Arjun Vishwanth Nrupathunga

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that confirmed the cancellation of its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate.

The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in weighing historical safety data over recent improvements, failed to consider alternative solutions, and demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant also sought to introduce new evidence regarding its recent safety performance.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no errors of fact or law, concluding that the new evidence did not meet the criteria for admission, and rejecting the bias allegations as unfounded.

The appellant, A.A.M. Logistics Inc., appealed a Cancellation and Seizure Order issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, which cancelled its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate.

The Registrar issued the order based on the appellant's poor safety record, which included a violation rate exceeding 100%, numerous convictions, and a high out-of-service rate.

Despite multiple interventions by the Ministry of Transportation, including warning letters, an audit, and a show cause meeting, the appellant failed to significantly improve its safety record or comply with requirements such as installing electronic logging devices and paying fines.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found there were reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely or in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's order, declining to modify it or impose a lesser penalty.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' application regarding failed contracts of purchase and sale for condominium units, the successful respondent sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $42,000.

The applicants argued no costs should be awarded as the application was not vexatious.

The court rejected the applicants' argument, finding the respondent was prima facie entitled to costs.

Applying the principles from Boucher, the court found the requested amount excessive and fixed partial indemnity costs at $22,386.23 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicants sought a declaration that "Reservation Agreements" for condominium units were binding contracts and that the respondent engaged in bad faith bargaining by proposing inconsistent terms in subsequent draft agreements of purchase and sale.

The court found that the Reservation Agreements were not binding contracts because they lacked essential terms, specifically the precise identification and location of the condominium units, and indicated that further terms (like down payment) needed to be agreed upon.

The court also noted that the Planning Act prohibited offering land for sale prior to plan approval at the time the agreements were made.

Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The appellant, Versailles Convention Centre, appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its $10,000 claim against the respondent for breach of contract regarding a convention hall booking.

The trial judge found the appellant's witness not credible and accepted the respondent's evidence that the parties mutually agreed to cancel the tentative booking.

The trial judge also found the cancellation clause to be an unenforceable penalty rather than a genuine pre-estimate of damages.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings of fact and credibility, concluding there was no reversal of the burden of proof and that the damages claimed were arbitrary and excessive.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its $10,000 breach of contract claim against the respondent for a cancelled convention hall booking.

The trial judge found the parties had mutually agreed to cancel the contract and that the cancellation clause was an unenforceable penalty rather than a genuine pre-estimate of damages.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, credibility findings, or conclusion that the damages claimed were arbitrary and excessive.