Hugh Pattison

The appellant tenant leased a house and undertook extensive unauthorized renovations.

After defaulting on rent, the landlord sought eviction and arrears, while the tenant sued for the value of the renovations.

The trial judge dismissed the tenant's claims and allowed the landlord's counterclaim via a summary/hybrid trial.

On appeal, the tenant argued the trial judge erred in using the summary procedure, restricting his viva voce evidence, and denying an adjournment for an expert report.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's case management, evidentiary rulings, or refusal to grant an adjournment.

The plaintiff underwent foot surgery by the defendant orthopedic surgeon, who had diagnosed a ganglion cyst.

During surgery, the defendant discovered a nerve tumour (schwannoma) and proceeded to excise it, causing permanent nerve damage to the plaintiff's foot.

The plaintiff sued for negligence, lack of informed consent, and battery.

The court dismissed the negligence claims regarding assessment and diagnosis but found the defendant liable for lack of informed consent and battery, as the material risks of nerve damage were not disclosed and the plaintiff did not consent to the peripheral nerve surgery.

The court awarded $75,112 in damages to the plaintiff and $5,000 to his wife under the Family Law Act.

The appellant collection agency appealed a jury's assessment of $40,000 in general damages for slander.

The appellant's employee falsely represented himself as a lawyer to the respondent's employer, claiming a garnishment order had been issued against her.

The appellant argued the damages were patently excessive and should be reduced to $10,000.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that while the award was on the high side, it was not anomalous or wholly out of proportion, given the malicious nature of the call and the respondent's position handling cash at a bank.

The appellant appealed an order regarding surplus income payments under s. 68 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Trustee was entitled to proceed to court after the Official Receiver refused mediation.

The court also held that the hearing below was procedurally fair and declined to allow the appellant to raise a new issue regarding his wife's involvement for the first time on appeal, noting the appellant had been bankrupt for 28 months without making any surplus income payments.

The defendants appealed a decision of Master Kelly.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Master correctly applied the law and exercised his discretion.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the responding parties, noting that the appellants filed voluminous, prolix, and largely irrelevant materials, which amounted to an unnecessary onslaught that the responding parties had to defend against.

The testatrix left the residue of her Canadian estate to her 'next of kin in equal shares'.

The application judge interpreted this to mean her Canadian relatives, excluding her surviving sister who lived in Germany.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the ordinary meaning of 'next of kin' is the nearest blood relation, which was the surviving sister.

The phrase 'in equal shares' was intended to apply if the sister predeceased the testatrix, leaving multiple nieces and nephews as the next of kin.

The residue was ordered to be paid to the estate of the surviving sister.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until they were terminated by the insurer.

She applied for arbitration, claiming ongoing entitlement based on an alleged pre-accident offer of full-time employment.

The arbitrator found insufficient evidence of the full-time job offer and assessed her disability based on her part-time role.

Relying on medical evidence that she was fit to return to part-time work, the arbitrator dismissed the claim for ongoing benefits but awarded the applicant her arbitration expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident shortly after being terminated from his employment.

He received a severance package, including a $22,700 lump sum transferred to an RRSP.

The insurer deducted this amount from his no-fault weekly income benefits, arguing it was a payment for loss of income.

The arbitrator held that the severance payment was not a payment for loss of income under s. 12(4)(b) of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule because it was payable regardless of whether the applicant obtained re-employment.

The arbitrator also dismissed the insurer's preliminary motion for disqualification based on apprehension of bias, and denied the applicant's request for a special award, finding the insurer's position was based on a legitimate legal dispute.