John Joseph Christopher Cardill

The appellant solicitors appealed an order confirming an assessment officer's report that significantly reduced their legal fees for a condominium conversion project.

The appellants argued the assessment officer lacked jurisdiction under s. 3 of the Solicitors Act because the terms of the retainer were in dispute, and that the officer improperly relied on expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal held that the dispute was strictly over quantum and the allocation of work, not the terms of the retainer itself, and that the expert evidence was properly used to assess the value of the services.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding the assessment officer erred in fully disallowing accounts related to construction liens, and increased the assessed accounts by $44,000.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the licensee's liquor licence for serving liquor after hours and permitting an intoxicated patron on the premises.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Disposition, admitting the breaches of the regulations.

The tribunal accepted the joint submission and ordered an eight-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the liquor licence of the respondent establishment following incidents where the transfer applicant obstructed an inspection and staff served intoxicated patrons.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Disposition.

The Board found breaches of the Liquor Licence Act, imposed a 22-day suspension, and added a condition prohibiting the transfer applicant from any involvement with the licensed business.

The appellant appealed a decision upholding an assessment officer's refusal to grant an adjournment.

The appellant had sought the adjournment to argue a prior motion to have his solicitor's accounts assessed by a Superior Court Judge due to complexities involving alleged fraud, incompetence, negligence, and breach of trust.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on terms, finding that despite the appellant's reprehensible conduct in walking out of the hearing, the assessment officer erred in refusing the adjournment given the case's complexities.

The appeal was allowed on the condition that the appellant pay $25,000 in costs and post a $75,000 letter of credit, failing which the appeal would be dismissed.

The insurer appealed two arbitration decisions regarding statutory accident benefits.

The insurer argued it should be allowed to set off an overpayment of benefits against future payments, and that it should be allowed to deduct post-accident income the insured reported from her husband's business.

The Director's Delegate dismissed these grounds, finding the insured did not materially contribute to the overpayment and the reported income was merely for income splitting.

However, the Director's Delegate allowed the appeal regarding a special award ordered against the insurer, finding that the arbitrator breached procedural fairness by raising the issue in her decision without giving the insurer a reasonable opportunity to present evidence in response.

The special award was revoked and a partial rehearing was ordered.

Following an arbitration decision awarding weekly income benefits to the applicant, the arbitrator considered whether the insurer was liable for a special award under s. 282(10) of the Insurance Act.

The arbitrator found that the insurer acted unreasonably and in bad faith by terminating the applicant's benefits based on a flimsy excuse and ignoring substantial medical evidence of her disability.

The insurer was ordered to pay a special award of $7,500 plus interest.

The applicant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits.

The insurer terminated her weekly income benefits after 156 weeks, arguing she was capable of returning to work.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain syndrome as a result of the accident and was continuously prevented from engaging in suitable employment.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay ongoing weekly income benefits, denied the insurer's claim for repayment of an overpayment caused by its own error, and allowed the deduction of 80% of the applicant's actual post-accident earnings, but rejected the deduction of potential future income.