John M. Skinner

The appellant's counsel failed to appear at the scheduled appeal hearing, despite the date being cleared and notice sent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned and awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $7,500 on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff, assignee of a debt owed by the defendants under minutes of settlement, sued for the outstanding principal and accumulated interest.

The defendants acknowledged the principal debt but sought equitable relief from the accumulated interest under section 98 of the Courts of Justice Act, arguing they withheld payment because the plaintiff failed to provide proper notice of the assignment.

The court found that the defendants' conduct in withholding payment was not reasonable and that the contractual interest rate did not constitute a penalty or forfeiture.

Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the principal and accumulated interest.

The plaintiff, a long‑term employee with 36 years of service, was terminated after his managerial role was eliminated during economic downturn layoffs.

The employer offered him an alternative position with lower pay, shift work, and substantially more physical demands.

The plaintiff declined and sued for wrongful dismissal.

The court held that the employer failed to prove the plaintiff had failed to mitigate his damages by refusing the alternative role, finding the job materially different given the plaintiff’s age, physical limitations, and the passage of time since he last performed that work.

Reasonable notice was set at 20 months, with damages awarded for the balance of notice after credit for severance already paid, plus medical expenses and pension loss.

The appellant farmer appealed a trial judgment awarding damages to the respondent grain elevator for breach of several agricultural futures contracts.

The appellant argued that the parties had a single overall business arrangement, that they had mutually agreed to terminate all dealings, and that the respondent failed to mitigate its damages after the appellant's anticipatory repudiation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the contracts were independent, no termination agreement existed, and the respondent acted reasonably by waiting until the contractual delivery dates to calculate its losses in accordance with the contracts' valuation provisions.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their counterclaim regarding a crop insurance dispute.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that there was no agency relationship between the respondents and that the Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute.

Because the appellants failed to appeal to the Tribunal within the one-year limitation period, their claim was out of time and relief from forfeiture was unavailable as the failure constituted non-compliance rather than imperfect compliance.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend the scheduled Case Resolution Conference.

The Tribunal attempted to contact the applicant without success.

As the applicant bears the responsibility to attend and provide evidence in support of the allegations, the application was dismissed for failure to appear.

The prosecutor appealed an order granting certiorari that had quashed a justice of the peace's refusal to permit cross-examination of a chief building inspector on a disclosure motion in a provincial offences prosecution.

The Court of Appeal held that certiorari was not barred by the Provincial Offences Act because the impugned ruling was a pre-trial order not directly appealable under s. 116(1).

However, the refusal to permit cross-examination did not breach natural justice, as the justice of the peace was entitled to control the disclosure process and require the defence to show why cross-examination was necessary.

The defence failed to establish a basis for further disclosure or for compelling cross-examination.

The appeal was allowed, the certiorari order was set aside, the matter was remitted for trial, and no costs were ordered.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their claim for adverse possession over certain property areas, including a buffer zone.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's acceptance of evidence regarding the area south of Tree Line One was fatal to that part of the claim.

Regarding the western buffer zone, the Court held it was open to the trial judge to find that the appellants' use did not exclude the true owner's proprietary use of the land.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant municipalities appealed a decision quashing a by-law passed by the upper-tier municipality to assume police services.

The by-law required a triple majority approval under the Municipal Act to come into force.

Although a majority of local municipalities consented, their consents were conditional on a specific cost allocation method.

The Court of Appeal held that these conditional consents did not satisfy the statutory requirement.

Therefore, the by-law never came into force and was validly repealed by the upper-tier municipality.

The appeal was dismissed.