Joseph Dean Frank Kennedy

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their new home warranty claims for floor defects.

Tarion denied the claims because they were submitted after the expiry of the first-year warranty period.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicants failed to submit their 30-day and first-year warranty forms within the required timeframes.

Furthermore, the Tribunal accepted expert engineering evidence that the builder had satisfactorily repaired a related Ontario Building Code violation.

The appeal was dismissed and Tarion was directed to deny the warranty claim.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding asking the Tribunal to order the respondent to pay witness conduct money for a witness the applicant intended to call for cross-examination.

The witness was originally proposed by the respondent, who later decided to rely on her affidavit instead.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that witness fees are an item of costs and the Tribunal does not have the authority to award costs.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to call the witness via teleconference.

The appellants, previously declared vexatious litigants, appealed the assessment of costs ordered following the dismissal of their application for leave to commence an action under the Road Access Act.

They failed to attend the assessment and had not filed objections under Rule 58.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure before appealing.

The court held that although the appellants had not followed the proper procedure and had filed an inadequate record, the notice of appeal was filed within the seven-day period and the certificate of assessment had been issued immediately, preventing the objection process contemplated by the Rules.

Relying on Rule 2.01, the court dispensed with strict compliance with the Rules to permit the appellants an opportunity to participate in a new assessment.

The matter was remitted to the assessment officer to schedule a new assessment of costs.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging pregnancy discrimination brought a request for an order during proceedings seeking production of the applicant's financial documents, job offer records, and entire medical file.

The Tribunal applied the 'arguable relevance' standard and ordered production of the financial and job offer documents as they were relevant to wage loss and mitigation.

The Tribunal found the request for the entire medical file overly broad but ordered production of limited medical records relating to the pregnancy and reported stress, as the applicant claimed compensation for injury to dignity.

Following dismissal of a motion for an injunction seeking to enforce a non‑competition agreement, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The moving party had sought to enjoin former advisors and a financial services firm from operating a competing branch, but failed to establish an enforceable restrictive covenant or a serious issue to be tried.

The successful defendants sought partial indemnity costs.

The court held that one group of defendants was entitled to costs but denied costs to the corporate defendant due to its pre‑litigation conduct, which the court described as outrageous and contributing to the litigation.

Costs of $40,000 inclusive were awarded to the remaining defendants.

The plaintiff sought interlocutory injunctions enforcing non‑competition and non‑solicitation clauses in a 2004 agreement against several financial advisors and a related investment dealer after the advisors opened a competing branch nearby.

The court applied the RJR‑MacDonald test and considered whether the restrictive covenants were reasonable in geographic scope, temporal scope, and scope of prohibited activity.

Although the geographic scope was arguably reasonable and there was a serious issue to be tried regarding temporal scope, the court found the activity restrictions overly broad and therefore unreasonable.

As a result, the plaintiff failed to establish the required strength of case to justify interlocutory injunctive relief.

The balance of convenience also weighed against granting the injunction because a competing branch would operate regardless.

The motion for interlocutory injunctions was dismissed.

The plaintiffs sought interlocutory injunctive relief restraining a former shareholder, director, and employee from using confidential information and soliciting customers following the sale of his shares in a closely held corporation.

The evidence indicated the departing fiduciary took electronic files containing proprietary customer information and immediately solicited key customers after the share sale.

The court found a strong prima facie case of breach of fiduciary duty and unfair competition, notwithstanding the absence of a non‑competition agreement.

Given the likelihood of irreparable harm through loss of goodwill and customer relationships, and the balance of convenience favouring the plaintiffs, injunctive relief was granted.

The injunction restrained the former fiduciary and his corporation from using confidential information and soliciting customers for a limited period pending trial.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for a deposit refund and delayed closing compensation under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The applicants had entered into an agreement to purchase a new home and paid a $27,000 deposit, but the transaction failed to close due to a dispute over funds.

The applicants subsequently sued the vendor in Superior Court and settled the action for $60,000, signing a full and final release.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicants were not owners entitled to delayed closing compensation, did not meet the statutory requirements for a deposit refund, and were precluded from further recovery by the full and final release.