J.C. George

The plaintiff, a tire technician, sued his former employer for wrongful dismissal and discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code, alleging he was terminated because of his drug addiction.

The court found that the employer had accommodated the plaintiff's addiction and that the termination was instead the result of cumulative insubordination, workplace harassment, and a refusal to cooperate in a workplace violence investigation.

The human rights claim was dismissed.

However, because the employer chose to terminate without cause rather than for cause, the court awarded the plaintiff 2.5 months of reasonable notice, less the two weeks already paid under the Employment Standards Act, totaling $5,808.00.

The plaintiff, a developer, brought a motion under Rule 32.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to inspect and collect data from townhomes it previously built, which were subject to statutory warranty claims for heating issues.

The non-party respondent, Tarion Warranty Company, and the homeowners opposed the motion, arguing it would delay scheduled remediation work.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the inspection might be necessary, it would unreasonably delay the compensation and repair process for the homeowners, whose needs must take priority under consumer protection legislation.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking leave for the corporate defendants to be represented by a non-lawyer, specifically their Vice-President and property manager.

The court considered the relevant factors, including the complexity of the $5,000,000 claim and the fact that the proposed representative was not the sole shareholder.

The court concluded that the legal complexities required counsel and that granting leave would essentially grant a temporary license to practice law.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff developer brought a motion under Rule 32 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to inspect and conduct non-destructive testing at several townhome units where heating deficiencies were alleged.

Tarion Warranty Corporation, a non-party respondent administering statutory warranty claims, opposed the motion, arguing it would delay scheduled remedial work.

The court granted the motion, finding the inspection necessary for the proper determination of issues in the proceeding and noting that the plaintiff's proposed schedule would not interfere with Tarion's planned repairs.

The applicant, facing trial for sexual assault, brought a pre-trial motion seeking to exercise peremptory challenges during jury selection, despite their repeal by Bill C-75.

The applicant argued that a previous Superior Court decision declaring the repeal unconstitutional was binding, or alternatively, that the repeal operated prospectively.

The court dismissed the application, finding that coordinate court decisions are not binding, the previous decision was plainly wrong, and the procedural amendments operate retrospectively.

The new jury selection provisions apply to the applicant's trial.

The applicants, trustees of their mother's estate, sought direction regarding the sale of the family farm and an order for vacant possession against the respondent who continued to farm it.

The will provided an option for the children to purchase the farm at a discount within one year, failing which it would be sold on the open market with unequal distribution of proceeds.

Multiple children submitted competing offers within the year.

The court found the will void for uncertainty regarding how to handle competing offers, but severable from the distribution clause.

The court directed the trustees to sell the property on the open market and distribute proceeds unequally as per the will, and granted the order for vacant possession.

The plaintiff fell from the flatbed of a pick-up truck operated by the defendant, a teammate, after a parade.

The plaintiff sued the driver and the hockey club.

The plaintiff's claim against the club was dismissed on consent.

The driver cross-claimed against the club for contribution and indemnity, alleging the club failed to ensure players were safely transported back to the arena.

The club moved for summary judgment to dismiss the cross-claim.

The court found that even if a duty of care existed, there was no breach of the standard of care, as the plaintiff was an adult who voluntarily chose to walk instead of riding the club's float back.

The motion was granted and the cross-claim dismissed.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for sexual assault and assault with a weapon against his ex-partner.

The central issue at trial was credibility, with the appellant claiming consensual sexual activity and the complainant denying consent.

The appeal focused on the trial judge's treatment of text messages between the parties, inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, and the assessment of the appellant's evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge engaged in illogical reasoning regarding the circumstances of the assault, impermissibly dismissed the appellant's evidence as 'self-serving' without proper basis, and failed to adequately address the complainant's potential motive to fabricate related to family law proceedings.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The plaintiff sought damages for false imprisonment and Charter violations after being denied accelerated parole review due to the retrospective application of the Abolition of Early Parole Act, which was later found unconstitutional.

The Crown brought a motion to strike the claim, arguing government immunity for legislative acts.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff pleaded sufficient material facts that, if true, could establish the government acted in bad faith by knowingly enacting unconstitutional legislation in violation of s. 11(i) of the Charter.

The plaintiff brought a motion to substitute the name of an individual defendant, claiming misnomer, and to amend its statement of claim to add new causes of action.

The individual defendant brought a cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the action against him personally.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that the intended defendant could not have reasonably known he was the target of the litigation, and that the proposed amendments were statute-barred.

The court granted the defendant's summary judgment motion, finding no evidence to pierce the corporate veil or establish personal liability.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming his involuntary admission, community treatment order, and incapacity to consent to antipsychotic medication.

The appellant argued the Board erred by not assessing incapacity in the context of informed consent and by making a blanket finding of incapacity.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable.

The court held that the appellant's delusions rendered him unable to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a treatment decision, and that the finding of incapacity was properly related to a specific treatment and time.