Kyle Christopher Armagon

Two plaintiffs brought motions for summary judgment in related actions alleging breach of oral contracts for the provision of equipment and personnel for municipal snow removal services.

The plaintiffs asserted that the agreements were fixed‑term contracts for five years that were prematurely terminated, while the defendants argued the arrangements were terminable at will.

The court found the evidentiary record contained significant conflicts regarding the formation and terms of the alleged oral agreements, the circumstances of termination, and issues of damages and mitigation.

Questions of credibility and potential personal liability of corporate principals also required factual assessment.

The court held that these genuine issues for trial made the actions unsuitable for summary judgment.

Appeal from a Small Claims Court judgment dismissing a claim for damages arising from a power of sale transaction.

The appellant, a second mortgagee, alleged that the first mortgagee conducted an improvident sale by transferring the property for $175,000 without listing it on the open market.

The trial judge accepted the appraisal evidence supporting the sale price and rejected market valuation opinions from real estate agents and an appraisal where the author did not testify.

The court held that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in finding the appraised value represented the market value and that the mortgagee acted in good faith.

The appellant failed to provide cogent evidence that a higher price would have been obtained but for any alleged breach.

The plaintiff corporation, a publisher of trade magazines for the wood industry, brought an action against its former officer and shareholder for breach of non-competition and non-solicitation clauses in a shareholders agreement.

After the defendant's shares were bought out, he engaged in consulting work for various wood industry associations.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the consulting work did not constitute 'ancillary and related activities' to the plaintiff's magazine publishing business, and the defendant did not solicit the plaintiff's advertising clients or compete in the Canadian magazine marketplace.

The plaintiffs sought damages following a violent assault that occurred outside a bar where the primary plaintiff was attacked by three individuals and sustained significant physical and psychological injuries.

Evidence established ongoing medical complications including concussion symptoms, psychological trauma, and employment loss.

Family members advanced claims under s. 61 of the Family Law Act for loss of care, guidance, and companionship arising from the injuries.

Following an assessment hearing on damages, the court awarded general and punitive damages to the injured plaintiff and derivative damages to family members.

Costs were also awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment, arguing the respondent employee failed to mitigate her damages by not returning to work.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the test from Evans v. Teamsters Union and that the evidence supported the conclusion that the respondent was not required to return to work.

The applicant alleged sexual harassment by a co-worker and reprisal in the form of termination.

The respondents sought early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was dealt with by the Employment Insurance Board of Referees (EIBR).

The Tribunal found that the EIBR appropriately dealt with the issue of whether the termination was discriminatory, concluding it was due to misconduct.

However, the EIBR did not address the underlying sexual harassment allegations.

The Tribunal dismissed the termination portion of the application but allowed the harassment claims to proceed.