Jay Skukowski

The appellant appealed an order dismissing her motion to amend a judgment that approved an infant settlement, and sought leave to extend the time to appeal the original judgment.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeals, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 19 of the Courts of Justice Act because the orders appealed from did not require payment of any amount by the appellant, and no leave to appeal had been granted.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board awarding him $15,000 for pain and suffering.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding it could have been obtained earlier and lacked a necessary affidavit linking the abuse to loss of income.

The appeal on the merits was also dismissed, as the court found no error of law in the Board's exercise of its broad discretion to award compensation.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the appellant applying to the Board to vary the award based on new evidence.

The appellant insurer appealed a decision finding it had a duty to defend the respondent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the statement of claim did not allege an intent to injure, meaning the intentional act exclusion clause did not apply.

Furthermore, the respondent met the definition of an employee under the policy as he was engaged in cleaning the premises on behalf of the insured at the time of the incident.