John J. Adair

The appellant suffered a fractured ankle after slipping on an icy municipal sidewalk.

He failed to give the required 10-day notice to the municipality under the Municipal Act, 2001, only providing notice months later after consulting a lawyer.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding no reasonable excuse for the late notice and no gross negligence by the municipality.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the appellant's severe injury, medication, and resulting depression constituted a reasonable excuse for the delay.

Furthermore, the municipality's failure to salt the sidewalks for nearly 34 hours after becoming aware of dangerous conditions amounted to gross negligence.

The appellant anaesthetist appealed a trial judgment finding her liable for medical negligence after a patient suffered hypoxia, a heart attack, and permanent brain damage following premature extubation after gastric bypass surgery.

The appellant argued the trial judge demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias and made palpable and overriding errors in his factual findings, particularly regarding expert evidence and causation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of bias and concluding that the trial judge's factual findings were supported by the evidence and free of palpable and overriding error.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action for negligent misrepresentation.

They alleged the respondents negligently misrepresented that a property severance had been obtained in 1996.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the representation was made, the appellant knew nothing had been registered.

Under the Planning Act, registration is required for a valid severance.

The court held that the appellants' loss was caused by their own error of law, for which the respondents could not be held accountable.

The appellant, a Senior Vice-President at the respondent bank, appealed the dismissal of his constructive dismissal claim.

The claim was based on a 13% reduction in his variable compensation package between 2001 and 2003.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the appellant's compensation was not fixed, that the bank was entitled to align his compensation with other executives, and that the reductions did not constitute a fundamental breach of the employment contract.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a former foreign exchange trader, appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for fraud and breach of contract, and dismissing his counterclaim for wrongful dismissal.

The appellant had executed multiple unauthorized foreign exchange trades resulting in approximately $5.4 million in losses, which he concealed using fictitious credits.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge's reasons were inadequate, applied the wrong standard of proof for fraud, and erred in finding the employer could rely on his misrepresentations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons sufficient, the correct standard of proof applied, and that the employer's alleged carelessness was not a defence to fraud.

The appellant was severely injured when she lost control of her vehicle after hitting the respondent's dog on a country road.

At trial, a jury found the respondent 35% responsible and the appellant 65% contributorily negligent, assessing damages accordingly.

The appellant appealed the jury's findings on contributory negligence, apportionment of liability, and damages, arguing that the jury relied on unreliable evidence from child witnesses and was misdirected on mitigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly instructed the jury and that the jury's verdict was not so plainly unreasonable and unjust as to warrant appellate interference.

The appellant sued the respondent bottled water supplier for psychiatric injury after finding dead flies in an unopened replacement bottle of water.

The trial judge awarded damages, but the Court of Appeal overturned the decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that while the respondent owed a duty of care and breached it, the damage was too remote.

The Court established that for psychiatric injury to be compensable in negligence, it must be reasonably foreseeable that a person of ordinary fortitude would suffer serious injury from the breach.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's assessment of damages for breach of contract regarding the improper backgrounding of cattle.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in law, and reduced the respondents' damages based on a seven cents per pound sale price differential between 'green' and 'burnt' cattle.

The respondents' cross-appeal regarding the trial judge's 30% discount on the appellant's claim for unpaid invoices was dismissed.

The plaintiff was dismissed from her employment with the City of Ottawa for insubordination after refusing to return to work under her supervisor and escalating a harassment complaint.

She was on sick leave at the time.

The City initially alleged just cause but withdrew the defence at trial and paid severance.

The trial judge awarded Wallace damages, finding the City made a mistake in dismissing her while on sick leave and that the dismissal for cause was unwarranted.

The Court of Appeal allowed the City's appeal, holding that an employer's reasonable belief in just cause and a mere mistake in timing do not constitute bad faith or unfair dealing required for Wallace damages.

Mylex Ltd. appealed a trial judgment finding it liable in contract and tort for failing to meet delivery dates and providing poor quality ready-to-assemble furniture to Magnussen Furniture Inc. Magnussen cross-appealed the damages and costs awards.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge erred in finding an 'overall contract' existed, this did not affect the ultimate liability finding based on breached purchase orders and negligence.

The Court upheld the trial judge's assessment of damages, which limited lost profits to a two-year period due to contingencies, and affirmed the discretionary costs award.

Both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.