Lonny Rosen

The non-party Gore Mutual Insurance Company brought a motion under Rule 37.14(1) to vary a previous production order (the "Doi Order"), arguing that its failure to appear at the original motion was due to accident or mistake.

The plaintiff opposed the motion.

The court dismissed Gore Mutual's motion, finding that it failed to establish that its non-appearance was due to accident or mistake, but rather due to carelessness and lack of diligence in processing court documents.

The court also found that Gore Mutual failed to bring its motion forthwith and that the general claim of prejudice lacked merit, especially given the implied undertaking rule.

The appellant, Lydian Smith, appealed a Divisional Court decision affirming the Landlord and Tenant Board's finding that YouthLink Youth Services' transitional housing program was exempt from the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 under s. 5(k).

The Court of Appeal affirmed that s. 5(k) and the newer s. 5.1 can co-exist, and that "rehabilitative or therapeutic services" in s. 5(k) include broader support services beyond medical care.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board and Divisional Court correctly interpreted the statutory exemptions and that the YouthLink program fell within the s. 5(k) exemption.

The applicant veterinarian sought judicial review of an interim suspension order made by the Discipline Committee pending a hearing into allegations of professional misconduct involving the sexual assault of a minor.

The applicant argued the Committee lacked jurisdiction to make interim suspension orders and that the decision lacked a proper evidentiary basis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that section 16.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act reasonably provided the Committee with jurisdiction to make substantive interim orders.

The Court also held that the Committee's decision to impose the suspension was reasonable given the serious nature of the allegations and the applicant's prior discipline and criminal history for similar conduct.

The non-party insurer sought costs for two motions regarding summonses issued by the plaintiff, which were previously found to be an attempt to abuse the court's process.

The insurer claimed over $79,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding that an abuse of process finding on a summons does not automatically justify an elevated scale.

Applying the principle of fairness and reasonableness, the court fixed costs at $18,930, noting that the two motions should have been heard together and the amount claimed was disproportionate for relatively straightforward motions.

The non-party insurer, Gore Mutual Insurance Company, brought a motion to quash four summonses issued by the plaintiff under Rule 39.03(5).

The plaintiff sought to examine four Gore employees in connection with an underlying motion brought by Gore to vary a Rule 30.10 production order.

The court granted the motion and quashed the summonses, finding that the intended examinations were unnecessary, would not enhance the record for the underlying motion, and appeared to be an abuse of process aimed at obtaining advance discovery for a separate insurer misconduct claim.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the respondent's transitional youth housing program was exempt from the Residential Tenancies Act under section 5(k).

The appellant argued that the introduction of section 5.1, which specifically regulates transitional housing, meant the respondent could no longer rely on section 5(k) without meeting section 5.1's prescriptive requirements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that section 5.1(5) explicitly preserves other exemptions, and the Board made no error of law in finding the respondent's program met the requirements for the section 5(k) exemption.

The court issued a case management endorsement setting the schedule and procedural directions for an appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The appeal was scheduled to be heard by a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court via videoconference.

Directions were provided regarding the service of materials, electronic filing via a drop box, and the use of compendiums.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding corporate breach of a distribution agreement, personal liability of a director, and awarding damages.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the finding of personal liability against the director as there was no evidence he acted outside his authority or for his own benefit.

The court also set aside the damages award, finding the trial judge erred in awarding mitigation costs beyond the notice period and relying on unproven financial statements.

The matter of damages and trial costs was remitted for a new trial.