Joyce M.D. Thomas

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order enforcing the terms of a settlement reached during mediation.

The appellant argued that he wanted to seek a second opinion before finalizing the settlement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the motion judge's conclusion that a binding settlement had been reached while the appellant was represented by counsel.

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent a former employee from continuing employment with an alleged competitor, relying on a non-competition and confidentiality agreement.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald framework, the court held there was no sufficient serious issue because the restraint was overly broad and appeared directed at restraining competition generally rather than protecting a proprietary interest.

The court further found no evidence of irreparable harm or misuse of confidential information, and concluded the balance of convenience favoured the former employee, who would otherwise lose his job and ability to support his family.

The motion was dismissed and costs were fixed in favour of the responding party.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and creed, including harassment regarding time off for religious observances.

During the hearing, after the applicant's testimony, the respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application at this stage, finding it necessary to hear the evidence of the respondent's witnesses.

Following trial, the plaintiffs recovered $18,645 against a home inspector for failing to report a sloping kitchen floor but were unsuccessful on their principal claim alleging differential settlement of the residence.

The plaintiffs sought full indemnity costs exceeding $139,000, while the defendant argued that costs should be denied or awarded in its favour because the recovery fell within the Small Claims Court jurisdiction and because the plaintiffs failed on the major issue at trial.

The court held that it was reasonable for the plaintiffs to have pursued the action under the ordinary procedure and declined to deny costs under Rules 57.05(1) or 76.13.

However, given the plaintiffs’ lack of success on the central issue and proportionality considerations, their costs were substantially reduced.

Expert disbursements were disallowed and a global costs award was fixed with a set‑off for the defendant’s mid‑trial motion costs.

The plaintiffs purchased a home and subsequently discovered foundation settlement and a sloping kitchen floor.

They sued their home inspector for negligence, alleging failure to identify and report structural defects.

The court found that while the inspector was not negligent regarding the sub-surface soil conditions and differential settlement, he breached the standard of care by failing to effectively report the significant slope in the kitchen floor in his written report.

The plaintiffs were awarded $18,645 in damages for the cost to level the kitchen floor.