James G. Ion

The plaintiff fuel supplier sued the estate of a deceased transport company operator for unpaid invoices totaling $130,313.15.

The defendant argued the debt belonged to a numbered corporation, not the deceased personally.

The court found that the deceased failed to provide adequate notice to the plaintiff that he was operating through a corporation, as required by the Business Names Act and Business Corporations Act.

The use of the words 'transport company' on a credit application was insufficient notice.

The plaintiff was granted judgment against the estate personally.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until the insurer terminated them.

She applied for arbitration, claiming ongoing weekly income benefits and reimbursement for various medical, rehabilitation, and care expenses.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain resulting from the accident, which substantially disabled her from performing the essential tasks of her employment as a laboratory manager until August 14, 1992.

After that date, surveillance evidence and functional capacity evaluations demonstrated she was no longer substantially disabled.

The arbitrator awarded weekly income benefits for the closed period, along with specific supplementary medical, rehabilitation, and care expenses, and arbitration expenses.

The complainant was discharged by his employer for allegedly stealing company property.

He did not request the union to file a grievance at the time of his dismissal, despite the union president contacting him and advising him of the time limits.

Months later, the complainant requested a grievance form, which the union refused to provide because the time limits had expired.

The complainant alleged the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith, as the complainant had initially declined union assistance and offered no explanation for his extreme delay in seeking to file a grievance.