Darrell N. Hawreliak

The appellant, Medcap Real Estate Holdings Inc., appealed the dismissal of its motions to stay or dismiss actions brought by Bennington Financial Corp. and Heffner Investments Limited.

Medcap argued that the respondents breached the immediate disclosure rule by failing to disclose a verbal agreement requiring any settlement with Medcap to include all creditors.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's finding that the agreement did not need to be disclosed as it did not fundamentally alter the litigation landscape or the adversarial relationship between the parties.

The appeals were dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The defendant, Medcap Real Estate Holdings Inc., brought motions to dismiss or stay actions by Bennington Financial Corp. and Heffner Investments Limited.

Medcap alleged that the plaintiffs, along with other non-parties, entered into an undisclosed agreement to only settle collectively, which Medcap argued constituted an abuse of process requiring immediate disclosure.

The court found that such a verbal "settle with one, settle with all" agreement existed.

However, the court determined that this agreement was not required to be disclosed because it did not "entirely change the landscape of the litigation in a way that significantly altered the adversarial relationship among the parties or the dynamics of the litigation" as the plaintiffs were already aligned in interest through prior agreements and conduct.

Consequently, Medcap's motions were dismissed.

The plaintiff, Heffner Investments Limited (HIL), brought a motion for summary judgment seeking repayment of a $2.5 million debt secured by a promissory note and a second mortgage.

The defendant, Medcap Real Estate Holdings Inc. (Medcap), argued that the alleged $2.5 million debt was a sham, part of a single $2.1 million loan that had already been repaid, and that the plaintiff had breached an agreement to assist with refinancing.

The court found significant factual disputes and credibility issues between the parties regarding the nature and origin of the debt, the terms of their agreement, and the plaintiff's alleged breach.

Concluding that these issues could not be fairly resolved without a full trial, the court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

The applicant, a survivor of institutional child abuse with a traumatic brain injury and PTSD, applied for admission to the University of Waterloo.

The university rejected his application based on poor grades he had obtained 13 years earlier at another institution, before his disabilities were diagnosed and accommodated.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed his discrimination complaint, finding the university had fulfilled its duty to accommodate.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court set aside the HRTO's decision, holding that the university discriminated against the applicant by relying on unaccommodated grades and failed to establish that assessing his application without those grades would cause undue hardship.

The plaintiffs brought actions for breach of contract and breach of trust after the defendant general contractor abandoned a construction project.

The defendants were noted in default.

The court found the corporate defendant liable for breach of contract and breach of trust for failing to pay subcontractors.

The sole director of the corporate defendant was found personally liable for the breach of trust under the Construction Lien Act.

The court awarded compensatory damages but declined to award punitive damages or substantial indemnity costs.

Following a wrongful dismissal judgment, the court released an addendum correcting the pre-judgment interest rate from the post-judgment rate to the proper statutory pre-judgment rate under the Courts of Justice Act.

On costs, the successful plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs based on offers to settle, but the court held rule 49.10 was not triggered because the judgment was not as favourable as the operative offer.

The court nevertheless considered the offers under rule 49.13, but reduced costs to reflect the plaintiff's unsuccessful assault, human rights, punitive, and aggravated damages claims and to disallow certain disbursements.

Partial indemnity costs of $24,053.70 were awarded against one defendant only, with no costs for or against the bankrupt individual defendant.

The applicant purchased the assets of a motel business from the predecessor employer.

A Review Officer ordered the applicant and the predecessor to be jointly and severally liable for retroactive pay equity adjustments owed to the predecessor's former employees.

The applicant sought a variance of the order, arguing it was not a successor employer under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal found that the sale of business provisions in Part II of the Act only apply to public sector employers or large private sector employers with 100 or more employees.

Since the motel was a small private sector employer, the successor obligations did not apply.

The Tribunal varied the order to remove the applicant's joint and several liability.

The defendants obtained a building permit to construct a liquid manure storage tank.

They were subsequently charged under the Conservation Authorities Act for building in a wetland.

At trial, the defendants called no evidence and successfully moved for a non-suit, relying on the defence of officially induced error based on the issuance of the building permit.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the defendants failed to establish the reliance element of the defence because they led no evidence to show they actually relied on the building permit as confirming compliance with the Conservation Authorities Act.

The Maitland Valley Conservation Authority and the Attorney General for Ontario sought leave to appeal a Provincial Court decision dismissing a prosecution against the respondents for constructing a building on a swamp without written permission.

The respondents had obtained a building permit from the municipality, and the Provincial Court judge found they could successfully assert the defence of officially induced error.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, finding that the legal effect of a building permit as a defence to prosecution under another Act raises a question of law of broad public significance.

The insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision awarding the self-employed claimant weekly income benefits of $550.52 and interest on overdue payments.

The insurer argued the claimant failed to prove his income with reliable documentation and that interest should not run until sufficient documentation was provided.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal regarding the benefit amount, finding the arbitrator was entitled to accept the claimant's reconstructed invoices and credible testimony.

The appeal regarding interest was varied to clarify that under section 24 of the Schedule, interest on overdue payments runs from 10 days after the completed application is received, regardless of when supporting documentation is provided.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

A dispute arose regarding the calculation of his pre-accident gross weekly income as a self-employed ceramic tile setter, as he had poor business records.

The arbitrator accepted reconstructed invoices as reliable evidence of his actual earnings.

The arbitrator calculated the applicant's gross weekly income and awarded a weekly income benefit of $550.52.

The arbitrator also held that the application for benefits was 'completed' when it was filled in, signed, and provided to the insurer, entitling the applicant to interest on overdue payments from 30 days after that date.