Laurencia Fasoyiro

The defendant employer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff employee's action for long-term disability benefits, arguing the claim was statute-barred and an abuse of process due to a prior grievance settlement.

The defendant also sought a contempt order against the plaintiff's counsel for allegedly sharing a mediation brief.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding when the limitation period was triggered, as the parties' conduct and settlement agreement suggested the claim was still under review.

The court also dismissed the abuse of process and contempt motions, noting the settlement did not finally determine benefit entitlement and no court order was breached.

The plaintiff purchaser failed to close a real estate transaction on the scheduled closing date.

The defendant vendor offered an extension conditional on the payment of an administration fee by a specific deadline.

Due to a banking error, the fee was not deposited in time, and the vendor terminated the agreement and retained the $40,000 deposit.

The purchaser sued for return of the deposit and damages.

The vendor brought a motion for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion, finding that the purchaser breached the agreement and was not entitled to relief from forfeiture, as the deposit was not a penalty and the vendor's conduct was not unconscionable.

The applicants sought a declaration that their motor vehicle insurance policy with the respondent was valid, or alternatively, relief from forfeiture, after the respondent denied coverage following an accident involving the applicants' son.

The respondent had voided the policy because the applicants failed to disclose upon renewal that their son had obtained his G2 license and was living in the household.

The court found that the failure to disclose the son's G2 license was a material change in risk that breached the Insurance Act and Statutory Conditions, rendering the policy void.

The court also denied relief from forfeiture, holding that the failure to advise of a material change in risk constitutes non-compliance with a condition precedent, not imperfect compliance with a policy term.