James J. VanWiechen

The appellant appealed a trial judgment allocating liability for environmental damages caused by the escape of toluene from an underground storage tank.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in her factual findings, which were based on inferences drawn from incomplete evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's meticulous and detailed reasons.

The court also refused leave to appeal costs and upheld an amendment to the judgment to include GST.

The appellant appealed an order determining a question of law under Rule 21.01(1)(a) regarding the interpretation of a lease.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the tenant could only look to its insurer for loss due to sprinkler leakages, even if the loss was less than the deductible under the insurance policy.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment, arguing the trial judge reversed the onus of proof and misapprehended evidence regarding a contract dispute.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that because time was not of the essence, the appellants bore the onus to prove the respondent caused the delay and resulting damages.

The court also found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings, noting the appellants continued to pay the respondent without complaint until well after completion.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding a binding employment agreement and awarding damages for wrongful dismissal, including Wallace damages.

The appellants argued the trial judge ignored evidence regarding the agreement and that the respondent failed to mitigate his damages by refusing a consulting arrangement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility assessments and concluding the respondent was not obliged to accept a demeaning consulting arrangement to mitigate his damages.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's finding that he breached his fiduciary duty to his former employer by accepting a project from a client.

The respondent cross-appealed the calculation of damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding ample evidence that the appellant used knowledge acquired through his position to successfully bid for the work, and that the damages calculation was fact-driven and entitled to deference.