5 total
Union granted intervenor status; evidence required to determine if late reactivation request should be granted.
The applicant sought to reactivate a deferred human rights application past the 60-day deadline, claiming she believed her union was assisting her.
The respondents opposed reactivation and sought dismissal under section 45.1 of the Code.
The union requested intervenor status, which the applicant opposed.
The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting its interest in the employment discrimination application.
The Tribunal also directed the parties to file witness statements regarding the applicant's explanation for the delay, ruling that the applicant had waived solicitor-client privilege by raising the content of discussions with the union.
Appeal dismissed as trial judge's curative instructions adequately addressed counsel's misstatement of law in opening.
The appellant appealed from a jury trial decision, arguing that the respondent's counsel made a misstatement of law during the opening statement.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's immediate correction and explicit jury charge were sufficient to cure the error and ensure a fair trial.
Other complaints regarding the opening statement were also dismissed as not serious enough to warrant striking the jury.
The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000.
Insurer's request for section 42 examinations denied as notice was invalid and assessments sought for litigation.
The insurer brought a motion for preliminary issues seeking an order requiring the insured to produce a co-op placement file and attend three insurer examinations pursuant to section 42 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
The insured consented to using best efforts to produce the file.
The arbitrator dismissed the request for the insurer examinations, finding that the insurer's notice was invalid due to incomprehensible wording and that the assessments were sought to bolster the insurer's case at the upcoming arbitration rather than to adjust the claim.
Appeal dismissed; trial judge did not err in assessing damages for loss of research materials.
The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding damages for the loss of the respondents' research materials, which were damaged by water escaping from the appellants' above-ground pool.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of damages based on the cost of replacing the research, as the materials had significant value for continuing research and academic teaching.
The court also upheld the costs order in favour of a third party insurer.
Sole custody to mother upheld due to conflict, but father's access reduction reversed as unjustified.
The appellant father appealed an order varying a joint custody arrangement to grant sole custody to the respondent mother and significantly reducing his access.
The father argued the trial judge exceeded her jurisdiction by granting relief not explicitly requested in the pleadings.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled to rely on a consent order directing a custody assessment as defining the issues between the parties.
The Court upheld the sole custody order due to worsening conflict between the parents but found the substantial reduction in the father's access was not justified by the evidence.
The appeal was allowed in part to restore the father's access to four overnight visits in alternating weeks.
