Gaynor Roger

The defendant appealed a Master's order allowing an action to continue under Rule 48.14(13) of the Rules of Civil Procedure after delay.

The underlying action alleged negligence and breach of contract by an accountant relating to tax consequences of a U.S. real estate transaction, and involved a significant limitation period issue.

The Master found the plaintiffs provided a satisfactory explanation for post‑litigation delay and that no real prejudice to the defendant had been established despite the death of one plaintiff and the defendant’s health concerns.

On appeal, the court held the Master applied the correct legal principles governing delay and status hearings and committed no palpable or overriding error in assessing explanation and prejudice.

The appeal on the merits and the challenge to the costs decision were both dismissed.

The plaintiff moved to reinstate a professional negligence action that was administratively dismissed for delay in 2007.

The parties had previously agreed to hold the action in abeyance pending the outcome of related tax litigation, but a court order only extended the time for service by six months.

The Master found that the delay was adequately explained by the parties' understanding to adjourn the matter sine die, the missed deadline was due to inadvertence, and the defendants suffered no actual prejudice.

The motion to set aside the dismissal was granted.

The complainant sought remedies following a finding that the respondent school board discriminated against him by involuntarily transferring him to another school.

The Tribunal awarded $5,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, noting that the impact of the transfer must be assessed in the context of the complainant's serious misconduct that led to his suspension.

The Tribunal also awarded $398.16 in special damages for transportation costs but denied the claim for private school tuition.

In a remedy decision following a finding of racial discrimination regarding a school transfer, the Tribunal declined to order broad systemic remedies but ordered the school board to develop learning materials based on the case for its equity training.

The Tribunal also ruled that if the complainant wishes to rely on psychological evidence to support his claim for $80,000 in general damages, he must disclose his complete medical records to the respondent.

The Tribunal confirmed it lacks jurisdiction to award legal expenses.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of a decision by the Child and Family Services Review Board that quashed the expulsion of a student for off-school marijuana use.

The Tribunal had found insufficient evidence of a nexus between the student's off-school activities and the school climate.

The Divisional Court exercised its discretion to hear the moot application, determined the standard of review was reasonableness, and upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding it reasonable and correct in its interpretation of the Education Act.