7 total
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.
Court directs a reference for complex mortgage accounting in a MURB foreclosure and stays related proceedings.
The plaintiff commenced a foreclosure action regarding a Multiple Unit Residential Building (MURB) investment scheme.
The investors, who had signed powers of attorney in favour of the developer, alleged financial manipulation and breach of fiduciary duty.
Given the complex financial history, the lack of proper accounting by the mortgagee, and the overlapping shareholder oppression claims, the case management judge directed a reference to determine the mortgage accounting and related issues.
The judge also ordered a stay of the foreclosure action and oppression applications pending the reference.
Human rights application alleging reprisal dismissed summarily due to lack of reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal by her former employer and individual respondents following a previous settlement for sexual harassment.
The respondents denied the allegations and requested a summary hearing.
The Tribunal found the applicant's allegations incredible and internally inconsistent, and noted her failure to provide supporting evidence or identify witnesses.
The Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the application.
Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.
The applicants sought to withdraw their application against IBEW Local 586 and MegaTech Electrical.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.
Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed; union reasonably consented to inferior terms to prevent store closure.
The applicants, former employees of a Loeb grocery store, alleged that their union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.
Following the acquisition of the store by A&P, the union consented to the store reopening as a Food Basics outlet under an existing collective agreement with inferior wages and no transfer of seniority.
The Board dismissed the application at the consultation stage, finding that the union's decision was reasonable given that the alternative was the permanent closure of the store and the loss of all employment opportunities for the bargaining unit members.
Consent order issued declaring an unlawful strike and directing the union and employees to cease and desist.
The applicant employer filed an application under section 100 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging an unlawful strike.
At the scheduled hearing, the parties reached an agreement and requested a consent order.
The Board issued the consent order, declaring that the employees engaged in an unlawful strike and that the responding union and its officials authorized and encouraged it.
The Board directed the employees, the union, and its officials to cease and desist from participating in, authorizing, or encouraging the unlawful strike.
No third-party claim lies for damages limited to the appellants' own negligence.
The appellants appealed an order striking their third-party claim for contribution and indemnity against a securities dealer after the respondents commenced a second action alleging damages attributable to the appellants' negligence in the loss of share certificates.
The court held that, because the statement of claim expressly limited damages to the portion attributable to the appellants' negligence, there was no basis for a claim-over under the Negligence Act or under rule 29.01.
The court also upheld the refusal to preserve the third-party claim for declaratory relief, finding no prejudice and noting the appellants were not pursuing such relief on appeal.
The appeal was dismissed with costs, rendering the cross-appeal moot.
