Jonathan De Biasi

The appellants sought a panel review of a motion judge's decision denying their extension of time to perfect materials for a panel review of a prior decision dismissing their appeal for delay.

The underlying dispute concerned unpaid storage costs and the respondents' rights to sell stored property under the Repair and Storage Liens Act.

The appellants requested an adjournment citing injuries from a motor vehicle accident but failed to provide adequate medical documentation.

The appellants also requested recusal of one judge based on alleged bias, which was denied.

The panel upheld the motion judge's discretionary decision to deny the extension of time, finding no reversible error in the application of the governing principles and noting that the appeal had become moot as the property had been auctioned.

The applicants brought a motion seeking interlocutory relief to restrain the respondent storage company from selling their household goods, arguing the respondent failed to meet contractual obligations regarding inventory, photographs, and insurance.

The respondent contended that the Repair and Storage Liens Act (RSLA) was a complete code governing the dispute and that the applicants had failed to pay significant storage fees.

The court dismissed the motion, agreeing that the RSLA applied and finding no basis to grant injunctive relief, particularly given the applicants' non-payment and acknowledgment of the respondent's right to sell for cost recovery.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action, the successful defendant sought costs of $210,000, arguing for substantial indemnity costs from the date of its $25,000 offer to settle.

The plaintiff argued for no costs due to impecuniosity or a reduced amount due to divided success and the reasonableness of her claim.

The court found insufficient evidence of impecuniosity and held that the defendant's offer, being only slightly above nuisance value, did not warrant elevated costs under Rule 49.10(2).

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs fixed at $143,978.67, noting the need to balance the successful party's entitlement with access to justice concerns.

The plaintiff, a long-term executive director of a not-for-profit chamber of commerce, sued for wrongful dismissal after being terminated for cause.

The employer alleged the plaintiff breached her fiduciary duties through various financial irregularities, including altering a banking document, taking unauthorized vacation pay, and allowing an unauthorized pay raise to continue.

The court found that the plaintiff was a fiduciary and that her cumulative misconduct and poor judgment irredeemably fractured the employer's trust.

The court concluded the employer had just cause for termination and dismissed the plaintiff's claims for notice, aggravated damages, and punitive damages.

During a wrongful dismissal trial, the plaintiff objected to the defendant adducing evidence of financial irregularities, arguing the defendant breached the rule in Browne and Dunn by failing to confront her with this evidence during cross-examination.

The court dismissed the objection, finding the defendant had generally met its obligations as the plaintiff was well aware of the allegations from pleadings and discovery.

The court held that the appropriate remedy for any specific transactions not put to the plaintiff would be to recall her to testify, rather than excluding the defendant's evidence.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendant to deliver its Affidavit of Documents and Schedule "A" productions, despite the suspension of procedural timelines due to COVID-19 emergency orders.

The defendant, an essential business, resisted production citing safety concerns for its CEO who lived with a high-risk individual.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding that the defendant could safely facilitate document gathering and that litigation should continue despite the pandemic.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering her to repay $25,000 she borrowed from her sister, the respondent.

The appellant argued the loan was contingent on her receiving funds from a third-party lender, which turned out to be a fraudulent scheme.

The Divisional Court found that the interpretation of the oral contract was a question of mixed fact and law, subject to deference.

The court upheld the Deputy Judge's finding that there was no agreement making repayment contingent on the third-party loan, and dismissed the appeal.