David R. Conway

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $35,000 in damages for breach of a commercial lease.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to apply the Highway Properties principles, exceeding her jurisdiction by granting declaratory relief regarding real property, and providing inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the respondent provided proper Highway Properties Notice, the trial judge merely made necessary findings of fact to award monetary damages within her jurisdiction, and the reasons were sufficient given the informal nature of the Small Claims Court.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating her tenancy for rent arrears.

At the hearing, the tenant sought to raise maintenance issues under s. 82(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act but provided only four days' notice instead of the required five.

The tenant argued that because the fifth day prior to the hearing fell on a Sunday, the time to serve notice was extended to Monday.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the holiday extension rule did not apply because the notice requirement was to serve 'at least' five days prior, meaning nothing expired on the Sunday.

The Board's discretionary refusal to hear the issues was upheld.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to enforce a prior order prohibiting the defendants from dealing with a property, arguing that the defendants' default on Minutes of Settlement allowed them to continue the action under Rule 49.09(b).

The plaintiffs also sought a contempt order.

The third-party purchasers of the property sought to intervene.

The court dismissed the motion to intervene, finding it would not make a useful contribution.

The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, holding that Rule 49.09(b) does not apply to negotiated Minutes of Settlement, and that the prior prohibition order had been set aside and was no longer in effect.

The plaintiffs' remedy was to move for judgment on the settlement.

A case management conference was held which the plaintiff, Nadire Atas, failed to attend.

The plaintiff had previously been ordered to make Chavali requests to advance her litigation against Sutton Group and related parties but failed to do so.

The court found that the plaintiff had abandoned her litigation by conduct and breached multiple court orders.

Consequently, the court dismissed all claims against the defendants, awarding costs to one self-represented defendant who participated in the case management process.

This case management endorsement addresses multiple ongoing proceedings involving a vexatious litigant, Nadire Atas.

The court made several orders and directions, including confirming the open court principle for case management conferences, dismissing numerous actions against Peoples Trust and other defendants due to the litigant's failure to comply with "Chavali requests" (orders to demonstrate intent to continue litigation), and setting deadlines for filing defence and bringing a motion for a stay of summary judgment proceedings.

The court also addressed the litigant's repeated allegations of bias and jurisdictional challenges, dismissing them as meritless and vexatious.

Directions were given regarding outstanding costs orders and the process for appealing interlocutory rulings.

The plaintiff, a self-represented real estate agent, sued his former brokerage and two managers for defamation and intentional interference with economic relations after his work contract was terminated due to various conduct-related issues and complaints from clients and colleagues.

The court dismissed both claims, finding no evidentiary basis for defamation, as communications to police and regulatory bodies (RECO) were protected by qualified or absolute privilege.

The claim for intentional interference with economic relations also failed due to lack of intent to injure and the lawfulness of the defendants' actions, including the contractual termination.

Furthermore, a portion of the economic interference claim related to the discontinuation of a 'duty sheet' roster was found to be statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The appellant contractor appealed the dismissal of its claim for an unpaid final invoice for renovation work.

The Deputy Judge had dismissed both the contractor's claim for payment and the homeowners' counterclaim for deficiencies, finding insufficient evidence for both.

On appeal, the Superior Court found that the Deputy Judge erred in law by requiring supporting receipts for the invoice when the invoice itself, coupled with the appellant's credible testimony and the respondents' admission of receipt, was sufficient evidence.

The court also noted the respondents' failure to properly plead or cross-examine on the invoice's quantum.

The appeal was granted, and judgment was substituted for the appellant, deducting only the cost of disputed heaters.

The respondents' unappealed claim for deficiencies was not reconsidered.

The appellant contractor appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for an unpaid final invoice of $14,104.17 for home renovations.

The trial judge had found insufficient evidence to prove the claim because the supporting receipts were not filed, despite finding the contractor credible.

The Divisional Court held this was an error of law, as the invoice itself was sufficient evidence and the respondents failed to lead evidence challenging the specific amounts.

The court substituted its own decision, granting judgment for the appellant in the amount of $13,804.17, deducting only a disputed charge for used heaters.

The appellant developer appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering it to pay the respondent purchaser $15,000 for breach of contract.

The dispute arose after the purchaser sought to terminate a condominium purchase agreement.

The parties signed an incentive letter promising the purchaser $15,000 upon the project's closing, and later signed a mutual release.

On appeal, the developer argued the release terminated its obligations under the incentive letter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge did not err in interpreting the incentive letter, noting the release did not cover the incentive letter, and upholding the trial judge's refusal to allow the developer to raise the unpleaded release defence at trial.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering them to pay damages for a defectively installed engineered hardwood floor.

The floor buckled because it was glued at the edges without T-moldings, contrary to standard practice, though the respondent had insisted on this installation method.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Deputy Justice's conclusions that the appellants bore the contractual risk, that the Consumer Protection Act applied, and that the individual appellant was personally liable under the contract.