings.

The court held that abandonment is assessed objectively and that the employee’s prolonged absence, failure to follow disability plan procedures, and relocation demonstrated a clear intention not to be bound by the employment contract.

The court rejected arguments that the employer had an independent duty to accommodate beyond the disability plan in the absence of proper medical evidence.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the wrongful dismissal claim.

The defendant university brought a motion to strike the plaintiff’s Fresh As Amended Statement of Claim alleging breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract arising from a dispute over graduate program funding and supervision.

The court held that the pleading improperly contained extensive evidence rather than concise material facts and failed to adequately plead the essential elements of either fiduciary duty or contract.

The allegations did not establish the existence of a trust or any undertaking by the university to prefer the student’s interests, nor did they sufficiently identify the contractual terms allegedly breached.

The court also noted that disputes rooted in academic decision-making may fall outside the court’s jurisdiction and be more appropriately addressed through judicial review.

The motion to strike was granted, but the plaintiff was granted leave to amend the claim again.

In a motor vehicle accident action involving multiple parties, a municipality brought a motion seeking an order requiring an insurer to defend it and allow it to retain counsel of its own choosing without reporting obligations to the insurer.

The municipality and insurer had partially settled the duty-to-defend issue, leaving the court to determine whether counsel retained by the municipality must report to the insurer that also insured another adverse party.

The court held that a conflict of interest existed because one insured was suing another insured in the same litigation and coverage issues remained live.

Given the conflict and the solicitor-client relationship, counsel retained by the municipality was not required to report to the insurer.

The moving defendants sought summary judgment dismissing a personal injury action arising from a tractor‑trailer rollover accident.

The driver plaintiff, an independent owner‑operator, had signed a waiver agreement and capital compensation plan enrollment waiving the right to sue the defendants in exchange for private disability insurance benefits.

Applying the three‑part test from Tercon Contractors Ltd. v. British Columbia (Transportation and Highways), the court held the exclusion clauses applied to the circumstances, were not unconscionable, and were not contrary to public policy.

The court rejected arguments of unequal bargaining power and noted the plaintiffs had already received disability benefits under the plan.

Summary judgment was granted and the plaintiffs’ claims, including derivative claims by minor children, were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming that he lacked capacity to consent to treatment for a mental disorder under the Health Care Consent Act.

The Board found the appellant incapable of consenting to treatment due to delusional beliefs preventing appreciation of the reasonably foreseeable consequences of refusing medication.

The court held that the Board’s finding of incapacity with respect to anti‑psychotic medication and related side‑effect medication was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

However, the evidentiary record contained insufficient information regarding benzodiazepines and cholinergic medication.

The appeal was therefore allowed in part and the matter remitted to the Board for a rehearing on those medications before a differently constituted panel.

Following dismissal of a motion seeking to remove the Public Guardian and Trustee as litigation guardian for a co‑plaintiff and to appoint different guardians, the successful party sought costs.

The court applied the principle that costs generally follow the event and considered the factors under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The responding parties’ submissions largely attempted to re‑argue the merits of the earlier motion rather than address costs.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs payable to the successful party.

Following dismissal of a motion seeking to vary a consent judgment and amend a statement of claim, the court determined costs payable to the successful defendants.

One defendant sought costs payable forthwith, while the plaintiff argued any award should be set off against an outstanding amount owed under a prior consent judgment.

The court held that the costs award and the debt under the consent judgment were liquidated mutual obligations, requiring legal set‑off.

Costs payable to that defendant were therefore credited against the amount owed under the consent judgment, while costs payable to the other defendant were ordered payable forthwith.

The court also assessed the reasonable quantum of costs under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.