Jayson Thomas

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering him to return a $10,000 deposit to the respondent following a failed business purchase.

The respondent had terminated the transaction after discovering the actual lease rent was higher than represented.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the formal Purchase Agreement superseded any prior non-refundable terms and gave the respondent an absolute right to terminate upon reviewing the lease.

The court also rejected the appellant's argument that he was unfairly denied an adjournment at trial.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding a commercial sublease dispute.

The appellant argued that the trial judge misapprehended evidence concerning its departure from the premises and whether the respondent was estopped from seeking damages due to an alleged agreement with the head lessor.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings that the appellant voluntarily vacated the premises and that there was no evidence of an agreement relieving the appellant of its sublease obligations.

The applicant, an African Canadian employee, alleged discrimination based on race and colour after a senior manager repeatedly referred to his casual day attire as looking 'ghetto'.

The Tribunal found that while the manager may have intended the term to describe an urban style of dress, the word carries a powerful derogatory message associated with the Black community.

The Tribunal concluded that the repeated use of the term in a public workplace setting, despite the applicant's objections, created a poisoned work environment.

The corporate respondent was held vicariously liable, and the applicant was awarded $2,500 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The defendant landlord sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that dismissed its motion for security for costs, particulars, and a further and better Affidavit of Documents.

The motions judge had found the corporate plaintiff and its principal to be genuinely impecunious, making an order for security for costs unjust.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's application of the Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly regarding proportionality and the court's discretion to dispense with strict compliance.

The appellants, a police officer and the Chief of Police, appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario finding that the officer discriminated against a Black mail carrier.

The officer stopped and questioned the mail carrier while on patrol in an affluent neighbourhood.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal reasonably applied the prima facie test for discrimination, correctly placed the onus on the complainant, and properly considered the unique statutory duties of police officers.