J. Baker

The Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy opposed the Licensed Insolvency Trustee's Statement of Receipts and Disbursements, seeking a $3,000 reduction in fees due to significant delays and misconduct in administering the estate over 18 years.

The court found the trustee's conduct resulted in irresponsible decisions, unnecessary services, and a failure to properly report to the court, causing the bankrupt to remain undischarged for 17 years.

Applying the Hess principles, the court granted the requested $3,000 reduction, reducing the trustee's fees to $17,000.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) over a Toronto condominium legally owned by his ex-fiancée, the defendant.

The plaintiff claimed beneficial ownership based on an oral agreement and wire transfers he alleged were for the property's purchase.

The court found the plaintiff established a triable issue for a constructive trust.

However, the court dismissed the motion, concluding that the equities favoured the defendant because the property was an investment, not unique to the plaintiff, and damages would be an adequate remedy.

Costs were awarded to the defendant.

The complainant, a coal handler, suffered a shoulder injury and was off work on compensation.

After receiving medical clearance from his personal physician to return to work, the respondent employer refused to reinstate him, relying on an earlier assessment indicating he could not perform over-the-shoulder lifting.

The Board of Inquiry found that the employer discriminated against the complainant by failing to properly investigate the new medical clearance.

However, damages were significantly reduced to $2,000 because the complainant was negligent in failing to promptly clarify his medical status with the employer.

The applicant union filed a complaint regarding a work assignment dispute over the installation of boiler systems at a generating station.

The respondent employer and union argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 91(14) of the Labour Relations Act because the parties' collective agreements required such disputes to be referred to the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board (IJDB).

The applicant contended the IJDB was no longer functioning.

The Board found that the IJDB procedures were still operative and that the parties were bound by them.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint and terminated the proceedings.