6 total
The court dismissed the summary judgment motion regarding occupier's liability for a slip and fall.
The defendant Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs' negligence and Occupier's Liability Act claims arising from a slip and fall.
CBSA argued it was not negligent, had a reasonable maintenance system, and that co-defendant Abitibi was solely responsible for maintenance.
The plaintiffs asserted genuine issues for trial regarding whether the agreement absolved CBSA of liability and whether CBSA met its duty of care.
The court dismissed CBSA's motion, finding genuine issues for trial regarding CBSA's reasonable care in monitoring Abitibi's maintenance performance, particularly given the informal inspection system and lack of documentation.
An inmate's five habeas corpus applications were summarily dismissed as frivolous and vexatious for lacking jurisdiction.
The applicant, a self-represented inmate, brought five applications for habeas corpus challenging various aspects of his detention, including access to justice, historic transfers, segregation, grievance processes, and security classification.
The respondents moved for summary dismissal, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction.
The court dismissed all applications, finding no deprivation of liberty and that the matters were frivolous and vexatious, falling outside the scope of habeas corpus jurisdiction.
Habeas corpus application dismissed; inmate's transfer to medium security for contraband tobacco involvement was reasonable.
The applicant, an inmate serving a sentence for drug trafficking and firearms offences, brought a habeas corpus application challenging his security reclassification from minimum to medium and his subsequent involuntary transfer.
The reclassification occurred after the applicant was found to have breached institutional rules by arranging for his spouse to drop off contraband tobacco at his work release location.
The court dismissed the application, finding that the warden's decision was procedurally fair, within statutory jurisdiction, and reasonable given the applicant's duplicitous conduct and breach of trust required for minimum security placement.
The applicant's section 7 Charter challenge was also dismissed.
The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the substantially successful plaintiff on a class action certification motion.
The Plaintiff sought costs for a successful class action certification motion.
The Defendants argued for no costs or reduced costs due to partial success in opposing certification on some issues, and Mr. Theberge sought substantial indemnity costs for the uncertified fraud claim against him.
The court, applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Good v. Toronto Police Services Board precedent, found the Plaintiff substantially successful and awarded partial indemnity costs, rejecting the Defendants' arguments for reduction based on partial success or an award to Mr. Theberge.
The court certified a class action against a condominium developer for failing to provide forced air heating systems and storage units as specified in purchase documents.
The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against the developer and its president regarding condominium units in the Alta Vista Ridge development.
The claims included breach of contract, breach of the Condominium Act, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty, primarily concerning the failure to provide a forced air heating system as specified in disclosure statements and, for a subclass, the failure to provide storage units included in purchase agreements.
The court certified the action as a class proceeding, defining the main class and a subclass, finding valid causes of action for most claims.
However, claims for breach of fiduciary duty and personal liability against the president, Joey Theberge, were struck for lack of pleaded material facts.
The court found the class proceeding to be the preferable procedure, promoting access to justice, judicial economy, and behaviour modification.
Constructive dismissal found where 20-year employee was unfairly placed on performance plan and demoted.
The plaintiff, a 62-year-old store manager with 20 years of service, was placed on a performance improvement plan with arbitrary and unfair goals.
After meeting the goals, she was offered a demotion, which she refused, claiming constructive dismissal.
The court found the employer did not have just cause for dismissal, as the plaintiff was not incompetent and the performance goals were impossible to meet.
The court held the plaintiff was constructively dismissed and awarded 20 months' pay in lieu of notice, totaling $104,499.33, finding her refusal to accept the demotion and her subsequent mitigation efforts were reasonable.