William Kelly

The plaintiffs, who are farmers, entered into a three-year lease agreement to farm the defendant's land.

The defendant repudiated the lease after the first year, claiming she signed it under duress and that the plaintiffs breached the agreement by failing to provide specific fertilizer application records.

The court rejected the duress defence, finding the defendant signed voluntarily and allowed the plaintiffs to farm the land for eight months.

The court also found that the alleged breach regarding fertilizer records did not amount to substantial non-performance justifying termination.

The plaintiffs were awarded damages for lost profits for the remaining two years of the lease.

The respondent employer filed a request to dismiss the human rights application for delay, arguing it was filed more than one year after the applicant's last day of work.

The applicant contended that his employment was terminated during a telephone call three days later, which fell within the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the application was timely because the applicant alleged a discriminatory incident occurred within the one-year period preceding the filing.

The request to dismiss for delay was denied.

The appellant, a motor vehicle salesperson, appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal directing the Registrar to revoke his registration.

The revocation followed the appellant's criminal conviction for counselling a customer to commit arson to destroy a leased vehicle.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Tribunal's decision was fully supported by the evidence.

The court held that a single isolated mistake involving a serious industry-related criminal offence could reasonably support the belief that the appellant would not carry on business with honesty and integrity.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a judgment, arguing that the respondent's claim was barred by cause of action estoppel due to an earlier small claims court action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that cause of action estoppel did not apply because the earlier action was resolved by a settlement without a court determination or releases.

Furthermore, the respondent was not required to assert its complaint as a counterclaim in the small claims court, as it would have exceeded the monetary jurisdiction.