Nigel McCready

The moving party sought to lift the stay of proceedings in her former husband's bankruptcy to pursue an equalization claim against his military pension.

Both parties had filed for bankruptcy and been discharged.

The moving party argued the bankrupt concealed his bankruptcy and that her claim was not provable or should survive discharge.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no concealment and applying established law that an equalization claim is a provable claim in bankruptcy that is extinguished upon discharge if not pursued beforehand.

The appellant dismissed the respondent, a 55-year-old professional engineer with approximately two decades of management experience, without cause on December 16, 2016.

The motion judge granted summary judgment in favour of the respondent, awarding 12 months' salary, benefits and pension contributions in lieu of notice, and a $12,000 discretionary bonus for the year of termination.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the notice period should be reduced to 8 to 10 months and challenging the bonus award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle and holding that the motion judge's determinations were entitled to deference.

The plaintiff contractor sued to enforce a construction lien after abandoning a home renovation project.

The defendant homeowners counterclaimed for breach of contract, negligence, and misrepresentation, seeking damages for the cost of completing the work and repairing deficiencies.

The court found that the contractor fundamentally breached the contract by abandoning the job and failing to deliver the promised quality of work.

The homeowners' claim for pre-contract misrepresentation was dismissed as unproven and redundant.

The court assessed the cost of completion and repair, offset it against the unpaid balance of the adjusted contract price, and awarded the homeowners $64,607.83 on their counterclaim.

The contractor's lien was ordered vacated.

The plaintiff, a 15-year employee, sought to return to work following a long-term disability leave.

The employer, relying on an incomplete summary of a Functional Abilities Evaluation provided by the disability insurer, concluded it could not accommodate the plaintiff's physical restrictions and refused his return.

The court found the employer failed to meet its procedural duty to accommodate under the Human Rights Code by not making sufficient inquiries or communicating clearly with the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for lost income for the 10-month period he awaited a position, plus $5,000 in punitive damages for the employer's failure to communicate.

The plaintiff, a 55-year-old executive and professional engineer with eight years of service, brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

The parties agreed to summary disposition of damages but disputed the notice period and bonus entitlement.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded a 12-month notice period.

The court also awarded a $12,000 bonus for the year of termination, finding the plaintiff was artificially deprived of it, but declined to award a bonus for the notice period as it was not a regular part of compensation.

The appellant construction company sued the respondent city for alleged breaches of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after discovering asbestos at a work site.

The motions judge granted summary judgment to the city, finding the appellant failed to prove it suffered actual damages and refusing to grant declaratory relief for hypothetical future claims by employees.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding that the appellant's claims for administrative and legal costs lacked evidentiary support, and agreeing that declaratory relief was inappropriate where the dispute had yet to arise and could affect third-party rights.

The Bank of Montreal and the bankruptcy trustee for a respondent moved to rescind part of a prior consent order obtained in family proceedings concerning the distribution of proceeds from the sale of a matrimonial home.

The impugned paragraph authorized payment of funds held in court to the applicant and characterized the payment as child support, despite the respondent being an undischarged bankrupt and the funds having vested in the bankruptcy trustee.

The earlier consent order had been obtained without notice to the trustee and contrary to a prior court order requiring that any claim to the bankrupt’s share be pursued through a proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceeding.

The court held the consent provision invalid and rescinded it, ordered the remaining funds subject to a stop order paid to the Bank of Montreal pursuant to its execution, and held the applicant jointly and severally liable with the bankrupt respondent to the trustee for the portion previously received.

Costs were awarded to the bank and trustee.