Robert W. Baldwin

The plaintiff moved to set aside the registrar's dismissal of his claim, which had been ongoing for 23 years.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide an adequate explanation for the inordinate delay in prosecuting the action.

The court also determined that the plaintiff could not rebut the presumption of non-compensable prejudice suffered by the defendants due to the passage of time, including unavailable witnesses and documents.

The court noted the action had been previously dismissed and reinstated, and the plaintiff still could not satisfy the requirements to set the matter down for trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the individual defendant for repayment of a USD$1 million loan and over $400,000 in interest.

The funds had been advanced to a corporate entity controlled by the defendant, who failed to account for them.

Applying the Hryniak framework, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the principal amount, as the defendant provided no credible explanation for the missing funds.

However, the court found a trial was necessary to determine if the defendant was personally liable for the contractual interest rate.

The appellants appealed an order directing the sale of a residential property they co-owned as tenants in common with the respondent.

The appellants sought physical partition instead of sale.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the property's configuration and the appellants' failure to pay municipal taxes and insurance made partition impractical and sale the most beneficial option.

The respondent's cross-appeal to purchase the appellants' share at a fixed price was dismissed, as joint tenants are entitled to the fair market value obtained through an open market sale.

The respondent was awarded costs for both the application and the appeal.

The appellant home inspector appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding him liable for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract regarding a roof inspection.

The trial judge had rejected the appellant's qualified expert witness and instead relied on the respondents' lay witness, who was not qualified as an expert, to establish the standard of care.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in law by treating lay opinion evidence as expert evidence without proper qualification.

Without accepted expert evidence on the standard of care, there was no evidentiary foundation for a finding of negligence.

The appeal was allowed and the action dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that allowed the respondent's claim for $164,444.27, representing 33 per cent of a tax credit figure in a SRED submission prepared by the respondent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's reasons given the absence of contrary evidence from the appellants.

The appellant rented a loader from the respondent and accidentally submerged it in water, causing severe engine damage.

The respondent successfully sued in Small Claims Court for repair costs and lost rental income.

The appellant appealed to the Divisional Court, raising issues regarding machine identification, causation of the engine damage, proof of lost rentals, betterment, and the damage waiver clause.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact and liability.