Jaye Hooper

The applicant sought to resign as trustee of a family trust.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer brought a cross-application to appoint a new independent trustee, arguing that the settlor's children, who intended to appoint themselves as trustees pursuant to the trust agreement, had abused their discretion as directors of the trust's holding company.

The court found no evidence of abuse of discretion that would justify interfering under s. 5(1) of the Trustee Act, and held that the executors could appoint the next trustees pursuant to the trust agreement.

Supplementary reasons addressing an outstanding refusal arising from an examination for discovery in a civil action involving a leased vehicle.

The disputed question asked how profit was calculated by the dealership on a leased vehicle.

The court held that while the exact profit earned by the dealership was not directly relevant, the method of calculating profit was relevant to issues concerning ownership, control of the vehicle, and the financial relationships among the dealer, financing company, and manufacturer.

Given the surrounding evidence about the assignment of the lease and payments made, the answer was necessary to understand prior discovery evidence and documents produced.

The witness was therefore required to answer the question regarding how profit is calculated.

The appellant, a lawyer, appealed the dismissal of her civil actions against police officers, the police services board, and the Crown for negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, false imprisonment, and Charter breaches.

The claims arose from her arrest for criminal harassment and a peace bond application related to her involvement in a domestic dispute between her romantic partner and his wife.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's core conclusions—that the police acted reasonably and had abundant admissible evidence to proceed—were supported by the evidence.

The appellant life insurance company appealed a trial judgment awarding its former agent damages for breach of fiduciary duty, punitive damages, and vested renewal commissions following his termination.

The trial judge found the appellant breached its fiduciary duty by freezing the agent's vested commission account and acted in bad faith in its post-termination conduct.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings on the vested commissions, the breach of fiduciary duty, the punitive damages award, and the dismissal of the appellant's counterclaim.

However, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal regarding the trial judge's award of a risk premium on costs, holding that the amended Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure does not permit a risk premium to be awarded against an unsuccessful party.

The victim was shot by a hunter who had stopped his truck, left the engine running, and negligently fired at what he thought was a deer.

The victim sought to recover damages from the hunter's automobile insurer under s. 239(1) of the Insurance Act, arguing the injuries arose directly or indirectly from the use or operation of the vehicle.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the shooting was an act independent of the use or operation of the truck, breaking the chain of causation.

The insurer's appeal was allowed, and the claim against the insurer was dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's disposition, noting the prolonged and largely unexplained delay in bringing the motion for a hearing, as well as the potential prejudice to a third-party purchaser who was not given notice.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $4,500.

The appellants were injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by an impaired driver who had just left a BYOB house party hosted by the respondents.

The appellants sued the social hosts, arguing they owed a duty of care to third-party users of the highway.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that social hosts do not owe a duty of care to members of the public who may be injured by an intoxicated guest's conduct, unless the host's conduct implicates them in the creation or exacerbation of the risk.

The Court found that the injury was not reasonably foreseeable and that there was no positive duty to act.

The appellant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by an impaired driver who had just left a BYOB party hosted by the respondents.

The appellant sued the driver and the social hosts.

The trial judge found the driver liable but dismissed the action against the social hosts, finding they owed no duty of care for policy reasons.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal against the social hosts, concluding that on the specific facts of this case—where the hosts did not serve the alcohol, did not know how much the driver drank, and did not know he was impaired when he left—no duty of care was owed to third-party users of the road.

The appeal was dismissed as to liability but allowed in part regarding costs.