Keith Landy

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision denying their request to vary a Mareva order to permit them access to the proceeds from the sale of their home to pay legal fees.

The court found that the proposed appeal did not involve matters of public importance transcending the immediate interests of the parties, nor were there conflicting decisions on the issue.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order refusing to set aside a default judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge identified and applied the correct three-part test and reasonably concluded that the appellant failed on all elements.

It was not in the interest of justice to set aside the default judgment.

Following a successful Rule 51.06(2) motion that resulted in partial judgment, the plaintiff sought costs and pre-judgment interest.

The court considered costs arising from both the motion and the adjournment of the scheduled trial after the defendants’ counsel was granted leave to withdraw.

Because the motion did not resolve all issues in the action, the court declined to assess the effect of prior settlement offers under Rule 49.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs for the motion and for wasted trial preparation caused by the adjournment.

Pre‑judgment interest was also granted pursuant to s. 6 of the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure).

The defendant moved for leave to appeal a decision refusing to strike out an affidavit submitted by the plaintiffs.

The defendant argued the affidavit was improper sur-reply and constituted case-splitting, relying on trial evidence rules.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision.

The court affirmed that the strict evidentiary rules against case-splitting at trial do not apply to the filing of affidavits on motions under Rule 39.02.

A public school teacher publicly made anti-Semitic statements during his off-duty time.

A Jewish parent filed a human rights complaint alleging the school board discriminated by failing to discipline the teacher, thereby condoning his views and creating a poisoned educational environment.

The human rights board of inquiry found discrimination and ordered the school board to place the teacher on leave, appoint him to a non-teaching position if available, or terminate his employment, and to terminate him immediately if he published anti-Semitic materials in the future.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the school board discriminated and that the order to remove the teacher from his teaching position infringed his freedom of expression and religion but was justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

However, the permanent ban on publishing was not minimally impairing and was severed.